VoxJuris
Home › Acts › Indian Contract Act, 1872 › Chapter X › Section 220

Indian Contract Act, 1872 · Chapter X: Agency · Agent’s duty to principal

Section 220: Agent not entitled to remuneration for business misconducted

In plain words

An agent guilty of misconduct in the agency business is not entitled to any remuneration for the part of the business they misconducted.

Example: B is hired to recover 1,000 rupees but, through misconduct, fails to. B gets no remuneration and must make good the loss.

A simplified explanation, prepared with AI assistance from the official text below and checked automatically against it for numbers and cross-references. The official text is the law and prevails over this summary. Not legal advice.

Official text

An agent who is guilty of misconduct in the business of the agency, is not entitled to any remuneration in respect of that part of the business which he has misconducted.

Illustrations

(a) A employs B to recover, 1,00,000 rupees from C, and to lay it out on good security. B recovers the 1,00,000 rupees; and lays out 90,000 rupees on good security, but lays out 10,000 rupees on security which he ought to have known to be bad, whereby A loses 2,000 rupees. B is entitled to remuneration for recovering the 1,00,000 rupees and for investing the 90,000 rupees. He is not entitled to any remuneration for investing the 10,000 rupees, and he must make good the 2,000 rupees to B.

(b) A employs B to recover 1,000 rupees from C. Through B's misconduct the money is not recovered. B is entitled to no remuneration for his services, and must make good the loss.

Source: India Code (indiacode.gov.in), the consolidated text published by the Legislative Department, Government of India. Text as updated on India Code on 15 October 2026. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here. Official text on India Code.

Supreme Court judgments citing the section 220

No Supreme Court judgment in our database cites this section yet.