Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Even if the POA is irrevocable, cancellation by the principal terminates the agent’s authority, and amounts received after such cancellation must be returned ["North Roof Ventures Private Limited vs State of Karnataka - Karnataka"], ["C. V. Thambidurai VS A. Natarajan - Madras"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
In the realm of agency law, one common question arises: Amount received by power of attorney has to be returned by principal? This issue often surfaces in disputes involving principals and their agents, particularly when powers of attorney (PoA) are irrevocable and coupled with consideration. Whether you're a business owner granting PoA for financial management or an individual delegating authority, understanding this obligation is crucial to avoid legal pitfalls.
This article explores the legal principles governing such scenarios, drawing from key judicial precedents. Note that this is general information based on established cases and should not be taken as specific legal advice—consult a qualified attorney for your situation.
Generally, when a principal grants an irrevocable power of attorney coupled with consideration, they cannot unilaterally revoke it or withhold the return of amounts received by the agent. The principal remains liable to restitute those funds, especially if the agent acted within the conferred authority and for the principal's benefit. There must be no valid legal or contractual exception to trigger this restitution obligation. M. S. Ananthamurthy VS J. Manjula Etc - 2025 3 Supreme 93P. Pratap Reddy VS Azmat Ali (died) - 2023 0 Supreme(Telangana) 635
This principle underscores the fiduciary nature of PoA, transforming a standard agency into a binding arrangement with lasting effects.
These points highlight how courts protect agents' interests in coupled PoAs, preventing principals from benefiting without accountability.
A power of attorney is a fiduciary instrument authorizing an agent to act for the principal. When irrevocable and coupled with interest or consideration, it cannot be unilaterally terminated. The Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Basant Nahata clarifies:
A deed of power of attorney is executed by the principal in favour of the agent. The agent derives a right to use his name and all acts, deeds and things done by him and, subject to the limitations contained in the said deed, the same shall be read as if done by the donor. P. Pratap Reddy VS Azmat Ali (died) - 2023 0 Supreme(Telangana) 635
This creates an enduring interest in the agent, making revocation impossible while the interest persists. M. S. Ananthamurthy VS J. Manjula Etc - 2025 3 Supreme 93
If the agent receives funds under the PoA—such as through management or transfers—the principal typically must return them. Courts hold:
The principal cannot revoke the authority given to his agent after the authority has been partly exercised, so far as regards such action/obligation as arise from acts already done. Lal Bhagwant Singh VS Rai Sahib Lala Kishen Das - 1953 0 Supreme(SC) 6
Similarly:
The power of attorney, when created as irrevocable and coupled with interest or consideration, imposes an obligation on the principal to return amounts received by the agent in the course of the agency. P. Pratap Reddy VS Azmat Ali (died) - 2023 0 Supreme(Telangana) 635
In practice, this has played out in cases involving withdrawals. For instance, where a general PoA holder withdrew Rs.20 Lakh from an account, courts examined the agent's operations to determine validity, emphasizing record-keeping. Prakash Babulal Sheth VS Shashikalal Mayur Sheth - 2022 Supreme(Guj) 1523
PoAs authorizing fund handling bind principals to restitute if actions align with authority. Irrevocable PoAs confer non-revocable interests, as seen in scenarios where agents sue or recover debts without delegation issues. MARSHALL v. SENEVIRATNE
Agents must act within limits; oversteps may void claims. However, proper execution, even on modest stamps, upholds validity if admitted by the principal. S. Prakash VS A. Palaniappan - 2015 Supreme(Mad) 1055S. Prakash VS A. Palaniappan
Not all PoAs trigger this duty. Mere irrevocability declarations without explicit interest or consideration may allow revocation. M. S. Ananthamurthy VS J. Manjula Etc - 2025 3 Supreme 93
