| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2003 SLG 3432 2003 SLD 3432 2003 PLD 215 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeals Nos. 185 and 186 of 2002, decided on 27th November, 2002.
NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, HAMID ALI MIRZA AND TANVIR AHMED KHAN, JJ
Dr. Parvaiz Hasan, Advocate Supreme Court, Umar Ata. Bandial, Advocate Supreme Court, Zakaullah, Advocate Supreme Court, M.S. Khattak, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants (
Respondents in C.A. No. 186 of 2002). Raja Muhammad Akram, Advocate Supreme Court, E
Civil Appeals Nos. 185 and 186 of 2002, decided on 27th November, 2002.
NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, HAMID ALI MIRZA AND TANVIR AHMED KHAN, JJ
Dr. Parvaiz Hasan, Advocate Supreme Court, Umar Ata. Bandial, Advocate Supreme Court, Zakaullah, Advocate Supreme Court, M.S. Khattak, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants (
Respondents in C.A. No. 186 of 2002). Raja Muhammad Akram, Advocate Supreme Court, E
SAUDIPAK INDUSTRIAL AND AGRICULTURAL INVESTMENT COMPANY (PVT.) LTD., Islamabad court
VS
Messrs ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN and another
Law:
Section:
(a) Contract Act (IX of 1872)--- --S. 126---Bank guarantee---Default---Liquidated damages ---Interest--Rights and liabilities of the parties---Determination---Guarantee rights and liabilities of the parties, are determined with reference to the terms and conditions of the guarantee and a contract of guarantee is to be strictly construed in terms of the guarantee---Guarantee, in the present case, unequivocally postulated that the total responsibility of the Bank was restricted to a specified amount---Bank irrevocably and unconditionally undertook to pay the said amount to the plaintiff on demand---Nothing was brought on record to show that the plaintiff had sustained damages on the ground of default---Effect---Liquidated damages, as a rule, required the positive evidence to show that the actual loss was suffered by the party claiming the damages and even fixed amount stipulated for liquidated", damages could not be recovered if the quantum of actual loss was not proved---Plaintiff, in circumstances, was neither entitled to any interest nor to any amount as liquidated damages. (b) Interpretation of document--- ---Fundamental --Fundamental principle. It is a fundamental principle of interpretation of documents and statutes that they are to be interpreted in their entire context following a full Consideration of all provisions of the document or statute, as the case may that every attempt shall be made to save the document and for tai purpose a difference between general statements and particular statements of the document be differentiated properly to save the document rather to nullify it, that no provision of the document be read in isolation or in bits and pieces, but the entire document is to be read as a whole to gather the intention of the parties, that the Court for this purpose can resort to the correspondence exchanged between the parties, that the Court shall lean to the interpretation, which will effectuate rather than one, which will invalidate an instrument. Allah Bakhsh and another v. Muhammad Ishaque and another PLD 1984 SC 47; Societe Generale De Surveillance S.A. v. Pakistan 2002 SCMR 1694; Messrs Pakistan State Oil Company Limited v. Muhammad…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492