Summary: .The Supreme Court noted that the plaint lacked specific details of the oral agreement and the land involved. The prescribed forms for a specific performance plaint require such particulars to be mentioned. As a result, the agreement was considered void for uncertainty under the Contract Act, and it could not be specifically enforced under the Specific Relief Act. The written agreement, exhibit P1, also did not adequately describe the land. Furthermore, the court found that the plaintiffs had failed to establish their possession of the land as owners or prove that possession was received pursuant to the alleged sale. The suit was deemed barred by limitation, and the benefit of section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act was not extended to the plaintiffs or their predecessor. Consequently, the Supreme Court declined to grant leave to appeal, dismissed the petition, and also dismissed the related CMA No. 4061 of 2018.

Summary: The case revolved around the legality of demanding additional performance security exceeding 10% of the contract amount in accordance with Rule 56 of the Punjab Procurement Rules, 2014. Various government departments advertised civic works and invited bids. After bid scrutiny, the lowest evaluated bids were selected, but procuring agencies demanded additional performance security from the bidders when the quoted amounts fell below the estimated costs. The controversy primarily concerns the interpretation of Rule 56 and clause 26-A of the bidding documents. Rule 56 mandates a performance guarantee not exceeding 10% of the contract amount. However, clause 26-A outlined conditions for additional performance security, requiring bidders to provide extra security when the quoted amount is below the estimated costs. The court distinguishes between performance guarantee and additional performance security, emphasizing that they are separate requirements. The dispute focused on the demand for additional security beyond 10% of the contract amount. The court examined two versions of clause 26-A, which differ in their language regarding the percentage limits for additional security. It acknowledges the confusion and discusses the implications of each version. The court ultimately decided that the requirement for additional security beyond 10% may be legitimate under certain conditions outlined in clause 26-A. The court direceds the concerned departments to assess each case individually and determine whether bidders are willing to provide additional security as required by the bidding documents. Bids falling under one version of clause 26-A may be canceled if bidders are unwilling to provide additional security, while bids under the other version may require compliance within a specified time frame. Syed Haji Abdul Wahid & another vs. Syed Sirajuddin (1998 SCMR 2296): This precedent demonstrated that even though Section 14 of the Limitation Act doesn't directly apply to appeal proceedings, if an appellant demonstrates that they pursued a remedy before a wrong forum in good faith, the court may consider such a delay and condone it under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Karachi Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. vs. Lawari and 4 others (PLD 2000 SC 94): This case emphasized the concept of "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, indicating that in certain circumstances, delays in filing appeals can be condoned based on the facts and circumstances of each case. Sherin and 4 others vs. Fazal Muhammad and 4 others (1995 SCMR 584): This precedent highlighted the principle that if the delay in filing an appeal is primarily due to the omission of a court or authority to take timely action, it can be considered a "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The court concluded that Rule 56 is not applicable to the circumstances of the case, and it addressed the ancillary question regarding the interpretation of clause 26-A by disposing of the petitions accordingly.

Summary: The petitioner had been contracted for civil works related to the Lahore Orange Line Project-1 ñ Package-1. The petitioner claimed that the project was substantially completed by 29th April 2019 and sought issuance of a Taking Over Certificate (TOC). The petitioner contended that the TOC issuance was contrary to the terms of the agreement and asserted that the project had been physically handed over on 29.04.2019. The petitioner argued that the TOC should have been effective from 29.04.2019, as recommended by the Chief Resident Engineer NESPAK in a letter dated 11.10.2019. However, the court held that the handing over of the project to another contractor did not constitute "Taking Over" under the contract clauses cited by the petitioner. The court referred to various legal precedents cited by the petitioner's counsel regarding dispute resolution mechanisms and the jurisdiction of the court. These precedents included: "Nizamuddin and another Vs. Civil Aviation Authority and 2 others" (1999 SCMR 467), "Dr. Sher Afgan Khan Niazi Vs. Ali S. Habib and others" (2011 SCMR 1813), "United Bank Ltd, through Authorized Attorneys of the Bank and 2 others Vs. Muhammad Ashraf and another" (PLD 2020 Lahore 400), "Messrs Airport Support Services Vs. The Airport Manager Quaid-e-Azam International Airport, Karachi and others" (1998 SCMR 2268), "Muhammad Aslam Vs. Senior Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab and others" (2004 SCMR 1587), "Ishaq Khan Khakwani Vs. Railway Board through Chairman and others" (PLD 2019 S.C 602) These legal precedents were referenced to argue various points related to the interpretation of contractual clauses, the scope of arbitral mechanisms, and the jurisdiction of the court in resolving disputes. However, the court ultimately determined that the dispute fell within the purview of the contractual arbitration clause and dismissed the petition accordingly.However, the court found that the dispute fell within the scope of an arbitral mechanism provided in the contract and dismissed the petition as incompetent. The court emphasized that its decision did not prejudice the parties' ability to resort to the contractual dispute resolution mechanism. In conclusion, the petition was deemed incompetent and dismissed, with the court reiterating the availability of the contractual dispute resolution mechanism for the parties' recourse.

