Section 23 : What consideration and objects are lawful or what not
2004 CLD 1213 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Messrs ATLAS LEASE LTD. VS Messrs PUNJAB STEELS (PVT.) LTD.
–S.10—Contract Act (IX., of 1872), Ss.23 & 74—Recovery of additional lease rentals and liquidated damages—Non-speaking judgment—Contract against public policy—Application for leave to defend the suit was dismissed by Banking Court and the suit
2004 YLR 2503 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
RAVI GLASS MILLS LIMITED VS I.C.I. PAKISTAN POWERGEN LIMITED
—-Ss. 23 & 28—Agreement executed between the parties in violation of substantive law” is void—No man can exclude himself from the protection of Courts by contract.
2004 YLR 482 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD IMTIAZ VS NASIR ALI
—-S. 7 & Form II, Columns 18, 19—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.23–Restriction on the right of husband to divorce wife—Such restriction whether against public policy—Condition for payment of damages to wife in the event of divorcing her without any
2004 CLC 1482 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
NAZIR AHMAD and others VS MUHAMMAD SALEEM and others
—-S. 23_—Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.18—Contentions of the defendants were that the agreement between the plaintiffs amounted to alienation of sale as mentioned in para. 10 of MLR 91, and as such was violative of S.23 of the Contract Act, 187
2004 MLD 1699 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
RAB NAWAZ KHAN VS Mst. WAZIRAN MAI
–S.42—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.23—Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S.52—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2—Interim injunction, grant of—Relinquishment of right of inheritance—Contract against public policy—Princip
2004 MLD 1349 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
HUSSAIN FAROOQ VS Malik JAMIL AHMAD
—-S.23—Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.12– Agreements opposed to public policy, validity of—Suit for specific performance of agreements to sell—Plaintiff’s suit was decreed by the trial Court—Appellate Court had proceeded to set aside the de
2003 SCMR 1864 SUPREME-COURT
BASHIR AHMED VS MUHAMMAD ASLAM
—-Ss.3 & 5 [as amended by Sindh Rural Credit and Transfer of Land (West Pakistan Amendment) Act (IV of 1963), Ss.3 & 4]—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.23—Alienation of land without sanction of Collector before amendment in Sindh Rural Credit and Trans
2003 PLD 808 SUPREME-COURT
DAR OKAZ PRINTING AND PUBLISHING LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS PRINTING CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN PRIVATE LIMITED
—-Ss.2(a) & 34—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.23—Arbitration agreement-ÂExpression “arbitration agreement” within the contemplation of S.2(a), Arbitration Act, 1940 means a written agreement to submit present or future differences to arbitration whet
2003 CLD 614 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
YOUSAF SOAP FACTORY VS DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS, , BRANCH TRADE MARKS REGISTRY, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN
—-Ss. 8, 14 & 73—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss. 23 & 24—Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 114—Registration of trade mark “Bhains Soap”- –Respondent filed opposition to appellant’s such application and also sought registration of trade mark “Bha
2003 CLC 471 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ABDUL RASHID VS WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (WAPDA)
—-Cl. 8—Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act (XXXI of 1958), S.29—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.23—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.23, 24(1) & 199—Constitutional petition—Loss of Bonds and issue of duplicates—Petitioner lo
2003 PLD 495 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
CLIFTON AND DEFENCE TRADERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION VS PRESIDENT, CLIFTON CANTONMENT BOARD, KARACHI
—-S. 282(18)(23)—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.23—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199—Advertisement Policy, 1999—Allowing erection of unauthorised board of 60′ x 20′ on basis of compromise executed between licensee and Cantonment Board duri
2002 SCMR 1903 SUPREME-COURT
Messrs TRIBAL FRIENDS CO. VS PROVINCE OF BALOCHISTAN
?
2002 CLD 276 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
TEXTILE MANAGEMENT (PVT.) LIMITED VS N.I.T.
—-Ss.9 & 10—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.23—Application for leave to defend the suit —Murabahah agreement —Re-scheduling- Suit was filed by borrowers for return of pledged shares– Contention of the borrower was that under Morabahah agreement th
2002 PTD 1599 FEDERAL-TAX-OMBUDSMAN-PAKISTAN
CIROS ENTERPRISES, RAWALPINDI VS SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD
—S.50(4)—Sales Tax Act, 1990, S.3A—Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S.9–Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 23—C.B.R. Letter C.No. 1(74) WHT/2000, dated 16-4-2001—Sales tax—Deduction of tax at source—Comp
2001 SCMR 1053 SUPREME-COURT
SAMI UL HAQ VS MAQBOOL HUSSAIN BUTT
Contract Act 1872 —-S. 23—Contract against public policy—Provisions of S. 23 of Contract Act, 1872—Applicability—Transferring of rights prior to completion of allotment proceedings–Lawful contract was entered into for lawful consideration and purpose between the parties except that the bar existed with regard to the transfer of rights in the property—Authorities were to exercise or enforce barring clause and on completion of the formalities by the allottee, and they could waive/vacate the bar —Allottee had transferred the rights what he” possessed under the terms of the agreement and the Authorities could have taken action against the allottee in case any of the terms of the agreement in respect of allotment was infringed—Where terms of the contract could be enforced after removal of bar by the Authorities by ex post facto permission, such agreement between the parties with regard to sale of the property was riot illegal or against the public policy:
2001 MLD 1925 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MALIK HAJI VS ABDUL RAZAQ
—-S.23—Lawful contract—There could be no lawful agreement for the purpose of satisfying the negative feelings/desires of one party and to defeat the legitimate right of any other person—Agreement having element of collusiveness, would fall within
2001 PLD 129 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ANJUMAN PRIZE BOND DEALERS VS PROVINCE OF PUNJAB AND 3 OTHERS
Contract Act 1872 —-S. 23—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art-199 —Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S.3—Intra-Court Appeal—Prize Bond dealers —Parchi system—Wagering contract—Contract opposed to public policy–Scope—Prize Bond dealers instead of selling prize bonds used to issue serial numbers of Prize Bonds to their customers commonly known as Parchi system—Said system was declared to be illegal by the Government in its Circular—Circular was challenged in Constitutional petition before High Court—High Court dismissed the petition—Validity—Agreement between the parties was that of wagering, which was synonymous with betting or gambling—Where such contract was allowed to be entered into and given effect, the consideration or the object of the agreement would be unlawful and the same would become void—Such agreement was not only immoral but also opposed to the public policy—High Court expressed its concern that it would be unjust and unfair to leave the people in the hands of unwary Prize Bond Dealers, who had established their business without the backing of any law as also without any license thereby regulating their affairs—Sale and purchase of Prize Bonds was backed by guarantee of the State and so was the case about the prizes while in case of the dealers no such guarantee existed—Dealers were free to go back on their promise and the grievance of the Parchi-holders could not be redressed in a Court of law for no wagering contract could be enforced in a Court of law.
