Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908): ----O.VII, R.11----Rejection of plaint---Scope and limitations---Specific performance of contract---Disputed factual controversies---Scope of interim orders---Plaintiffs (appellants) filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell land against the respondent company, alleging that an agreement was executed by the then CEO, Mr. A.R. Pervez, who was authorized through a resolution by the Board of Directors on 21.01.2003---Respondent claimed that the CEO’s powers were revoked by a resolution dated 25.10.2003, rendering the agreement unenforceable---Trial Court rejected the plaint under O.VII, R.11 CPC, without recording evidence and while deciding an interlocutory application for interim injunction under O.XXXIX, R.1 & 2 CPC---Held, rejection of plaint without framing issues and recording evidence was unwarranted where the dispute involved contested questions of fact, including the CEO’s authority, timing of the resolution, and possession of land handed over to the appellants---Disputed questions could not be decided summarily without a full trial. (b) Specific Relief Act, 1877: ----S.12----Specific performance of contract---Authority of agent/CEO to execute an agreement to sell---Disputed authority---Scope of evidence---In cases where the authority of an agent or CEO to execute an agreement is contested, such disputes must be resolved through proper adjudication, including framing of issues and recording evidence---Summary rejection of the plaint without such adjudication is contrary to law. (c) Administration of Justice: ----Matters involving disputed facts---Recording of evidence---Scope of interlocutory applications---Factual controversies regarding the authority of an agent to execute agreements, revocation of powers, and delivery of possession must be resolved through evidence during a full trial and cannot be summarily dismissed through interlocutory applications or orders. ----Disposition: Appeal allowed. Impugned order and decree dated 30.05.2005 set aside. Case remanded to the Civil Court for framing of issues and recording of evidence, uninfluenced by observations made in the judgment. ----Cited Cases: • 2012 CLC 1998 • 2012 CLC 1740 • 2011 CLC 1946 • 2011 CLC 135 • 1994 SCMR 826 • 1996 CLC 1892

Summary: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)-------S. 12---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 79---Registration Act (XVI of 1908), S. 17---Suit for specific performance of contract---Agreement to sell---Proof---Procedure---Statements of witnesses of plaintiff were silent with regard to date of sale deed and saleprice---Payment of sale consideration had not been proved---Plaintiff had produced only oneattesting witness of agreement to sell whereas he was to produce two marginal witnesses ofsale agreement---Alleged sale agreement was not prepared in the presence of marginalwitnesses---Sale agreement of more than Rs. 100/- required registration under S. 17 ofRegistration Act, 1908---Agreement to sell of immovable property did not create any right orinterest on such property---Execution of such agreement did not ipso facto create a charge onimmovable property---Execution of an agreement to sell was not a document of truth---Plaintiff had not deposited the balance sale consideration of agreement to sell---Party whohad sought enforcement of agreement to sell must deposit the balance sale price before theTrial Court but no such application had been filed on behalf of plaintiff---Plaintiff was boundto prove alleged sale transaction of suit land, execution of sale agreement, paying of earnestmoney to the defendant---Mere tendering sale agreement in evidence did not enhance itsevidentiary value---Plaintiff was bound to prove the existence of facts which had beenasserted in the suit---Findings recorded by the Trial Court were based on proper appreciationof evidence---Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Summary: Appeals Dismissed---The appeals arise from a lawsuit in which the respondent filed a suit for recovery of unpaid salary for the unexpired period of his contract, along with additional damages. The appeals challenge various portions of the judgment and decree issued by a learned Single Judge in this lawsuit. The appellant failed to provide a certified copy of the decree along with the memorandum of appeal. The court rules that the requirement to attach a copy of the decree is mandatory, and the appellant's failure to do so renders the appeal invalidly presented. The court analyzes the timeline of events and concludes that the appellant's attempt to file the decree after the appeal was already filed was not acceptable. The court examines the claim for damages due to breach of contract. The appellant (employer) attempted to terminate the respondent's (employee) contract with 30 days' notice but argued that it was due to restructuring. The court examines the nature of the breach and compensation under Section 73 of the Contract Act, highlighting that a party can claim compensation for breach of contract if certain prerequisites are met. The court concludes that compensation can be claimed independently of the notice period if breach is established and if efforts were made to minimize damages. The court dismisses both appeals.

Summary: Background:M/s Kuwait National Real Estate Company (Pvt.) Ltd. (petitioners) entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with MIs Educational Excellence Ltd. (respondent No.1) for the sale of shares in the petitioner company. However, before the share sale and purchase agreement could be executed, respondent No.1 filed a suit for specific performance of the MoU, alleging the petitioners' failure to honor their commitment.---Issues:Whether the MoU between the parties constituted a legally binding agreement for the sale of shares?Whether the respondent No.1's suit for specific performance was justified based on the terms of the MoU?---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court held that the MoU between the parties did not constitute a legally binding agreement for the sale of shares. The MoU clearly stated that the sale was subject to the execution of a detailed and legally binding share sale and purchase agreement within 60 days, which had not been done. The court emphasized the importance of clearly delineating the terms of a contract and held that the MoU did not meet the requirements of a binding agreement.

