| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2002 SLG 659 2002 SLD 659 2002 CLD 218 |
Sindh High Court
Suit No.711 and Civil Miscellaneous Application No.3731 of 2000, decision dated: 6-11-2000, hearing DATE : 26-09-2000
ZAHID KURBAN ALAVI, JUSTICE
Khahd Anwar for Plaintiff. Salman Talib-ud-Din for Defendant
Suit No.711 and Civil Miscellaneous Application No.3731 of 2000, decision dated: 6-11-2000, hearing DATE : 26-09-2000
ZAHID KURBAN ALAVI, JUSTICE
Khahd Anwar for Plaintiff. Salman Talib-ud-Din for Defendant
AL HUDA. HOTELS AND TOURISM CO. and others
VS
PAKTEL LIMITED and others
Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)
Section: 114
Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877
Section: 12,21
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: OXXXIX,Rr.1,2
Law: Contract Act, 1872
Section: 7,2(h),3,10
(a) Qanun e Shahadat (10 of 1984)--Art.114 Estoppel Proof Party, in order to prove estoppel, has to do more than to show that it has acted to its detriment and to the knowledge of the other party in the. hope that the other party would not withdraw from the agreement in principle Party has to show, in addition, that the other party had created or encouraged a belief or expectation that he would not withdraw and the party seeking to find estoppel had relied on that belief or expectation. Raingold v. Bromley (1931) ALL ER Rep. 822 ref. (b) Contract Act (IX of 1872) S.7 Acceptance of proposal Converting proposal into contract Principle In order to convert a proposal into a contract, the acceptance to the proposal must be absolute and un¬qualified Consensus ad idem between the parties with regard to all the terms of the contract must be shown to exist Qualified acceptance of proposal or acceptance of proposal with a variation is no acceptance. Walford and others v. Miles and another (1993) 1 All ER 453; Von Hatzfeldt Widenburg v. Alexander (1911 1913) All ER 148 and Shalsons Fisheries Limited, Karachi v. Lohmann & Co. and another PLD 1982 Kar. 76 ref. (c) Contract Act (IX of 1872) Ss. 2(h), 3 & 10 Concluded contract Determination Test Question whether the parties had reached a concluded contract or not, is a question of fact to be deduced from the correspondence and other documentary or oral evidence True test for deciding the question is to ascertain whether the parties were of one mind on all the material terms at the tune the contract was said to have been finalized between them and whether the parties intended that the matter was closed and concluded between them. Custodian, Enemy Property, Islamabad v. Hoshand M. Dastur and 6 others PLD 1977 Kar. 377 and Baijnath v. Ksetradhari Sarkar and others AIR 1955 Cal. 210 ref. (d) Specific Relief Act (1 of 1877) S.22 Specific performance of agreement Enforcement of specific performance of agreement is not an absolute right ¬Specific performance of agreement rests in judicial discretion, exercised according to the principles of equity and with reference to the facts of the case Such right should never be granted…
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