2001 PLD 264 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
HABIB BANK LTD. VS A.B.M. GRANER (PVT.) LTD. AND OTHERS
Contract Act 1872 —-S. 23—Contract against public policy—Administration of justice—What could not be done directly, could not be done indirectly and no agreement against public policy was a valid contract.
2001 YLR 1549 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
UNITED BANK LTD., KARACHI VS GRAVURE PACKAGING (PVT.) LTD.
Contract Act 1872 —-S. 23—Expression public policy’–Concept—Scope.
2001 CLC 1599 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MUHAMMAD RAFIQ VS THE STATE
Contract Act 1872 —-S. 23—Benami nature of transaction against public policy—Purchase of property by Government servant in name of his relatives—Where no such restriction was imposed on Government servant to purchase immovable property in the name of other person, provisions of S.23 of Contract Act. 1872 were not applicable.
2001 CLC 1312 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
HAROON MANDRAH VS ABDUL RAHIM
—-S. 7-A—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.23—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199—Removal of unauthorized construction—Maxim “Caveat emptor”—Applicability—Builders had constructed three floors in total violation of the approved building plan
2001 MLD 1351 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
HABIB BANK VS QAYYUM SPINNING LTD.
Contract Act 1872 —-S. 23—Expression ‘public policy’—Concept—Scope.
2000 PLD 841 SUPREME-COURT
HUB POWER COMPANY LIMITED (HUBCO) VS PAKISTAN WAPDA
Contract Act 1872 —-S. 23—Illegal objects and considerations of an agreement—Agreement was alleged to have been obtained through fraud or bribe—Allegations of corruption were supported by circumstances which provided basis for further probe into the matter judicially, and, if proved would render the agreement as void—Dispute between the parties was not commercial dispute arising from an undisputed legally valid contract, or relatable to such a contract, for, on account of such criminal acts disputed documents did not bring into existence any legally binding contract between the parties, therefore, dispute primarily related to the very existence of valid contract and not a dispute under such a. contract—Such matter, according to the public policy, held, required finding about alleged criminality and was not referable to arbitration.
2000 PLD 461 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
PAKISTAN WAPDA VS KOT ADDU POWER CO LTD
Contract Act 1872 S..23—Expression “public policy” occurring in S.23, Contract Act, 1872—Connotation—Expression “public policy” means that no man can lawfully do that which has a tendency to be injurious to the public welfare–“Public policy” comprehends protection and promotion of public welfare–Such is the principle under which freedom to contract or private dealing “is restricted by law for the good of community”—Meaning of public policy is the interest of persons other than the parties.
1999 YLR 2201 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. VS CHOHAN VEGETABLE GHEE MILLS LTD.
—-Ss. 15, 19, 20 & O. VII, R. 10—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 28—Suit for recovery of damages—Jurisdiction of Court—Rejection of plaint—Insurance policies containing jurisdiction clause—Effect—Parties had agreed that in case of claim in r
1999 YLR 2049 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MIR ABID KHAN VS KARACHI PUBLIC TRANSPORT AND SOCIAL EDUCATION SOCIETY
—-S. 34—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 23–Agreement between the parties contained arbitration clause—Defendant was registered as a Society subsequent to the said agreement—Defendant applied for stay of proceedings on the ground that relationship b
1999 CLC 1320 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
HUB POWER CO. VS WAPDA
Contract Act 1872 S. 23—Term “public policy “—Difficult to define—Term “public policy” is a relative terminology inasmuch as while one particular measure could be regarded as in accordance with public policy during the tenure of one Government, same could easily be regarded as contrary to public policy by another Government–Rules of “public policy” are by no means immutable.
1999 CLC 1018 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
CONTICOTTON S.A. CO. VS FAROOQ CORPORATION
Ss. 5, 6 & 7—Liverpool Cotton Association Rules, Rr.140 & 141–Arbitration Act (X of 1940), S.17—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.23—Foreign Arbitration Award—Enforcement—Principles—Making award rule of Court–Parties, which were members of Liverpool Cotton Association, entered into contract of sale of cotton subject to Liverpool Cotton Association Rules, whereby defendant/exporter agreed to supply 1050 bales of cotton to plaintiffs/importers—Defendant according to the agreement shipped 582 bales and parties agreed to the supply balance quantity up to specified date on condition that if defendant would fail to supply balance quantity in time, contract between parties would be closed on that day on basis of market difference—Defendant/exporter failed to make shipment of balance quantity of cotton up to specified date for reasons that Government of Pakistan had temporarily suspended export of cotton on account of poor crop of cotton–Plaintiffs refused to accept excuse of defendant, served formal notice on defendant of their intention to proceed to arbitration to close out unfulfilled part of contract as per Rules of Liverpool Cotton Association and appointed their arbitrator—Arbitrator appointed on behalf of defendant fully participated in arbitration proceedings and arbitrators gave their award whereby defendant was directed to pay difference of amount—Appeal of defendant against award of Arbitrators was dismissed for non-payment of requisite fee for filing appeal within time—Plaintiff filed award in Court to make it rule of Court —Validity–Award was objected to by defendant contending that due to suspension of export of cotton by Pakistan Government, it had no liability for non-delivery of balance quantity of cotton and that due to such prevention, force majeure clause in contract of sale had come into effect which had rendered contractual clause invalid including arbitration clauses—Legality—Suspension of export of cotton being temporary, it could not be said that contract between parties had become impossible for performance or it had become frustrated at relevant time—Public Notice whereby export of cotton was temporarily suspended, by no stretch of imagination could be construed as a declaration to the effect that export of cotton had become illegal—Reliance of defendant/exporter on S.23 of Contract Act, 1872, was misconceived—Objections raised by defendant/exporter to award being baseless, same was ordered to be made rule of Court—Courts ought not to entertain objections to foreign award, executable in Pakistan unless those strictly lay within four corners of S.7 of Arbitration (Protocol Convention) Act, 1937.
