Case Details

Citation(s)
2012 SLG 2794 2012 SLD 2794 2012 PLD 324
Sindh High Court
Suit No. B-213 of 2000 and C.M.A. Nos. 8049, 8050 of 2009 decided on 14th March, 2012. dates of hearing: 24th March, 13th, 26th April, 6th, 18th, 30th May, 5th, 13th July and 16th December, 2011.
MUNIB AKHTAR, J
Ijaz Ahmed and Aijaz Shirazi for Plaintiff. Mushtaq A. Memon for Defendant

PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL CREDIT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.--Plaintiff

VS

Messrs KHAIRPUR SUGAR MILLS LIMITED and another----Defendants

Law:

Section:

(a) Contract Act (IX of 1872)--- ----Ss. 18 & 19---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Ss.2(2), 12(2) & O.XXIII, R.3---Compromise decree and agreement---Distinguished---Setting aside of compromise decree and agreement---Principles---Compromise agreement is made by parties and compromise decree by Court---If agreement is successfully impugned then decree almost always fails, but it may be possible to attack the decree without impugning the agreement---Challenge to one is, therefore, not necessarily a challenge to the other---Grounds on which the agreement on one hand and the decree on the other can be attacked may overlap but are nonetheless distinct, it may be that as a matter of form, the challenge is directed towards the decree---Substance of challenge has to be carefully ascertained and distinction between decree and agreement must be kept in mind---If a compromised matter is challenged on the ground of misrepresentation, it is important to be clear, whether attack is directed against agreement or decree---Compromise agreement is simply a contract and can be impugned on the ground of misrepresentation, if matter comes within the ambit of Ss.18 and 19 of Contract Act, 1872, and compromise decree, on the other hand, can be set aside under S.12(2), C.P.C. (b) Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Ordinance (XXV of 1997)--- ----S. 9---Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss. 18, 19 & 21---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.152 & O.XXIII, R.3---Recovery of bank loan---Compromise decree, modification of---Illegality and misrepresentation--Voidable agreement---Determination---Defendant's challenge was directed towards compromise agreement on the ground that it was tainted by illegalities amounting to misrepresentations and hence liable to be modified---Validity---Remedy sought, i.e. relief under S.152, C.P.C., was only available against decree---Compromise decree and agreement were not the same thing---Relief under S.152, C.P.C. was available in respect of a compromise decree without compromise agreement being impugned at all---Correction of compromise decree was not the same thing as modification of compromise agreement---Power…
🔒
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