Case Details

Citation(s)
1993 SLG 770 1993 SLD 770 1993 CLC 1565
Sindh High Court

SYED HAIDER ALI PIRRADA AND MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN ADIL KHATRI, JJ
Afzal Nabi Qureshi for Appellant. Muhammad Anis for
Respondent

ANWARUL HAQvsSTATE OIL COMPANY LTD.

Law:

Section:

(a) Limitation Act (IX of .1908)--- ----Art. 110---Recovery of arrears of rent---Limitation prescribed is three years for recovery of arrears of rent from the date when the arrears become due--­Arrears of rent for the period ending November 1962, having been claimed far beyond the prescribed period of three years, could neither be claimed nor granted by the Court. (b) Contract Act (IX of 1872)--- ----S. 25---Benefit of S. 25, Contract Act, 1872---Facts to be established for claiming benefit under S. 25, Contract Act, 1872 were that there must be a promise; which must be signed by a person to be charged therewith or by an agent generally or specially authorised in that behalf; and there must be a debt which was barred by time. (c) Contract Act (IX of 1872)--- ----Ss. 2 (b) & 25---"Proposal" when to become a "promise"---Proposal would become a promise in terms of S. 2 (b), Contract Act, 1872 where a person to whom such -, proposal had been made had signified his - assent to such proposal---Appellant having not signified his assent to' proposal made by the respondent, such proposal did not mature in the promise and thus, there was no contract in existence to attract benefit of S. 25, Contract Act, 1872. (d) Contract Act (IX of 1872)--- ----S. 25---Companies Act (VII of 1913), S. 23---Entitlement to claim benefit of S.25, Contract Act, 1872---Promise made by a Sales Manager of the company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1913---Legality---Respondent being a limited company, incorporated under Companies Act, 1913, promise on behalf of such company could have been made only by such officer who was either an attorney or was so authorised by the respondent (company)---Sales Manager having not been so authorised by the company his promise could not be used by appellant to enforce his claim against the respondent. (e) Contract Act (IX of 1872)--- ----Ss. 2 (b) & 25---Proposal and acceptance could be in respect of a specific amount---Where quantum of claimed amount was uncertain, requirements of S.25, Contract Act, 1872, were not attracted---Section 25, Contract Act, 1872 being an exception for enforcement of void agreements, provisions thereof, had to be…
🔒
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