1999 PTD 1260 KERALA-HIGH-COURT-INDIA
SUNDARESWARAN VS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
—-Business expenditure—Damages for breach of contract —Assessee agreeing to supply commodity to foreign buyer —Assessee unable to supply commodity—Contract providing for arbitration—Foreign buyers claiming damages in letters received in accoun
1998 SCMR 1921 SUPREME-COURT
FATIMA BIBI VS MAHMOOD HUSSAIN
Contract Act 1872 —-S. 23—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)—Person, who was awarded death sentence on charge of murder and his mercy petition before the President was pending, through a registered sale, deed transferred a portion of his land in favour of the legal heirs of murdered person on the consideration of Rs.1,000 and remaining portion of land was owned by sons of murdered as a consideration of their pardoning/forgiving the convict—Convict was hanged to death and legal heirs of said convict filed suit against the heirs of murdered on ground that since the convict had been hanged to death, the condition on which the transfer was made, the transfer of land stood frustrated—Heirs of murdered resisted the suit and pleaded that they abided by the compromise deed but could not stop the hanging to death of convict as the same was out of their power—Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether the High Court in revision could legally set aside the concurrent findings of Courts below and whether on facts and circumstances of the case the registered sale-deed was hit by S.23 of the Contract Act, 1872.
1998 CLC 1952 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MUHAMMAD SALEEM VS ADMINISTRATOR, KARACHI METROPOLITAN CORPORATION.
Ss. 6 & 7-A—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.23—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199—Constitutional petition—Sealing of premises —Validity–Petitioners who were in occupation of premises in question as bona fide purchasers thereof, had challenged sealing of premises by respondent Authorities alleging that action of sealing the premises was without lawful authority–Building/premises in question had been constructed without approval of its building plan by Authority in the manner provided in S.6 of Sindh Building Control Ordinance, 1979—Petitioners before occupying such illegally constructed building had failed to obtain occupancy certificate as required under S.6(2) of Sindh Building Control Ordinance, 1979—Petitioners, in circumstances, were not legally competent to occupy premises in question and as petitioners had violated provisions of S.6(1) of Sindh Building Control Ordinance, 1979, respondent Authorities were competent under S.7-A of Sindh Building Control Ordinance, 1979 to take action of sealing of premises—Plea of being bona fide purchasers raised by petitioners, would be of no help to them as under law they were not even legally competent to purchase premises in question from owner/builder and occupy same.
1998 MLD 544 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MUHAMMAD ASLAM GATTA VS KARACHI BUILDING CONTROL AUTHORITY (K.M.C.), M.A. JINNAH ROAD, KARACHI
Contract Act 1872 —-Ss. 6, 7-A, 12 & 19—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.23—Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S.53-A—Plaintiffs acquiring flats and shops in different building projects which were constructed in violation of approved building plan—Plaintiffs claiming to be purchasers for value in good faith seeking protection of S.53-A, Transfer of Property Act, 1882—Builder’s legal competence and authority to deliver physical possession of flat/shop to allottee/purchaser in view of prohibition appearing in S.6(2), Sindh Building Control Ordinance, 1979—Legal consequences of delivery of possession and registration of sub-leases in violation of S.6(2), Sindh Building Control Ordinance, 1979—Illegality of contract not pleaded by defendants —Effect–Plaintiffs’ plea that defendants having not pleaded illegality of contract between plaintiffs and builders, same could not be considered by Court, was not sustainable on the ground; that such question was framed by Court itself; that plaintiff had based their claim on such agreement; and status of parties to such contract was to be determined by contents thereof—All contracts which were entered in violation of law or any provision thereof, would be void in terms of S.23, Contract Act, 1872—Specific prohibition had been imposed on builders that no building which was constructed in violation of approved plan would be occupied by any person or would be allowed by builders to be occupied by any person unless on application of occupant or owner, Building Control Authority had issued occupancy certificate in prescribed manner—Building in question, therefore, should have been constructed in accordance with approved plan–Construction of building being in violation of approved plan no certificate was issued by Authority for occupying the same—Plaintiffs having failed to show that their possession was not intended to defeat provisions of Sindh Building Control Ordinance, equity would not be in their favour and they could not be deemed to be bona fide purchasers for value to protect their possession.
1997 SCMR 855 SUPREME-COURT
HAMEEDULLAH VS HEADMISTRESS, GOVERNMENT GIRLS SCHOOL, CHOKARA, DISTRIC KARAK
Contract Act 1872 —-S.23—Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.21—Agreement to transfer land in consideration -for employment—Validity—Agreement between plaintiff and defendant (Government) was in the nature of sale of public office, consideration being transfer of land—Such agreement was illegal and against public policy being hit by S.23, Contract Act, 1872, specific performance whereof, could not be granted.
1996 MLD 809 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MUHAMMAD SALEH VS SALAHUDDIN
Contract Act 1872 —-S.23—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, R.11—Plea of rejection of plaint on the ground that consideration for agreement on which suit was based was not lawful consideration—Charging of “Pugri” as a consideration for assignment of tenancy by a tenant to another person was alleged as basis for such application for rejection of plaint—Such payment is usually made by tenant to landlord but payment involved in case was not payment to landlord but payment made by a person intending to acquire tenancy to another person, who himself was a tenant, in consideration for the latter agreeing to assign his rights of tenancy—Whether or not agreement to pay consideration for assignment of tenancy was hit by provisions of S.23, Contract Act, 1872 could not be determined at preliminary stage—Such question would have to be decided at the trial—Plaint, thus, could not be rejected without trial of suit.
1996 CLC 678 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
RIAZ AHMED VS AMTUL HAMEED KOSER
Contract Act 1872 —-S. 23—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.I, R. 10—Agreement to finance litigation in consideration of sharing prospective spoils of litigation–Such agreement being opposed to public policy in terms of S. 23, Contract Act, 1872, was champertous in nature—Agreement in question, stipulating to convey 30 per cent. of estate to appellant, could be deemed to be extortionate or unconscionable—In such matters proportion of benefit to claim to be pursued and its rates with plausible prospective expenses of litigation were important considerations for judging .extortionate or immoral nature of transaction–Agreement in question, being champertous was, thus, void and unenforceable in line with prohibition in S. 23, Contract Act, 1872—Beneficiary of such agreement could not be allowed to be joined in suit as a matter of right.
