Case Details

Citation(s)
2023 SLG 1624 2023 CLC 1422 2023 SLD 1624
Sindh High Court
Civil Suit No.116 of 2021, decided on 13th February, 2023.Dates of hearing: 19th, 26th and 27th January, 2023.
Before Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, J
Mayhar Mustafa Qazi along with Shahbakht for Plaintiff. Abdul Rehman for Defendant No.1. None for Defendant No.2.

GUNVOR SINGAPORE PTE, LTD. through authorized signatory---Plaintiff

VERSUS

PAKISTAN LNG LIMITED through Chief Executive Officer and another---Defendant

Law: Contract, Act, 1872

Section: 74

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 1,2

Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 42,54

Contract Act (IX of 1872)--- ----S.74---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, Rr. 1 2---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 42 54---Suit for declaration and injunction---Interim injunction, refusal of---Compensation for breach of contract---Bid bond, encashment of---Plaintiff company was aggrieved of encashing bid bond by defendant authority which bond was filed for supply of Liquified Natural Gas (LNG)---Validity---LNG Procurement was designed, keeping in mind that defendant authority would have to either pay a higher amount to another bidder or have to resort to re-procurement---For subject procurement call of bid bond was neither unconscionable nor unrealistic, as it would permit defendant authority to offset its losses faced on such withdrawal, nor it amounted to unjust enrichment---Plaintiff company was conscious and experienced enough to understand terms of such contract---It was in accordance with the bid documents that could be safely adjudged that defendant authority had every right, in the event the most advantageous bidder reneged of their obligation, to accept the next offer available and thus called upon plaintiff company to perform its obligation as per its offer and in the event of plaintiff company reneged on its obligation, as per its bid, to call upon plaintiff companys bid bond---Plaintiff company did not have a prima facie case which would entitle it to injunct the encashment of the bid bond---Up to 11-01-2021 defendant company had a right to accept plaintiff companys bid, which it did on 07-01-2021---Having accepted plaintiff companys bid, it ought to have provided performance guarantee; rather it reneged on its obligations to provide a performance guarantee and apparently sold the cargo elsewhere---Calling of a bid bond was legitimate in absence of such evidence of sale, and proof of losses would not come in the way---Provision of S.74 of Contract Act, 1872 is required to be read with its exception, which did not provide a room in view of limits provided by the exception clause for the withdrawal of Bid bond---In respect of balance of inconvenience and irreparable loss, defendant authority would have to either pay a higher amount to…
🔒
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