For example:- Fabricated or unproduced PoAs fail claims for returns, as in compromise disputes over passage rights where Rs.30,00,000 was sought back. Shivavva @ Shantavva Banadavar Since Dead by Her LRs. Maruti vs Shivaling Bannappa Omannavar Alias Hanjibutti - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 38226- PoA holders cannot depose for principals' personal acts, limiting testimony to their own actions. Narendra Transport Pvt. Ltd. , Through-Managing Director Harjeet Singh, S/o. Tarasingh, Through- Power of Attorney Holder Bramha Dev Prasad, S/o. Sukhdev Prasad VS South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. , Through- General Manager - 2023 Supreme(Chh) 626SAPNA VS AMIT KUMAR - 2014 Supreme(Del) 1354- Cancellations post-alienation don't retroactively invalidate sales by agents. K. Kalidass VS P. Munusami - 2019 Supreme(Mad) 2004
Additionally, PoAs as loan securities require proof of discharge for returns, with courts dismissing unsubstantiated claims. K. Kalidass VS P. Munusami - 2019 Supreme(Mad) 2004
Judgments reinforce accountability:- In transportation recoveries, contracts allowed adjustments, analogous to PoA fund verifications. Narendra Transport Pvt. Ltd. , Through-Managing Director Harjeet Singh, S/o. Tarasingh, Through- Power of Attorney Holder Bramha Dev Prasad, S/o. Sukhdev Prasad VS South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. , Through- General Manager - 2023 Supreme(Chh) 626- NRI landlords via PoA can pursue evictions, showing broad agent powers if knowledge exists. Hind Sons Agency VS Jai Parkash Jain - 2011 Supreme(P&H) 1779- Maintenance petitions by PoA need principal affidavits, highlighting execution limits. SAPNA VS AMIT KUMAR - 2014 Supreme(Del) 1354
Agents should document transactions meticulously, as courts favor evidence in restitution claims. Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited VS S. P. Velayutham - 2022 5 Supreme 1
In family or business contexts, amicable resolutions—like returning deposits with interest—can avert litigation. Prakash Babulal Sheth VS Shashikalal Mayur Sheth - 2022 Supreme(Guj) 1523
Understanding these nuances can prevent costly disputes. This overview draws from precedents like P. Pratap Reddy VS Azmat Ali (died) - 2023 0 Supreme(Telangana) 635, M. S. Ananthamurthy VS J. Manjula Etc - 2025 3 Supreme 93, and others, but laws evolve—seek professional advice tailored to your case.
References:1. Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited VS S. P. Velayutham - 2022 5 Supreme 1: PoA authentication and revocation records.2. M. S. Ananthamurthy VS J. Manjula Etc - 2025 3 Supreme 93: Irrevocable PoAs and principal obligations.3. P. Pratap Reddy VS Azmat Ali (died) - 2023 0 Supreme(Telangana) 635: Restitution in coupled PoAs.4. Lal Bhagwant Singh VS Rai Sahib Lala Kishen Das - 1953 0 Supreme(SC) 6: Post-exercise revocation limits.
(Word count: approx. 1050)
#PowerOfAttorney #IrrevocablePoA #LegalRestitution
Principal and agent-Power of attorney-Appointment of two persons to act jointly-Authority of one agent to bind his principal by promissory: notes made by himself only-Personal introduction of agent by principal to creditor-Notice of existence of power of attorney-Duty ... It appears that when the defendant left for India he entrusted to Suppaiya and Vellasamy money and goods to the amount of about Rs. 30,000, and during his absence money and good....
and the original power of attorney returned to the parties. ... Chetana S.Biraj submits that the defendants had agreed to compromise and had paid ₹30,00,000/- only for the right of passage and therefore the said amount is required to be returned back to those defendants. 6. ... He further submits that the alleged fabricated power of attorney has not been produced by the petitioner. Therefore the contention of the petitioner that there is fabrication of the p....
gives the attorney power to do so. ... The authority given by a power of attorney on the other hand is an express authority to be found not by implication but from the terms of the power appointing the attorney. ... Where a power of attorney authorized a person to ask, demand, sue for, recover, and receive all debts owing to the grantor, the attorney has no power to delegate his authority to another. ... Fre....
principal and not by the power of attorney holder. ... the principal for the acts done by the principal or not by the power of attorney holder. ... In other words, if the power-of-attorney holder has rendered some "acts" in pursuance of power of attorney, he may depose for the principal in respect of such acts, but he cannot depose for the principal for the acts....