Summary: Background: The case involves a dispute over the awarding of a contract for constructing the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly Complex in Muzaffarabad. The Project Director invited bids, and the joint venture of M/s ZK Associates (Pvt.) Limited and M/s Shahid Builders (Pvt.) Limited participated but was declared non-responsive. The contract was awarded to Kingcrete Builders. The joint venture challenged this decision through a writ petition in the High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, which ruled in their favor. ----Issues: 1- Whether the High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir had jurisdiction to issue a writ against the Ministry of Kashmir Affairs and Gilgit Baltistan. 2- Whether the respondent's bid was non-responsive due to the joint venture's failure to submit bid security in the name of the joint venture. 3- Whether the joint venture was estopped from challenging the bidding process after participating in it. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that the High Court had jurisdiction to issue a writ against the Ministry of Kashmir Affairs and Gilgit Baltistan because the project was executed within the territory of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, and the process of tendering and evaluation was conducted there. The Court referred to previous cases establishing that the Azad Jammu and Kashmir High Court could issue writs in matters concerning the territory of Azad Jammu and Kashmir. --Non-Responsive Bid: The Court found that the bid security was not submitted in the name of the joint venture as required by the bidding documents. This failure justified the principal's rejection of the bid. The Court emphasized that the instructions to bidders clearly required the bid security to be in the name of the joint venture. --Estoppel: The Court noted that the joint venture had participated in the bidding process without raising objections and had provided undertakings acknowledging the terms of the bidding process. Thus, they were estopped from challenging the process after their bid was declared non-responsive. ----Citations/Precedents: Federation of Pakistan v. Malik Muhammad Miskeen & others [1995 SCR 43] New Jubilee Insurance Ltd. v. The Collector of Customs, Dry Port & others [1995 SCMR 1535] Mst. Shahida Maqsood v. President of Pakistan [2005 SCMR 1746] Messrs Air Ciro through Senior Partner v. Government of Pakistan [2018 YLR 164] Asghar Hussain v. Election Commission of Pakistan [PLD 1968 SC 387] Amir Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan & 3 others [1998 SCMR 2389] Anoud Power Generation Ltd. & others v. Federation of Pakistan & others [PLD 2001 SC 340] Khalid Habib v. Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation Ltd. & others [2014 PLC (CS) 203] Sandalbar Enterprises (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Central Board of Revenue & others [PLD 1997 SC 334] The appeal was accepted, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the writ petition filed by the respondent-firm was dismissed.

Summary: -----Writ Petition for issuance of direction to National Highway Authority (a) Contract Law – Dispute Resolution Mechanism – Maintainability of Writ Petition: ----Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199 – Arbitration Act, 1940 – Contractual Obligations – Dispute Resolution Clause The petitioner, an operator of a toll plaza under contract with the National Highway Authority (NHA), challenged a show cause notice demanding penalty payments and outstanding dues due to reduced toll collections caused by external factors, including disruptions by transporters and law enforcement interventions. The court observed that the contract explicitly contained a dispute resolution clause (Clause 9.4) that provided a detailed mechanism for arbitration under the Arbitration Act, 1940. It was held that where a contract contains a valid arbitration clause, parties must exhaust the contractual remedy before invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. ----Cited Cases: Mumtaz Ahmad v. Zila Council, Sahiwal (1999 SCMR 117) Abdul Qayyum Khan v. District Officer, Passenger and Freight (2003 MLD 670) Messrs Frontier Construction Company v. Bahauddin Zakariya University (2006 MLD 978) Signage Security System v. CDA (2010 CLC 567) ----Disposition: The petition was dismissed as not maintainable, with directions for the petitioner to pursue the arbitration and dispute resolution mechanism as specified in Clause 9.4 of the contract.