1995 CLC 1906 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
INAYAT ALI SHAH VS ANWAR HUSSAIN
Contract Act 1872 S. 23—Agreement against public policy—Test—Agreements should be carefully scrutinized and when found to be unconscionable, unjust or inequitable or for improper object or against law or oppressive or leading to vexatious litigation, same would be, deemed to be against public policy.
1995 MLD 1714 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ANAYAT ALI SHAH VS ANWAR HUSSAIN
Contract Act 1872 —S.23—Agreement—Public policy—Validity—Agreements should be carefully scrutinized and when found to be unconscionable unjust or inequitable for improper object or against law or oppressive or leading to vexatious litigation, same should be deemed to be against public policy.
1994 SCMR 782 SUPREME-COURT
GOVERNMENT OF SINDH VS KHALIL AHMED
—-S.12 (2)—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 23—Decree passed on the basis of void agreement—Limitation—Action taken on the basis of a void agreement including the decree passed being nullity, no bar of limitation could be pleaded for setting aside
1994 CLC 1280 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
NORWICH UNION FIRE INS. SOCIETY LTD., KARACHI VS ZAKARIA INDUSTRIES,KARACHI
Contract Act 1872 S. 23—Applicability of S. 23, Contract Act, 1872—Provision of S. 23, Contract Act, 1872, would apply to agreements and not to acknowledgements.
1993 PLD 227 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
ABDUL RAZZAK & CO. VS A.C. CUSTOMS
Ss.23 & 65 — Agreement to purchase goods in question, when opposed to public policy would be void — Plaintiff in such case would be entitled to the refund of earnest amount deposited by him for the purchase of such goods.
1992 MLD 903 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
SUGHRA KAUSAR VS MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE MANAN
Contract Act 1872 —-S.23—Transactions in consideration of “pugree” are barred under provision of S.23, Contract Act, 1872.
1991 CLC 1591 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
ABDUL RAZZAK VS KARACHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Contract Act 1872 S.23—Void contract—Connotation–Every agreement of which object or consideration was unlawful would be void—Where consideration or object of agreement was lawful, but same was of such nature, that if permitted, it would defeat provisions of any law or Court regarded the same as opposed to public policy, it would be void.
1991 MLD 801 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
M.K. MUHAMMAD VS MUHAMMAD ABOOBAKAR
—-S.5—West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S.7–Contract Act (IX of 1872), S”23—Pugri–Agreement between parties was entered into at a time when Ordinance VI of 1959 was in operation—Charging of pugri or premium as a consid
1991 PLC 10 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
NEW JUBILCT INSURANCE EMPLOYEES’ UNION, KARACHI VS SINDH LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KARACHI
—S. 3(4) gadded by Employees’ Cost of Living (Relief) (Amendment) Ordinance (XXXII of 1980)] & S. 9—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 23—Settlement between Trade Union and establishment was concluded whereby establishment agreed to increase basic salary
1990 PLD 48 SUPREME-COURT
LAHORE STOCK EXCHANGE VS FREDRICK J.W. GROUP
S.23 — Arbitration Act (X of 1940), S.20 Arbitration agreement containing a broadly worded clause which covered any dispute or difference or question arising between the parties in respect of the interpretation of the agreement or, concerning anything contained therein or as to the rights, liabilities or the duties of the parties thereunder — Such agreement prima facie cannot be said to be illegal and is not hit by S.23 of the Contract Act, 1872.
1990 PLD 1 SUPREME-COURT
GHULAM ALI VS GHULAM SARWAR NAQVI
Ss. 25, 23 & 16 — Relinquishment of her inheritance by a female co-sharer without consideration — Such relinquishment having been declared void being against public policy under S. 23 of the Contract Act cannot be revived and given life merely because it suffered from another serious infirmity and such infirmity could not be overcome by a resort to exceptions given in S.25 of the Act- -Presumption would be that relinquishment was not on account of natural love but on account of social constraints.
1990 MLD 1344 SUPREME-COURT-INDIA
A.B.C. LAMINART (Pvt.) Ltd. VS A.P. AGENCIES, SALEM
Contract Act 1872 —Ss. 23 & 28—Contract to vest jurisdiction in one of Courts within whose jurisdiction cause of action arises is not against public policy—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.20 (c).
1989 SCMR 196 SUPREME-COURT
GHULAM NABI VS MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ
—S. 23–Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)–Illegal contract–Effect–If agreement was illegal and parties pari delicto, a Court would be reluctant to assist them in retrieving properties transferred thereunder, but a plaintiff can succeed in
1989 CLC 2194 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ALI MUHAMMAD VS BASHIR AHMAD
Contract Act 1872 —S.23–Arbitration Act (X of 1940), S.30–Agreement to refer civil and criminal disputes to arbitrator simultaneously was against public policy–Award as a consequence of that proceeding was illegal, being in defiance of S.23, Contract Act as well as S.30 of the Arbitration Act.
1989 CLC 517 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
WAHABUN NISA VS ABDUL SATTAR
S.14–Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.23–“Pugrec”–Validity of–Plea of tenant that he had paid Pugree to late husband of widow seeking ejectment of tenant, was not borne out from record–Any transaction of such nature, held, would be violative of law and would not be enforceable–Personal requirement of a widow and ejectment sought on that ground could not be defeated even if agreement was taken on its face value as no body could opt or contract out of legal protection.
1989 CLC 506 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MUHAMMAD ILYAS VS KHURSHID BEGUM
S.15(2)(vii)??Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.23??Pugree??Validity of??Any agreement regarding payment of “Pugrce” in respect of rented premises is void.
Shaikh Muhammad Yousuf v. District Judge, Rawalpindi and 2 others 1987 S C M R 307 ref. Manohar Lal for Appellant. Gulzar Ahmed for Respondent. Date of hearing: 2nd November, 1988.
1987 PLD 398 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
QASIM KHAN VS JALAL
23–Agreement–Consideration of agreement a compromise of a criminal case involving non-compoundable offence–Such agreement being void and against public policy, held, was clearly hit by S.23, Contract Act, 1872.