Summary: The petitioner, a government contractor, claimed to be registered with respondent No.1 and had been granted a contract/work through a letter issued by respondent No.3. The petitioner asserted that respondent No.4 declined to commence arbitration proceedings, and the rescission of the contract was illegal. The petitioner sought a declaration that the impugned letters be declared without authority and set aside. The court, after considering the arguments and documents, emphasized that contractual matters involving claims and counter-claims requiring factual inquiry should be resolved through arbitration if the contract provides for such a mechanism. The court cited previous orders and rulings stating that in the presence of an arbitration clause, parties should follow the agreed mechanism for dispute resolution. As the petitioner had an alternative remedy through arbitration, the court held that the constitutional petition was not maintainable. The court dismissed the petition, noting that the petitioner could approach the competent forum for reference to arbitration and resolution of the dispute through the agreed mechanism.

Summary: The process culminating in the award of the Contract, by therespondent No. 2 to the respondent No. 3, without recourse to acompetitive bidding process as envisaged under the law, is prima facierepugnant to the provisions of the Rule 4, 12, 14, 20 and 21. In view ofthe reasoning and rationale contained herein, we are of the consideredopinion that said process ought to have been in consonance with the fiatof the Ordinance and the Rules. In view of the reasoning and rationale contained herein thispetition is disposed of with the directions that the Contract, in so far asthe IDEAS 2020 is concerned, is hereby set aside and the RespondentNo. 1 and 2 may initiate a de novo tendering process for the said eventand / or any such future events in due conformity with the Ordinanceand the Rules.

Summary: Two consolidated petitions challenging the tendering process and subsequent award of a contract by the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) for the monitoring of bonded cargo transportation in Pakistan to NLC Construction Solution Private Limited (NCSPL). The petitions, filed by Assetlink Asia (Private) Limited and E-Movers (Private) Limited, alleged misprocurement in the award process, citing violations of public procurement laws.The court examined the tendering process, the criteria for bid evaluation, and the subsequent alterations made to these criteria, which favored NCSPL, a company not initially shortlisted and with questionable eligibility due to its late entry into the tender process and lack of requisite licensing at the time of bid submission. The court found the modifications to the evaluation criteria, made post bid opening and upon NCSPL's request, to be non-transparent and unjustified, resulting in NCSPL, the least qualified bidder, being awarded the contract.The judgment referenced several precedents, including "Muhammad Ayub & Brothers vs. Capital Development Authority Islamabad" and "Toyota Garden Motors (Private) Limited vs. Government of Punjab & Others," to underscore the principles of transparency, fairness, and legality in the public procurement process. It emphasized that any changes to the tender terms post bid opening, especially to the advantage of an otherwise unsuccessful bidder, are impermissible.The court concluded that the tendering process culminating in the award to NCSPL was in violation of public procurement laws, resulting in misprocurement. Consequently, the contract awarded to NCSPL was set aside, and the FBR was directed to initiate a new, law-compliant tendering process. The petition filed by Assetlink Asia was dismissed, while the petition by E-Movers, framed as public interest litigation, was allowed, leading to the annulment of the contract awarded to NCSPL.

Summary: In view of the reasoning and rationale contained herein, we areconstrained to observe that the belated unjustified parachuting ofNCSPL into the tender process; the manner adopted for modification ofthe evaluation criteria post opening of bids; and the implementation ofsuch modification cannot be considered to be transparent and / or in thepublic interest. The tender process culminating into the Contract ishereby determined to be in manifest violation of the law, hence, theContract is hereby set aside. The respondent No. 2 may initiate a denovo tendering process in accordance with the law for the award of theContract, preferably within a period of one month, in which all eligibleparties may participate. Therefore, we do hereby dismissed, along withpending applications, with no order as to costs.

Summary: Arbitration Act (X of 1940)---Contract Act ----S. 20---Notification SRO No. 932(I)/2012 dated 01-08-2012---Recovery of money---Transit Trade---Arbitration, agreement---Court, jurisdiction of---Effect---Plaintiff sought recovery of amount from defendant company which was operating from Tajikistan on basis of agreement between parties---Plaintiff also impleaded another person who was carrying on business in Afghanistan---Validity---Agreement, on basis of which suit was filed, stipulated an arbitration clause which fact was suppressed by plaintiff while obtaining ex-parte interim orders---Property in transit was perishable item and in terms of Notification SRO No. 932(I)/2012 dated 01-08-2012 jurisdiction of transit trade authorities was not extended to Tajikistan since no agreement existed between Pakistan and Tajikistan---High Court recalled interim order as court had no jurisdiction in terms of arbitration clause and prima facie it was a case of hardship to defendant with whom plaintiff had no direct privity of contract---Suit was dismissed in circumstances. Pakistan International Airlines Corporation v. ACT Airlines INC 2011 CLC 714 ref.

Summary: Background: A plaintiff initiated a suit against a defendant for allegedly breaching a contract concerning the sale of a vehicle. The vehicle was sold by the plaintiff to the defendant, who failed to make the required payments as stipulated in the contract. Despite repeated demands, the defendant did not comply with the payment terms, leading to the plaintiff's action for breach of contract. ----Issues: 1- Whether the defendant breached the contract by failing to make the required payments. 2- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover damages for the breach of contract. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Breach of Contract: The court found that the defendant indeed breached the contract by failing to make the payments as agreed. The evidence presented demonstrated that the defendant did not fulfill their contractual obligations despite being given ample opportunity to do so. --Entitlement to Damages: The court ruled that the plaintiff is entitled to recover damages resulting from the breach. The damages are calculated based on the unpaid amount as well as any additional losses incurred due to the breach. The court held that the plaintiff's claims for damages were justified and supported by the evidence.