Summary: (a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) ----S. 12---Specific performance of contract---Dismissal of suit for non-deposit of balance sale consideration---Scope---Appellants filed a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement and sought an injunction. The Civil Court directed the appellants to deposit the balance sale consideration by specific dates, which they repeatedly failed to do despite extensions granted. Held, the remedy of specific performance is equitable, and a plaintiff seeking such relief must demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform their contractual obligations. The appellants’ failure to deposit the balance sale consideration disentitled them from discretionary relief, as their conduct lacked bonafides. Cited Cases: • Haji Abdul Hameed Khan v. Ghulam Rabbani 2003 SCMR 953 • Adil Tiwana v. Shaukat Ullah Khan Bangash 2015 SCMR 828 • Muhammad Iqbal v. Mehboob Alam 2015 SCMR 21 (b) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908) ----Order XXXIX, Rules 1 & 2---Interim relief---Effect of non-compliance with court orders---Scope---Interim relief granted to maintain the status quo in a suit for specific performance does not shield the plaintiff from the consequences of non-compliance with court orders. Failure to deposit the balance sale consideration within the stipulated timeframe results in the cancellation of the agreement and forfeiture of earnest money as per the contract terms. (c) Equitable Remedies---Principle of readiness and willingness ----Discretionary nature of relief---Scope---Relief of specific performance is not automatic and is subject to the court’s discretion. A plaintiff seeking equity must perform their obligations under the contract to merit relief. The appellants’ repeated failures to comply with court directions and their inability to deposit the balance amount despite extensions indicated a lack of seriousness and stripped them of all equities. (d) Disposition--- Appeal dismissed as meritless. The appellants’ failure to deposit the balance sale consideration within the stipulated timeframe, despite the respondents’ willingness to honor the agreement upon compliance, demonstrated a lack of bonafides, disentitling them to equitable relief. Outcome: Regular First Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs.

Summary: The petitioner, a company providing flight catering services, had previously been awarded a contract in 2014 by PIA, which was later terminated in 2016. The main issues raised in the case included objections to the evaluation report, the alleged improper filling of the tender schedule by PC Hotel, and concerns about the bid validity period not being extended as required by the Public Procurement Rules, 2004 (PPRA Rules). The petitioner argued that these issues rendered the procurement process unlawful and sought its annulment. The court emphasized the importance of fairness, transparency, value for money, and efficiency in procurement processes. It found that the bid validity period had not been adhered to, with the evaluation report and contract award occurring well after the bid's validity period had expired. The court also noted deficiencies in the grievance redressal process and declared the procurement process and contract award null and void. As a remedy, the court allowed PIA to conduct a fresh procurement process, provided it followed the PPRA Rules and ensured compliance with the principles of fairness and transparency. This case underscores the significance of adhering to procurement rules and maintaining transparency in procurement processes. The court's decision invalidated the previous contract award and mandated a new procurement process for PIA.

Summary: The dispute originates from contracts for seismic data processing services provided by the petitioner to the respondent. The petitioner claims that they successfully provided the services according to contract terms and issued invoices, but the respondent failed to respond promptly. The respondent's reply, made after the prescribed time, mentioned financial issues and proposed a deferred payment or payment in shares of equivalent value, which the petitioner rejected. During the legal proceedings, the respondent argued that the petitioner breached the contract by providing substandard services, leading to the need for reprocessing seismic data. The court examined various aspects, including the acknowledgment of debt, maintainability of the petition, and the commercial solvency of the respondent. The court found that the respondent's email acknowledging the dispute over quality issues constituted an acknowledgment of the debt within the meaning of the law. The court also determined that the petitioner had the right to maintain the winding-up petition under Section 309 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984. However, the court ultimately ruled that the respondent was not commercially insolvent but was engaged in a genuine dispute over the quality of the services provided by the petitioner. As a result, the court dismissed the winding-up petition, stating that the respondent's company should not be wound up based on the petitioner's claim, given the bona fide dispute and the respondent's ongoing business activities.

Summary: Art. 199 of the constitution of pakistan, 1973. Enforcement of Contractual obligations between private parties Writ not maintainable.

