Case Details

Citation(s)
2016 SLG 2030 2016 SLD 2030 2016 PLJ 208
Lahore High Court
R.F.A. No. 626 of 2006, heard on 21.12.2011. Heard on: 21.12.2011.C
RAUF AHMAD SHEIKH, JUSTICE, ABDUL WAHEED KHAN, JUSTICE
Mr. Muhammad Hanif Niazi, Advocate for Appellant. Barrister Armughan Ashfaq, Advocate for
Respondents.

MUHAMMAD SARWAR BHATTI

VS

M/S. DAEWOO CORPORATION THROUGH ITS GENERAL MANAGER, SECTIONI, SHEIKHUPURA AND 2 others--RespondentS

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 2,9

Res-judicata---.--- ---.---Scope---.---Any remark passed against the successful party does not operate as res judicata. Octroi Tax---.--- ---.---Suit for recovery of octroi tax or in alternative damages---.---No specific amount was claimed---.---Maintainability---.---Octroi tax was leviable from outside within limits of town committee---.---Exempted---.---Jurisdiction of Civil Court---.---Recovery so agent cannot effect---.---Validity---.---At time of execution of contract, appellant was aware of concession given due to importance of project but in spite of it, he voluntarily agreed to its terms---.---An agent/lessee has to act under instructions, directions and supervision of the principal/lessor---.---Respondent never claimed the payment of the octroi fee from Daewoo Company---.---Appellant being its agent, therefore, could have not lawfully made the demand---.---Findings of trial Court are, therefore, unexceptionable and do not for any interference---.---Appellant was not entitled to recover a sum from Daewoo then a decree for recovery of that amount as damages be passed against Daewoo---.---Appellant can claim damages by invoking arbitration clause from respondent---.---Finding was not set aside by High Court. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908)---.--- ---.---O. VII, R. 2---.---Octroi tax---.---Suit for recovery of octroi tax or in alternative damages---.---No specific amount was claimed---.---Entitlement of---.---Validity---.---Appellant/plaintiff had not claimed any specific amount allegedly due from M/s. Daewoo to him or damages caused to him for non-payment of octroifee---.---Order VII Rule 2, CPC provides that where plaintiff seeks recovery of money, plaint shall state precise amount claimed---.---Appellant/plaintiff had himself voluntarily entered into contract---.---He had agreed that he would have same rights, which vest in Town Committee---.---Town Committee, does not claim payment from company so appellant/plaintiff is also estopped by his conduct from raising demand. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908)---.--- ---.---O. I, R. 9---.---Non joinder and mis-joinder---.---No specific amount was claimed as octroi tax---.---Appellant/plaintiff has…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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