1986 SCMR 888 SUPREME-COURT
SHAMOON VS AHMAD
— Para. 25-Sale Scheme, para. 32(c)-Contract Act (1X of 1872), S. 23-Agreement to sell not prohibited by para. 32(c) of Sale Scheme-Provisions of S. 23, Contract Act, 1872, therefore, were not attracted-Purchaser of land under para, 32(c) of Scheme cann
1986 PLD 16 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MUHAMMAD HANIF VS MUMTAZ AHMAD
Ss. 7 & 13-Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 23-Landlord after having accepted Pagri in respect of tenement is not legally entitled to seek relief under Ordinance-Any agreement providing for Pagri would be hit by prohibition contained in S.7 of Ordinance and would fall in the ambit of S. 23, Contract Act, 1872-Term “Pagrie”, connotation of – Legal effect of “Pagri” explained.[Words and phrases].
1984 CLC 2158 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
BASHIR AHMAD VS SARDAR MUHAMMAD
–Ss. 23, 57 & 58-Agreement to sell land-Mentioning of deflated price to defraud Government-Validity of agreement-Contention that in order to save taxes deflated sale price of Rs. 50,000 instead of Rs. 68,000 agreed upon by parties, has been shown in agre
1984 CLC 3401 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
FAZAL MUHAMMAD VS AIYSHAN
— S. 62-Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 23–Grant of land under S. 62 of Code -Terms and conditions of grant-Land granted inter alia on condition that grantee was not entitled to mortgage, sell or lease same before all dues were cleared without permission
1984 CLC 2509 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
UNITED BANK LTD. VS AMIR ALI
—S.37–Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.23–Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881), S.118–Suit for recovery of bank money–Promissory note relied by Bank not executed for valid consideration but to stifle criminal prosecution and becoming void–No presu
1984 MLD 872 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
AZIZ AHMAD SIDDIQUI VS MUHAMMAD IQBAL
Contract Act 1872 —S. 23–Consideration shown in agreement–Effect–Consideration shown in agreement, found correct and final agreed upon between parties-Plaintiff’s reply to defendants’ notice that only Rs.19,000 was to be paid as balance and that relevant date was 25th May, 1978 and not 15th May, 1978 never denied by defendants–Genuineness of agreement of sale and its execution, held, conclusively proved.
1983 CLC 595 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ABDUL HAMEED VS MUHAMMAD AKHTAR
XXXIII, r. 7 and O. XXIII r. 3, Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 23, West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S. 15 and Oaths Act (1X of 1878), S. 3-Contention that respondents Nos. 1 to 4 being minors as such incapable of accepting offer of special oath without express permission of Court-Held, swearing of special oath or, its refusal not likely to affect better interests of minors-Held, permission of Court i n circumstances not necessary-Appellant bound by offer made by him.
1982 CLC 970 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
TAJ DIN VS MUHAMMAD ZAFAR
____ S. 75 read with Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 23-Petitioner getting exchange of lunatic’s immovable property effected without prior permission of Court-Transaction being forbidden by law, not voidable but void and could be challenged by any person-Plaintiff-respondent in his capacity as heir of lunatic and having stepped into shoes of his predecessor lunatic, held, competent to get mutation declared void.
1982 PLD 627 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
SARGODHA CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. VS NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE CO.
Ss. 23 & 28 and Limitation Act (IX of 1908)-Insurance Policy Clause in Insurance Policy limiting liability of Insurance Company for a certain period, held, not hit by $s. 23 & 28 of Contract Act, 1872.
1982 CLC 1416 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
HABIB AHMAD VS HASHMAT ALI
23 – Agreement subject to compliance of law – Previous sanction of Collector required for sale-Sale, in violation/contravention of any provision of law, held, void but agreement to sell, subject to compliance of relevant law, legal and enforceable, provided legal requirement can be complied with.
1981 PLD 170 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
ALI MUHAMMAD KHAN VS RIAZUDDIN KHERA
23 read with Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 12-Contingent contract-Specific performance-Sale of immovable property-Terms of agreement clear as to, parties having never intended to violate any provision of law-Agreement, held, neither void nor against public policy.-[Agreement].
1980 SCMR 469 SUPREME-COURT
SHAHUL HAMID VS TAHIR ALI
— S. 11 read with Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 23, Evidence Act (I of 1872), S. 44& Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 4(1)-Estoppel against law-Res judicata-Waiver-Section 11; Civil Procedure Code, 1908 laying down principle of res judicata-Mandato
1979 CLC 472 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
PUNJAB CLUB, LAHORE VS HABIB ULLAH TARAR
23 & Articles of Association of Punjab Club, Art. 21-Nothing unreasonable or against public policy in Art. 21 debarring a person from membership when dismissed from public service.
1979 PLD 865 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD AHMAD VS AMJAD BEG
19 read with Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss. 23, 57 & 58State land-Grant of land on Bara conditions-Agreement for transfer of tenancy rights in such land entered into without obtaining written consent of Commissioner, Collector or any other Officer–.Held, void-Covenants of such agreement not separable-Agreement as a whole, held, bad being in violation of S. 19, Colonization Act-Such agreement cannot be legalised by invoking doctrine of “feeding of estoppel” provided in S. 43, Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882).[Estoppel].
1979 CLC 321 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
EASTERN FEDERAL UNION INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. VS BAWANY INDUSTRIES LTD., KARACHI
23-Contract, enforcement of-Insurance policies not in violation of provisions of Insurance Act, 1938 or Rules framed thereunder nor involving any moral turpitude or involving contracting out of any mandatory provisions of an enactment enacted for benefits of defendants, S. 23, held, not applicable-[Sundra Bai Sita Ram and another v. Manohor Bhondu A I R 1933 Bom. 262 ; Kali Kumari Baisnabai v. Mono Mohini Baisnabai A I R 1935 Cal. 748 ; Atta Muhammad Qureshi v. Settlement Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore and 2 others P L D 1971 S C 61 ; Wali Mohd. and another v. Messrs Noor All & Co. P L D 1963 Kar. 32 ; Trans Ocean Asia v. Alpha Insurance Co. Ltd. P L J 1975 Kar. 33 and E. A. Evans v. Mohd. Ashraf P L D 1964 S C 536 held not applicable].