Summary: ''The Court should not pass restraining order against recovery of the amounts in terms of section 41 (b) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 without examining the three ingredients for grant of injunction i.e. prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss.'' --- Background: Pakistan Railways entered into an agreement with M/s Four Brothers International (Pvt) Ltd for operating a train service between Lahore and Karachi on a public-private partnership basis. The agreement, which was subject to terms and conditions including payment and performance guarantees, encountered disputes regarding payments and the execution of the contract terms. The respondent approached the civil court under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act for the appointment of an independent arbitrator, which led to an interim order against Pakistan Railways preventing them from recovering the agreed amounts.Issue: The main issue was whether the interim injunction granted by the civil court, which restrained Pakistan Railways from recovering the agreed amounts from the respondent, was justified under the principles governing the grant of injunctions.Holding: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the decisions of the Lahore High Court and the civil court which had granted the interim injunction in favor of the respondent.Reasoning: The Supreme Court found that the contract's financial commitments were binding and could not be negated by the respondent on the assumption that certain terms were based on assumed capacities and revenues. The court emphasized that the agreement's terms, including the continuation of the train service, must be read in conjunction with the entire agreement and do not absolve the respondent from their financial obligations. The court also highlighted that the principles for granting an injunction were not properly considered by the lower courts, as there was a prima facie case of default by the respondent in fulfilling their payment obligations under the contract.Rule: In contracts, especially those involving public welfare and services, financial commitments agreed upon by the parties cannot be disregarded on the basis of assumptions or external reports not binding to the contract. Furthermore, the grant of an injunction must be based on a proper examination of the prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss, which were not adequately addressed in this case.Order: The Supreme Court directed the parties to proceed with arbitration by appointing their respective arbitrators, as per the agreement, to resolve the dispute.

Summary: (a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)-------Ss. 8, 39, 42 & 54----Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 129 (g)---West Pakistan LandRevenue Act (XVII of 1967), S. 52---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 91---Contract Act (IX of1872), Ss. 17 & 18---Suit for declaration, possession, cancellation and permanent injunction---Maintainability--- Limitation--- Mutation challenged on ground of fraud and misrepresentation---Proof---Presumption in favour of entries in record-of-rights and periodical records---Court maypresume existence of certain facts---Plaintiff filed suit for declaration and permanent injunctionclaiming separation of his share through demarcation of suit property on ground that he hadpurchased suit property from joint Khata from predecessor of defendants by way of mutationentry---Defendants also filed suit for declaration, cancellation of the mutation entry in favour ofplaintiff, possession and permanent injunction claiming that plaintiff, with connivance ofrevenue authorities, had got suit property mutated in his favour---Trial Court decreed the suit ofplaintiff and dismissed the one filed by defendants---Appellate court reversed findings of TrialCourt and decreed suit of defendants---Both parties raised objection of limitation---Validity---Plaintiff had first filed application for demarcation of suit property before Revenue hierarchy, which fact had not been disputed by defendants---Plaintiff, having purchased suit property frompredecessor of defendants, had stepped into his shoes and become co-sharer---Limitation fordemarcation of suit property arose when right of plaintiffs had been declined by defendants---Plaintiff's suit was, therefore, within limitation---Limitation for cancellation of the mutationentry was three years under Art. 91 of Limitation Act, 1908---Mutation of inheritance recordedin favour of defendants had reflected that they were aware of the mutation entry in favour ofplaintiff before filing of present suit---Defendants, in their pleadings, had not mentioned datewhen they had come to know about mutation entry in question---Suit filed by defendants forcancellation of the mutation entry was, therefore, barred by limitation---Appellate court haddecided question of limitation on wrong premise---Plaintiff, being joint recorded owner of suitproperty, had every right to seek relief from competent court pertaining to his right arising out ofmutation entry---Impugned mutation entry had never been challenged by predecessor ofdefendants during his life time---Defendants, both in their written statement and suitsubsequently filed by them, had initially challenged mutation entry in question on ground offraud and misrepresentation, but they later had withdrawn said ground by filing application foramendment of their pleadings---Defendants had challenged the mutation entry also on groundthat the mutation was neither signed nor attested by witness mentioned in list of witnesses, butsubsequently, they had abandoned said witnesses by filing an application to that effect---Bestevidence, which could be produced by defendants, had not been produced and the same had beenintentionally withheld, for which adverse inference was to be taken against them under Art. 129(g), Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---Presumption of truth was attached to revenue record in terms ofS. 52 of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, which was rebuttable---Defendants had notelaborated alleged forgery and misrepresentation either in their pleadings or through evidence---Defendants had not led any evidence to prove that the entry in revenue record was collusive andfraudulent---Defendants failed to rebut presumption of truth attached to the mutation entry---Entries in favour of plaintiff appeared in Jamabandi, which was strong evidence in his supportand required rebuttal---Mere verbal assertions made by defendants could not be taken as rebuttalto the mutation entry in favour of plaintiff---High Court, setting aside impugned judgments anddecrees of appellate court, maintained decision of Trial Court---Revision petition filed byplaintiff was allowed, while the other filed by defendants dismissed.PLD 2015 SC 58; PLD 1994 SC 245; 1990 SCMR 725 and 2002 SCMR 54 ref.Hakim Khan v. Nazir Ahmed Rogmani 1992 SCMR 1832; Mazloom Hussain v. AbidHussain PLD 2008 SC 571; Nawab Khan v. Said Karim Khan 1997 SCMR 1840; JanMuhammad v. Abdul Rashid 1993 SCMR 1463 and Abdul Haq v. Mst. Surrya Begum 2002SCMR 1330 rel.

