Case Details

Citation(s)
1991 SLD 1869 = 1991 CLC 1950
Sindh High Court
Suit No. 627 of 1975, decided on 27th March, 1991.
Presented By: Before Abdul Rahim Kazi, J
Rehanul Hassan Farooqi for Plaintiff. Mohammad Saleem for Defendants

Mrs. JANNAT BI KHAN---Plaintiff

VERSUS

Messrs NATIONAL MOTORS Co.---Defendant

Law: Contract Act (IX of 1872)

Section: 2 (h)

Law: Sale of Goods Act, (III of 1930)

Section: 21

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 14

Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)

Section: 95

Contract Act (IX of 1872)--- ----S.2 (h)---Contract for purchase of truck chassis --- Construction --- Payment of prices and local charges---Determination---Contract between parties indicated that plaintiff was required to pay the prices and local charges prevailing at the time of shipment and delivery---Such prices and local charges were thus payable in accordance with terms of contract. Sale of Goods Act (III of 1930)--- . ---S. 21---Seller's duty to put goods contracted to be sold into a deliverable state---Property in goods would pass to buyer only when such goods were brought into deliverable state and buyer had notice thereof---Sellers' letter not offering delivery of goods, could not be treated to be a notice under provision of S. 21, Sale of Goods Act, 1930. Sale of Goods Act (III of 1930)--- ----S.21---Increase of local charges by sellers/defendants as per terms of contract ---Condition precedent---Defendant's though, could increase local charges as per terms of contract, yet the same had to be based on certain facts with regard to increase in rates in market, labour charges etc.---No evidence was, however, produced by defendant, to justify such increase--Defendants were thus, not entitled to increase local charges and demand the same from plaintiff. Sale of Goods Act (III of 1930)--- ----S. 21---Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 2 (h)---Claim of storage charges from plaintiff---Entitlement of--Delay in delivery of goods was caused due to defendants and neglect on the part of defendants who had demanded enhanced local charges which plaintiff was not liable to pay---Defendants were, thus, not entitled to claim storage charges from plaintiff. Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---   ----O.III, R.1 & O.VI, R.14---Plaint---Signing of---Person holding General Power of Attorney on behalf of plaintiff signed plaint---Validity---Provisions of O.III , R.1, C.P.C. permit plaint to be signed by duly authorised agent while provision of O.III, R.2, C.P.C. provides that persons holding Power-of-Attorney authorising them to make and do such appearances, applications and acts on behalf of such parties were amongst the recognized agents. Qanun-e-Shahadat…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register