1978 PLD 421 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD AHMAD VS AMJAD BEG
Ss. 23, 57 & 58 and Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912), S. 19-Agreements partly void -Enforcibility of Court cannot alter basic nature of agreement in severing bad part from good–Grantee of State lard entering into agreement with another person stipulating to transfer his tenancy rights in State land to him and also to transfer proprietary rights after acquisition of same-Stipulation with regard to transfer of proprietary rights not separately enforceable:-Such agreement as a whole, held, bad being in violation of S. 19. Colonization of Government Lands Punjab Act, 1912.
1977 PLD 814 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
SHARIF KHAN VS RAJA ABDUR REHMAN
23-Maxim : Ex dolo malo yon orftur actio (Court will not lend aid to person founding his cause of action upon an immoral or illegal act)-Contention that defendant having admitted real consideration for transaction being suppressed and fictitious figures given to evade public taxes, impugned agreement was void-Suppression of real figures having been made at instance of plaintiff objectors, plaintiffs, held, equally in part delicto with defendants and contention of no avail-Party cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own fraud.
Maxim].
1976 PLD 254 SUPREME-COURT
CHAIRMAN, ELECTRICITY WAPDA, LAHORE VS CH. MUHAMMAD SHAFI, ADVOCATE
25-Contract Act (I of 1872), S. 23-Contract-WAPDA empowered under S. 25 to change rates of power subject to directions in subsection (2) of S. 25-Conditions in agreement of supply between consumer and WAPDA consistent with law and requirement of subsection (2) kept in view (to defeat large scale pilferage of energy by levying fixed charge on connected load basis)Change in rates, held, not unauthorised and provisions of S. 23, Contract Act, 1572, not attracted to case.-[Contract].
1973 PLD 131 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
JAM KHURSHID KHAN VS PROVINCE OF WEST PAKISTAN
-Arbitration agreement fixing time during which reference may be made to arbitration-Valid-Clause in contract limiting time, within which a reference to arbitration could be made, to a period of one month only from date of expiry of agreement-Neither void
1972 PLD 226 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
SULTAN TEXTILE MILLS (KARACHI) LTD., KARACHI VS MUHAMMAD YOUSUF SHAMSI
Contract Act 1872 – S. 23-Illegality of contracts at common law- Different in implications from illegality resulting from statutory prohibition-“Public policy”-Question whether a contract or its performance against public policy-Mixed question of law and fact-Courts may deduce pleas but cannot make deductions which may be mere surmises-Common law concept not to be resorted to in presence of S. 23-Disregard of law of pleadings-Cannot be justified in name of public policy.
1972 PLD 46 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR
SARDAR MUHAMMAD YASIN KHAN, ADVOCATE VS RAJA FEROZE KHAN
Contract Act 1872 S. 23—“Public policy”-Meaning-Agreement not absolutely depriving an aggrieved person of seeking redress from a Court of justice but only debarring hint from launching criminal proceedings-Cannot be considered as being necessarily against public policy—Maxim ubi jus ibi remedium (where there is a right there must also be a remedy is in point.
1971 PLD 93 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN, KARACHI VS MESSRS MUHAMMAD SHAM & SONS, PESHAWAR CANTT
Ss. 28 & 23–Clause in contract curtailing period of limitation to enforce rights arising under contract-Void.
1971 PLD 763 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
VS
Contract Act 1872 S. 23-Bye-laws of a Cooperative Society-Do not have force of law and are only domestic matters-Transaction which has effect of evading such bye-lawsCould not be treated as unlawful or fraudulent.
1971 PLD 147 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
VS
XXIII, r. 3 read with Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 23-Agreement-Order passed by consent in ejectment proceedings before Rent Controller resulting in compromise between parties-Agreement attempting to alter relevant law of succession and plaintiff having no legal title in property-Compromise, in circumstances, held, tainted with fraud and misrepresentation and thus not lawful and could not be acted upon.
1971 PLD 112 DHAKA-HIGH-COURT
HOSSAIN ALI KHAN VS FIROZA BEGUM
XXIII, r. 3 read with Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 23-Compromise decree Agreement forming basis of compromise decree-Must be lawful-Court cannot pass decree in accordance with agreement which is contrary to law and void-Decree passed in terms of void agreement-Can be attacked in subsequent suit on ground of its being void-Terms of compromise affecting status and property of minor-Such agreement being hit by S. 23, Contract Act, 1872, compromise decree passed in terms of such void agreement, held, can be challenged in separate suit.
1970 PLD 283 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD SHARIF VS SH. MUHAMMAD AMIN
Ss. 13 & 2(c) and Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 23Straager to contract when can challenge genuineness of document Expression “injury to the person or property of another” in S. 23, Contract Act-Sale transaction of house-Sale of house by A & B in favour of S-M, a tenant in respect of house contending that B was not present at time of execution of sale deed, hence there was no valid transfer and S (the transferee) could not therefore maintain application for ejectment under S. 13 of Ordinance VI of 1959 till declaration of valid transfer obtained from civil Cour1Held, S prima facie entitled to receive rent by virtue of S. 2(c) of Ordinance and Rent Controller had exclusive jurisdiction to decide question of landlord and tenant.
1970 PLD 619 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MST. TAHERA BEGUM VS SALEEM AHMED SIDDIQUI
Contract Act 1872 Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890), S. 25-Custody and guardianship of minors-Cannot be settled by private compromise or even arbitration-Agreement between parties in this respect-Not enforceable although it could be evidence of abandonment of child by one of the parents-Mother to avoid lengthy litigations for getting divorce, agreeing to let minor girl aged 31 years to remain in custody of father-Held, mother, in circumstance, did not abandon child-Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 23.
1970 PLD 241 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
ATLASINDUSTRIAL AND TRADING CORPORATION,
KARACHI
VS DR. JALIL ASGHAR
Contract Act 1872 S. 23-Constitution opposed to public policy-Use of position and influence with Government Officer in procuring benefit fur other party being consideration of contract-Contract, held, opposed to public policy and hence void.
1970 PLD 123 DHAKA-HIGH-COURT
SREE PURNENDU KUMAR DAS-DEFENDANT VS SREE HIRAN KUMAR DAS-PLAINTIFF
Contract Act 1872 S. 23 -Undue influence—-Criminal cases filed by A against B—B confronted with charge of breaking contract before Magistrate in open Court and suggestion of compromise offered –agreeing to execute agreement to sell land and executing it during pendency of criminal proceedings-Criminal cases subsequently dismissed for non-prosecution- Contract, in circumstances held, hit by S. 23 and consideration of agreement unlawful.
