Section 14 : Free “consent” defined
2016 YLR 2102 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR
Raja MUHAMMAD ALTAF KHAN VS SOBIA TABASSUM
14—“Free consent”—Meaning.
2016 PLD 199 SUPREME-COURT
PAKISTAN RAILWAYS through AGM(Trafic), Lahore VS FOUR BROTHERS INTERNATIONAL (PVT) LTD
2(e) & Chap. II [Ss.10 to 30-C]—Agreement, rescission of—Agreement between the parties had the status of a statute and unless it was shown that any term of the agreement was violative of the law, it could not be rescinded by a party.
2016 CLD 1938 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN VS RAJA TRADERS
Ss. 9 & 10— Banking Companies Ordinance (LVII of 1962), S. 33-B—State Bank of Pakistan BPD Circular 29, dated 15.10.2002—Contract Act (IX of 1872) Ss. 13, 14 & 16—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Orders XIV & XV—Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 10-A & 25—Suit for recovery of loan amount—Leave to defend, refusal of—Concessions claimed under State Bank of Pakistan BPD Circular No.29, dated 15-10-2002—Permissibility—Right to fair trial and equality of citizens—Scope—Settlement of issues or determination of suit on issues of law or issues agreed upon—Disposal of suit at first hearing—Plaintiff-Bank filed present suit for recovery of loan amount; whereas, defendant filed connected suit seeking concessions regarding their outstanding liabilities requiring plaintiff-Bank to sign agreement in terms of decision made by Committee of State Bank of Pakistan under BPD Circular No. 29—Validity—Plaintiff-Bank could be coerced to sign any unilateral agreement, terms of which had never been agreed by Bank, as hit by provisions of Ss. 13, 14 & 16 of Contract Act, 1872—No cause of action against law—Plaintiff in connected suit was not only required to show that not only his rights had been infringed but also that right to seek a relief was in existence—BPD Circular No.29 did not provide right to defendants, unless they met precondition as set out in the said Circular, such as where chances of recovery of loan were ‘negligible’ or unit was considered as sick—Enforcement of BPD Circular No.29 by individual Banks to their respective customers was prerogative of the Banks—Banks were to decide whether debt outstanding against customer was lost debt or recoverable in terms of assets mortgaged with them—Plaintiff-Bank, who was sole decision maker as to recovery of outstanding liability, had never undertook to resolve dispute according to terms of alleged settlement of liabilities under BPD Circular No.29—In the present case, probability of recovery was not negligible, as properties were mortgaged and guarantees were enforceable—Banking Court was required to find out as to whether any question of law and fact was raised which was to be determined and whether allegations made in the plaint would give rise to cause of action or not—Filing of suit by defendant, who otherwise had no cause of action against financial institution, could not be considered to be a guarantee for grant of leave to defend the suit filed by financial institution—Orders XIV & XV, C.P.C., which dealt with issues, also supported that if parties were not at issue, judgment was to be passed straightaway without recording evidence—If no cause of action was made out, plaint was liable to be rejected—No ground, therefore, existed to consider the leave applications which were dismissed and plaint of suit filed by them was rejected—Suit for recovery of loan amount was decreed in circumstances.
2011 PLD 44 SUPREME-COURT
PAKCOM LIMITED VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN
14—Free consent—Concept—Contract, in absence of free consent, is not sustainable or enforceable as it does not depict the true intent with the application of mind—General averment that consent was not freely obtained is not enough to set up the plea that there was one of the vitiating elements enumerated under S.14, Contract Act, 1872.
2011 PLD 44 SUPREME-COURT
PAKCOM LIMITED VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN
Ss. 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21 & 22—“Coercion”, “undue influence “, “fraud”, “misrepresentation”, “mistake”-Scope-“Consent”-Ingredients-Where all the terms and conditions enumerated in the contract have been accepted by the parties freely and at their own, contract does not fall within the ambit of “coercion” as defined in S.15 or “undue influence” as defined in S.16 or “fraud” as defined in S.17 or “misrepresentation” as defined in S.18 or “mistake” as enshrined in Ss.20, 21, 22 of the Contract Act, 1872—All agreements or contracts are made by the free consent of parties—“Consent” is said to be free as provided under S.14 of the Act, when it is not caused by coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation and mistake subject to the provisions of Ss.20, 21 & 22 of Contract Act, 1872—Principles.