Summary: Background: B.C. International Pvt. Ltd., incorporated in the British Virgin Islands, entered into a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) with Tashfeen Qayyum and others to establish and operate a company in Pakistan. Disputes arose when the respondent shareholders attempted to remove the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the joint venture company, contrary to JVA terms, prompting a suit for declarations and injunctive relief. The JVA included an arbitration clause mandating dispute resolution through arbitration under the International Chamber of Commerce rules in England. -----Issues: 1- Applicability of Arbitration Clause: Can disputes concerning the CEO's appointment and related issues under the JVA be settled through arbitration? -----2- Validity of Subsequent Application for Stay: Is a second application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act 1940 permissible after the first application was dismissed due to an authorization issue? -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Islamabad High Court ruled that the arbitration clause in the JVA should be honored, and the matter should proceed to arbitration. The Court also allowed a second application for stay under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act 1940. Arbitration Clause Validity: The Court emphasized respecting the contractual agreement for arbitration as per the JVA. It noted that the arbitration clause covered the disputes raised in the suit, and the Court should support enforcing arbitration unless compelling reasons exist to override it. Authorization and Res Judicata: The Court held that dismissal of the first application due to lack of proper authorization did not bar a second application. The defect in the first application was procedural, not substantive, thus allowing the company to file a valid application subsequently. Error in Appellate Court Decision: The Court found that the Appellate Court misinterpreted the requirements of Section 34 and incorrectly assessed the doctrine of res judicata as applicable to a non-substantive dismissal. The Islamabad High Court set aside the Appellate Court’s order, restored the Trial Court’s decision to stay the proceedings, and directed the parties to resolve their disputes through arbitration as outlined in the JVA. -----Citations/Precedents: PLD 2003 SC 808: Dar Okaz Printing and Publishing Ltd. vs. Printing Corporation of Pakistan Pvt. Ltd. PLD 1993 SC 42: Messrs Eckhardt & Co, Marine GmbH vs. Muhammad Hanif PLD 1971 SC 550: Khan Iftikhar Hussain Khan Mamdot vs. Ghulam Nabi

Summary: (a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- Specific Performance of Contract (Section 79 of Qanaun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984)----S.12---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 79---Suit for specific performance to sell immovable property---Agreement to sell, proof of---Scope---Contention of plaintiff was that she purchased suit property form defendant on the basis of agreement to sell---Validity---Burden was on plaintiff to prove the existence of agreement to sell and handing over of possession of suit property through sale agreement---Record showed that neither plaintiff had produced receipt of payment nor she had produced marginal witnesses or any other witness to prove execution of sale agreement with defendant---Sole testimony of plaintiff was not sufficient, thus, plaintiff had failed to discharge her burden in terms of S.79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) --- ----S. 115---Revision---Concurrent findings of lower courts---Concurrent findings of lower courts could not be set aside in exercise of jurisdiction under S.115 of C.P.C. unless same were found perverse or contrary to record.

Summary: O.XIII,R-3 CPC:Compromise decree is a contract,breach of which give fresh cause of action

Summary: S.73 Contract Act:Suit for recovery of damages caused by breach of contract,determination of ---General & specific--- rule of thumb.