Summary: Measure of damages under section 73 of the Contract Act. Assessment of reasonable compensation under section 74 of the Contract Act.----The dispute arose from a contract awarded by TCP to Sadan General Trading LLC for the supply of 50,000 metric tons of white sugar from Brazil at a specified rate. The contract included provisions for late shipment penalties and cancellation due to non-delivery within the agreed period. Sadan General Trading LLC failed to make the first shipment within the extended deadline, leading TCP to cancel the contract and forfeit the performance amount.During arbitration, Sadan General Trading LLC argued that TCP's cancellation was premature and discriminatory, seeking compensation for various losses. TCP, in turn, claimed damages for non-delivery and subsequent purchase of sugar at a higher price. The arbitrator found Sadan General Trading LLC in breach of contract but awarded only 50% of the performance amount to TCP as reasonable compensation, considering the absence of proven actual loss.The court dismissed objections raised by both parties against the arbitration award, affirming the arbitrator's decision. It clarified that compensation under Section 74 of the Contract Act does not require proof of actual loss but must be reasonable. The court emphasized that the determination of reasonable compensation depends on the circumstances of each case and that its interference with arbitration awards is limited. Finally, the court ordered interest on the award amount until realization. Thus, the arbitration award was upheld.

Summary: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)-------Ss.12 & 19---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXVIII, R.5---Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell---Transfer of suit property to the subsequent purchaser---Breach of contract---Compensation, award of---Attachment of property before judgment---Scope---Suit was decreed with the direction to the executant of agreement to sell to execute conveyance deed in favour of plaintiff but no relief of possession was extended---Validity---Plaintiff had paid all the consideration amount to the defendant/builder of housing society---Defendant had sold suit land in favour of subsequent purchaser and he was bound to refund amount so realized by him to the plaintiff---Builder had failed to complete construction by due date and even he had not returned consideration amount received by him to the plaintiff---Subsequent purchaser had possession of suit property and its sale deed---Execution of conveyance deed through Court in favour of plaintiff would render sale deed in favour of defendants as ineffective---Case of plaintiff for specific performance against the builder had been made out but it had become a case of hardship for the subsequent purchaser---Relief of specific performance, even if contract was enforceable, was discretionary and same could be withheld by the Court---When Court had concluded that grant of relief of specific performance had been made out but it would be a case of hardship to other side or unfair and inequitable to any third party who was not at fault then it should compensate the plaintiff---Builder had breached contract and only execution of title document was not specific performance of a contract of sale of immovable property when plaintiff was not in possession of suit premises---Execution of title document had to be coupled with delivery of possession of suit property to the plaintiff---Court could not grant decree of possession of suit property to the plaintiff owing to the presence of bona fide purchaser of suit premises---Plaintiff should have been granted relief of specific performance with additional compensation, in circumstances---Court in suit for specific peformance could grant two decrees of compensation combined in one judgment in a suit for specific performance---Order of specific performance might be substituted with compensation for it with additional compensation for breach of contract---High Court observed that court, in the present case, should have passed an adequate decree of compensation both as substitution of specific performance and additional compensation for breach of contract---Decree of specific performance of an agreement to sell through execution of title document against the builder in favour of plaintiff was in the field with no result and there was likelihood that builder would avoid the said decree---High Court passed order for attachment of movable and immovable property of builder who had received consideration amount from the plaintiff but had not returned the same---Plaintiff was entitled for adequate compensation keeping in view escalation in valuation of suit premises and value of currency which had gone down due to inflation in the country---Property of builder would remain attached till the judgment was executable---Second appeal was allowed accordingly. Mohiuddin Molla v. The Province of East Pakistan PLD 1962 SC 119 and Jamil Akhtar and others v. Las Baba and others PLD 2003 SC 494 rel.