1969 SCMR 818 SUPREME-COURT
MUHAMMAD ASLAM VS FATEH KHATOON
—S. 23-Agreement executed by husband at time of marriage that “if he – violated any terms of agreement he would pay Rs. 2,000”-Husband subsequently violating most of the terms; contracting second marriage and turning out his first wife-Held, some of the
1969 PLD 313 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN THROUGH
DEFENCE SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN
VS NAZAR DIN KHATTAK & SONS
Contract Act 1872 Ss. 23 & 28 read with Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 3 & First Schad.-Contract prescribing limitation period for institution of legal proceedings contrary to provisions of Limitation Act, 1908-Void to such extent-Terms of contract prescribing limitation to sue within three months of breach of contract-Such term in contract, held, void and statutory period of limitation, in circumstances, 3 years in terms of S. 3 & First Sched. of Limitation Act, 1908.
1969 PLD 324 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MST. HAWA VS MUHAMMAD YOUSUF AND OTHERS
Contract Act 1872 S. 23-Contract void by statute when made-Cannot become valid by subsequent repeal of statute. , Sale of agricultural land measuring less than three hundred acres was prohibited under the provisions of Sind Rural Credit and Transfer of Laud Act (XLIX of 1947), without the sanction of the Collector. The impugned transaction took place without such sanction. It was contended that the said prohibition was subsequently repealed and as such the transaction was no longer void by statute. The High Court observed: “At the time the sales took place, the provisions regarding the sanction of the Collector existed in Act XLIX of 1947. The transactions of sale will, therefore, be governed by the law as it existed at the time they were entered into. Any subsequent change in law will not retrospectively affect the rights that may have been acquired and the liabilities that have been incurred.
1969 PLD 221 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
SULTAN VS NAWAB MOULADAD
-Nature-Ostensible owner cannot enforce his right against “benamidar” if object of agreement between the two is fraudulent-Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 23.
1969 PCRLJ 1414 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR
Sardar MUHAMMAD YASIN KHAN VS Raja FIROZE KHAN
Contract Act 1872 S. 23-Public policy-Meaning-Agreement opposed to public policy-Agreement not absolutely depriving aggrieved person of seeking redress from Court of Justice but only debarring him from launching criminal proceedings-Not necessarily against public policy.
1968 SCMR 1313 SUPREME-COURT
VS
—-S. 23-Civil suit-Compromise between parties pending proceeding-Object of agreement to settle not only civil dispute but to “finish” criminal cases between parties as well-Some of offences for which criminal cases filed, not compoundable-Compromise whe
1968 PLD 1001 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
KHUDA BAKHSH AND OTHERS VS MST. KHUDEJA BIBI
Gift–Gift deed reciting gift of house to bride by father of bridegroom in consideration of her contracting marriage with his son-Contract valid and binding when such marriage takes place – Such marriage settlement an exception to rule against a stranger to contract enforcing it-Such gift governed by general principles of contract and should not be made complicated by introducing principle of Muhammadan Law relating to gift-Contract Act (1X of 1872) Ss. 2(d) & 23.
1967 PLD 1104 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD ZAMAN VS IRSHAD BEGUM
(a) Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 23-Contract-Consideration `opposed to public policy-Stipulation in restraint of marriage Agreement by Muslim husband with his wife allowing her to live separately if he takes a second wife-Not opposed to public policy either under Muhammadan Law or within meaning of S. 23-Such agreement not invalid-[Mst. Bai Fatima v. Ali Muhammad Aiyeb I L R 37 Bom. 280 and Mst. Bibi Fatima v. Nur Muhammad (1921) 601 C 88 dissented from].
1967 PLD 144 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
KARACHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION LTD. VS BANK OF INDIA LTD.
Contract Act 1872 —– S. 23–Contract violating any term of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947-Not ex facie or ab initio void or violative of S. 23, Contract Act, 1872–Ex post facto permission can be granted under Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 to such contract-Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (VII of 1947), S. 21.
1967 PLD 840 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
IQBAL HASAN BURNEY AND ANOTHER VS AMEEN TAREEN
—–General and special-Contract Act -(IX of 1872), S. 73.
1967 PLD 132 DHAKA-HIGH-COURT
ABUL KASEM AND OTHERS VS MOFIZUDDIN SHAH
Contract Act 1872 S. 23-Document executed to eject, that criminal proceeding between parties has been compounded-Such document itself not furnishing cause for settlement of criminal proceeding-Not hit by provision of S. 23.
1965 PLD 425 SUPREME-COURT
MANZOOR HUSSAIN VS WALI MUHAMMAD
Contract Act 1872 S. 23-Contract having unlawful object – Alleged contravention of Ss. 4 (2) & 5 (1) (a), (c), Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (VII of 1947)—Nothing ill partnership contract itself (export-import business) to show that contract had of necessity to be performed in an illegal manner or in manner which offended provisions of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, but in performing same, parties adopting method which was not according to provisions of that Act-Such method, held will not determine validity or invalidity of contract Arbitration clause in such contract held to be operative Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (VII of 1947), S. 21 (1), (2), (3)Contract violating any term of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 not ex facie or ab initio void or violative of S. 23, Contract Act, 1872-Section 23, Contract Act, 1872 to be construed strictly-New categories or new heads of public policy not to be invented-Arbitration Act (X of 1940), S.20-Party attacking contract on ground of illegality himself implicated in illegality–Not entitled to Court’s assistance.
1964 PLD 807 SUPREME-COURT
MRS. ANWARA CHOWDHURY VS M. MAJID
Contract Act 1872 —–Pakistan citizen agreeing to pay price of house property in Indian currency-Permission of State Bank for transaction necessary-Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (VII of 1947), S. 21-Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 23-Agreement, whether void (quaere) Specific performance, whether can be decreed-Contention not considered, as it involved going into evidence, and owing to fact that S. 21, Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (VII of 1947), enabled regularisation of such payment by subsequent permission.