This, of course, is reflective of the fact that the defendant No.1 Mr.Prakash Sheth is a General Power of Attorney and this withdrawal of the amount of Rs.20 Lakh is through the self. ... The defendant No.1 argued that the plaintiff withdrew this amount by self. Contrary to this submission, it is all along on record that the power of attorney holder defendant No.1 was operating the account. ... His attention was drawn to the document at Exhibit 137 which according to him is operated by....
The said issue i.e., issuance of legal notice and claiming damages by the Power of Attorney Holder from plaintiff No.1 is nothing to do with the present proceedings. Once the power of attorney executed by his Principal is cancelled, he cannot represent the Principal. ... Viplav Kumar, Power of Attorney Holder of Plaintiff No.1 after cancellation of power of attorney and having knowledge of the same is contrary to t....
It was pointed out in that case that the interest created under an irrevocable power of attorney does not necessarily amount to an interest in the property which is the subject matter of the power of attorney. ... The law relating to power of attorney is governed by the provisions of the Power of Attorney Act, 1982. It is well settled therein that an agent acting under a power of attorney always a....
In other words, if the power-of-attorney holder has rendered some “acts” in pursuance of power of attorney, he may depose for the principal in respect of such acts, but he cannot depose for the principal for the acts done by the principal and not by him. ... Apex Court in the case of Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani (supra) considered this issue and observed that the Power of attorney holder can act on behalf of the Principal#HL_END....
The said issue i.e., issuance of legal notice and claiming damages by the Power of Attorney Holder from plaintiff No.1 is nothing to do with the present proceedings. Once the power of attorney executed by his Principal is cancelled, he cannot represent the Principal. ... Thus, admittedly, the GPA executed by plaintiff No.1 vide document bearing No.195 of 2009 on 01.08.2009 was cancelled by plaintiff No.1 by way of executing cancellation of power of attorney#....
A Power of Attorney whether termed revocable or irrevocable does not place it beyond the power of cancellation by the Principal. ... When interest, not having been created over the property, in this particular case, the Principal has power to cancel the Power of Attorney executed by him. In the present case, the defendant has rightly cancelled the power of attorney executed by him in favour of the plaintiff. ... Pe....
A11 to sustain his case and the plaintiff has also not pleaded and proved as to when he had discharged the loan, in whose presence he had discharged the same, etc. Though the plaintiff would claim that Ex. A11 has been executed only as a security to the loan borrowed by him, Ex. A11 recitals do not advance the abovesaid case of the plaintiff. However, with reference to the same, the plaintiff has not endeavoured to examine the attestors to the abovesaid deed Ex. Now according to the plaintiff, the abovesaid power of attorney deed had come to be returned to him by the second defenda....
According to me, singing by the power agent in the place earmarked for the principal and the principal signing in the place earmarked for agent will not invalidate the power of attorney. The power of attorney was admitted by the principal. Similarly, the failure to put the signature in the first two stamp papers will not also invalidate the power of attorney as it was spoken to by PW.2 the principal in whose name, the cheque was issued that he executed power of attorney in favour of the agent. Further, the mentioning of right to institute proceedings under section 138 of th....
Similarly, the failure to put the signature in the first two stamp papers will not also invalidate the power of attorney as it was spoken to by PW.2 the principal in whose name, the cheque was issued that he executed power of attorney in favour of the agent. The power of attorney was admitted by the principal. According to me, singing by the power agent in the place earmarked for the principal and the principal signing in the place earmarked for agent will not invalidate the power of attorney. Further, the mentioning of right to institute proceedings under section 138 of th....
In other words, if the power of attorney holder has rendered some “acts” in pursuance to power of attorney, he may depose for the principal for the acts done by the principal and not by him. The term “acts would not include deposing in place and instead of the principal. Similarly, he cannot depose for the principal in respect of the matter which only the principal can have a personal knowledge and in respect of which the principal is entitled to be cross-examined. The term “acts would not include deposing in place and instead of the principal. In other words, if ....
It has been held that if the Power of Attorney renders some acts in pursuance of Power of Attorney, he may depose for principal in respect of such acts but he cannot depose for the principal for the acts done by the principal and not by him. It has been held that the cases within the meaning of Order 3 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC would not include deposing in place and instead of principal. The said judgment does not lay down a principle in absolute terms that an Attorney cannot depose on behalf of the principal even though the facts deposed are not facts of the personal knowl....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