Summary: Background:This appeal stems from the judgment dated 13.2.2018, issued by the Islamabad High Court in RFA No. 166/2013. The case involves a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement dated 4.10.2004 filed by Respondent No. 1 against the Appellant (Defendants No. 2 and 3) before the Civil Judge, Islamabad. The defendants contested the suit, claiming that the agreement was canceled due to the plaintiff's failure to pay the balance consideration within the stipulated period. The trial court directed the respondent to deposit the balance sale consideration within one month, which was not complied with. The suit was subsequently dismissed, and the dismissal was upheld by the High Court.---Issues:Whether the appellant was in breach of contract by failing to pay the balance sale consideration within the stipulated period.Whether the direction to refund the earnest money by the High Court was justified.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The High Court held that the appellant's failure to pay the balance sale consideration within the stipulated period amounted to a breach of contract. The court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it, directing the appellants to return the earnest money to the respondent along with profit. However, the court also noted that the appellants were not served notice regarding the forfeiture of earnest money, and therefore, directed the return of earnest money with profit only to the extent mentioned in the agreement. The court relied on the case of Mst. Gulshan Hamid v. Kh. Abdul Rehman to establish that time was of the essence of the contract.---Citations/Precedents:Mst. Gulshan Hamid v. Kh. Abdul Rehman (2010 SCMR 334)Abdul Hamid v. Abbas Bhai- Abdul Hussain (PLD 1959 (WP) Karachi 629)Space Telecommunication (Pvt) Ltd. v. Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (2019 SCMR 101)

Summary: Arbitration Act---The learned counsel for the defendant has been unable to demonstrate any infirmity with respect to the Award, within the ambit of Section 30 of the Act or otherwise, and as a consequence thereof the objections to the Award are hereby dismissed.---In the case presented, the Claimant successfully sought restitution from the Respondent, amounting to USD 14,264,272.98, for iron ore supplied under a contractual agreement. Following a dispute over non-payment, the Claimant initiated arbitration proceedings per the contract's arbitration clause. During the proceedings, the Respondent argued that the contract became void due to international sanctions against the Claimant's country of incorporation. However, the arbitrator rejected this argument, emphasizing that the sanctions did not absolve the Respondent of its liability under the contract. Furthermore, the Respondent contested the requirement to pay the sum in Pakistani Rupees based on the prevailing exchange rate at the time of payment, citing it as unjust and contrary to public policy. The court, however, upheld the arbitrator's decision, stating that honoring the contractual obligation did not violate public policy, and the exchange rate provision was reasonable. The court reiterated that interference with arbitration awards is limited to specific grounds outlined in the law, and found no valid reason to set aside the award. It emphasized that the arbitrator's decision was well-founded and supported by evidence, dismissing the objections raised by the Respondent. Ultimately, the court upheld the arbitration award, directing the Respondent to fulfill its payment obligation as determined by the arbitrator. The decision underscored the principle that contractual obligations must be honored unless prohibited by law or against public policy, and affirmed the finality of arbitration awards within the parameters of the law.

Summary: Background:The case involves a dispute over a land sale agreement made in 1999, lacking specific details about the property and sale consideration.Firdos Khan filed a suit for specific performance based on this agreement.---Issues:Whether the sale agreement lacking specific property description and sale consideration is enforceable.Whether the trial court erred in decreeing specific performance without addressing the deficiencies in the agreement.Whether the objections raised by the appellant regarding execution proceedings were properly considered.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court held that the trial court had failed to consider the legal requirements for decreeing specific performance.The agreement lacked crucial details, rendering it unenforceable.The trial court erred in decreeing specific performance without properly addressing the deficiencies in the agreement.The objections raised by the appellant regarding execution proceedings were not adequately considered by the trial and appellate courts.Therefore, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside all previous orders.The court directed a rehearing of the objections under Section 12(2) of the Civil Procedure Code, with strict adherence to procedural rules and consideration of evidence within the scope of the original pleadings.---Citations/Precedents:Section 22 of the Specific Relief ActOrder VII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil ProcedureSection 12(2) of the Civil Procedure Code