1964 PLD 337 SUPREME-COURT
SIBTAIN FAZLI VS STAR FILM DISTRIBUTORS AND MUHAMMAD ALI KHAN
Contract Act 1872 S. 5-Offence of contravention of condition of import licence—Licence not In existence on date of agreement of transfer-Agreement not indictable under S. 5-Giving effect to agreement after procuring licence, however, covered by S. 5-Agreement would be void as being against public policy-Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 23.
1964 PLD 18 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
BENGAL OIL MILLS LTD. VS DADA SONS
Ss. 56 & 23-Agreement to sell-Payment of contracted rate forbidden by law after execution of contract and before its performance-Contract, held, void
1963 PLD 32 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
WALI MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS VS MESSRS NOOR ALI & CO.
Contract Act 1872 S. 23-Provisions of Statute and Rules framed thereunder prohibiting transfer of licence granted under statute-Transaction involving transfer of licence or creation of interest therein-Void-Condition attached to licence granted under Imports and Exports (Control) Act (XXXIX of 1950) and Imports and Exports Licence (Conditions of Issue) Order, 1949Agreement in violation of such condition void .and un-enforceable.
1963 PLD 304 DHAKA-HIGH-COURT
ALHAJ KUTUBUDDIN AHMED VS ABU JAFAR HRIDWAN UDDIN AHMED AND ANOTHER
75-A read with Ss. 23 & 56 Contract Act (IX of 1872)-Lease becoming void for coming into operation of S. 75-A-Lease contract becomes unenforceable Doctrine of frustration under S. 56, Contract Act comes into play-Lease is executory contract and rights in suit properties not vested right-Hit by S. 56.
1963 PTD 690 CALCUTTA-HIGH-COURT-INDIA
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, WEST BENGAL VS KHETAN & Co.
Firm-Registration-Partnership between adults and a minor represented by guardian-Minor made liable for profits and losses-Deed signed by minor himself-Validity of partnership-Whether partnership can be registered-Guardian’s right to enter into partnership-Income-tax Act (XI of 1922), Ss. 26-A, 66(1 )-Income-tax Rules, rr. 2, 3, 5-Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss. 10, 11 & 23Partnership Act (IX of 1932), S. 30-Reference-Power of High Court to consider question from all aspects.
1962 PLD 281 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MASUD JILANI VS MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM MIRAJ-UD-DIN
Contract Act 1872 Unlawful consideration—Burden of establishing on person making such assertion-Defendant in money suit on breach of contract failing to plead illegality of contract-Cannot be allowed to take up the plea at appellate stage.
1962 PLD 409 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
SHEIKH MUHAMMAD OBAID VS MUHAMMAD RAFI QURESHI
Contract Act 1872 S. 23—-Agreement to stifle prosecution-Offence compoundable with leave of Court-Leave not obtained-Agreement within mischief of section 23-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 420.
1962 PLD 877 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MANZOOR HUSSAIN AND OTHERS VS WALI MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER
Illegal contract-Whether or when Court will set aside award on ground of-Whether Court will go into evidence produced before arbitrator-Contract alleged to be in violation of Foreign Exchange Regulations-Courts not barred from entertaining claims founded on such contract-Execution of decrees passed in such proceedings dependant upon permission of Central Government or State Bank of Pakistan-Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (VII of 1947), S. 21-Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 23 : [P L D 1958 Dacca 494 dissented from.]
1961 PLD 518 DHAKA-HIGH-COURT
AKBAR ALI KHAN VS ELAHI BAKSHA BEPARI AND OTHERS
Contract Act 1872 Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 23 -Mortgage bond obtained by creditor, by way of security, from his debtor under threat of criminal prosecution-Not hit by section so long as there is no agreement not to prosecute.
1960 PLD 166 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
DISTRICT BOARD, LYALLPUR VS ABDUL RAZZAQ
Contract Act 1872 —-Ss. 23 & 73-Agreement between District Board and building contractor that Board will be entitled to confiscate price of work done by contractor if latter attempted to bribe Board’s engineer-Allegation of such attempt Board not suffering any loss-Forfeiture clause held void.
1960 PLD 801 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
PUNJAB PROVINCE VS NISAR AHMAD
3 & 9-Liberal construction to be given to word “purchase” in rule 9-Purchase includes mortgage or exchange-Acquisition by inheritance or will not covered by rules-Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss. 23 & 25.
1959 PLD 167 SUPREME-COURT
HAJI ABDUL KARIM AND OTHERS VS SH. ALI MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS
Contract Act 1872 S. 23 read with S. 108 (a), Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)-Plaintiff alleging express fraud in suit to get contract of lease declared void-Such fraud not proved-Suit rightly dismissed.
1959 PLD 167 SUPREME-COURT
HAJI ABDUL KARIM AND OTHERS VS SH. ALI MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS
Contract Act 1872 S. 23-Contract of lease of a running factory-City of Lahore Corporation authority later forming opinion that operators of factory must take out a license Lease, held, not opposed to public policy in inception.
1957 PLD 195 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD AZAM KHAN VS AKHTAR-UN-NISA BEGUM
West Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act (IX of 1948) [as amended by Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application (Amendment) Act (XI of 1951)], S. 2-Divorce–Wife agreeing to forego dower and in addition paying a sum of money to husband who agrees in turn to divorce her, but also withdraws a criminal case against wife instituted under Ss. 380 and 317, P. P. C.-Divorce effective-Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 23-Unlawful consideration.
1956 PLD 521 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ALLAH DITTA VS ALLAH WASAYA
23-Defendant’s pleas based on an illegal transaction-May sometimes be allowed in interest of justice or public policy-Maxim: ex turpi causa non oritur actio-Application whether universal.
1953 PLD 400 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
CANTONMENT BOARD, SIALKOT CANTONMENT, THROUGH EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CANTONMENT BOARD VS SHEIKH NAZIR AHMAD
Contract Act 1872 Ss. 23, 28-Agreement opposed to public policy—In restraint of legal proceeding-Clause in agreement providing that the right to interpret terms of contract would lie exclusively in one of the parties-Void.
1953 PLD 149 DHAKA-HIGH-COURT
LAL MIA VS ABDUL GANI
Contract Act 1872 –S. 23 -Public policy Making a trade of felony-Stifling prosecution-Contract void.
1952 PLD 166 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
UMAR DIN VS FAZAL DIN
—–S. 23-Agreement to reconvey property-enforceable by law-Contract-Specific performance.