2010 PTD 2081 INLAND REVENUE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OF PAKISTAN
VS
Ss. 234A, 235, 236, 122(3), 122(5A) & 122(9)—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss.10, 14 & 19—C.B.R. Circular No.7(5) S.Asstt/2008 dated 16-8-2008-C.N.G. Stations—Tax years, 2004 to 2006—Disallowance of adjustment of tax deducted under Ss. 235 and 236 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 on CNG/Petrol filling station against property income of the assessee—First Appellate Authority directed that tax deducted on other income must be adjusted and the remaining amount be refunded–Department contended that First Appellate Authority was not justified in directing that the tax deducted on other income to be adjusted and the remaining amount be refunded when the taxpayer was obliged to follow the conditions laid down in agreement executed with the C.N.G. Association and the assessment was amended under S.122(3) of the Income. Tax Ordinance, 2001 in pursuance of the said agreement on agreed basis; and assessment order contained adjustment of credit of tax deducted which was in violation of the agreement made between the department and C.N.G. owners Association—Validity—Section 234-A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 was inserted by Finance Act, 2007 to deduct tax at source which was applicable for the tax year 2008 and onward—Taxpayer was entitled to claim the adjustment of all the withholding tax collected or deducted under various heads during the year under appeal—As per original return taxpayer had claimed the other business revenue on account of running of service station, alignment centre and workshop at C.N.G. Station, whereas per revised return the taxpayer had claimed that all three business premises were rented out, which had not only reduced the income but also reduced the tax liability—Taxpayer had also claimed that tax withheld on account of bill for electricity consumed by its tenants and tax deduction thereupon could not be claimed by taxpayer and if it had been depositing on telephone and electricity bills relating to CNG business then again it could be adjusted against any income—If workshop, alignment centre, service station, tyre shop were the rent business then the tax deduction on electricity and telephone bills will be claimed by the tenant while filing their return if due under the law—Owner of CNG Station could claim the tax deduction in the said branches if he declared them his own business and the people working there were claimed to be his employees—Such fact was to be thrashed keeping in view the ground realities and revised return filed by the taxpayer—Case was remanded to recalculate tax liability in the light of observations, while analyzing the ground realities after providing an opportunity of being heard to the taxpayer.
2010 PTD 2057 INLAND REVENUE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OF PAKISTAN
VS
Ss.234A, 235, 236, 122(1), 122(3), 122(5A), 122(9) & 122(A)—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss.10, 14 & 19—C.B.R. Circular No. 7(5) S.Asstt/2008, dated 16-8-2008—CNG Station—Tax years, 2004 to 2006—Adjustment of withholding tax collected or deducted—Section 234A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 was inserted by Finance Act, 2007 to deduct tax at source which was applicable for the tax year, 2008 and onward; and the taxpayer was entitled to claim the adjustment of the withholding tax collected or deducted under various heads during the year under appeal.
2006 PTD 641 INCOME-TAX-APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-PAKISTAN
I.T.A. No.718/LB of 2004, decided on 14th December, 2005. VS I.T.A. No.718/LB of 2004, decided on 14th December, 2005.
—S.302(2)—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss. 10, 14 & 19—Filing of questionnaire—Agreement of sales—Voidable contract—Section 10 of the Contract Act, 1872, provided that only those agreements had binding force which were made by free consent of th
2005 CLD 884 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
State VS SHAHTAJ SUGAR MILLS LIMITED
—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss. 14, 19, 23 & 31—Qanun-eÂShahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 115—Foreign Private Loans for Financing Foreign Currency Cost of the Project covered by Government of Pakistan Industrial Policy Statement, 1984–ÂAgreements for F
2003 SCMR 1920 SUPREME-COURT
MUHAMMAD KHAN VS AMIRAN MAI
—-S. 42—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.14—West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), S. 42—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)—Suit for declaration—Plaintiffs as sisters of defendants challenged mutations of gift got sanctioned by b
2003 YLR 1109 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Mrs. YASMEEN VS Messrs BEACH DEVELOPERS
—-S. 2(a)—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss. 2(e), 11, 14 & 29—Arbitration agreement- Essentials— Arbitration agreement or an arbitration clause in an agreement was like an agreement between parties, which required that same should be executed with co
2002 PTD 750 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND WEALTH TAX, , SARGODHA ZONE, SARGODHA VS MESSRS IRSHAD ANWAR & CO.
Ss. 65 & 66-A—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 14—Additional assessment— Re-opening of agreed assessment—Agreed assessment though a settlement of contractual nature could not be declared to be a voluntary agreement between the Revenue and assessee fulfilling all the codal requirements of a contract enforceable at law—If the agreed assessment was at par with any other agreement enforceable in law even then some steps would have to be spared for the concept of voidable agreement—Assessing Officer framing an agreed assessment could always make a case to avoid that “agreement” if he could prove that the same was coloured by wrong declaration, even innocent misrepresentation and fraud—Assessing Officer by entering into an agreed assessment neither would be debarred from” raising an additional assessment under S.65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, nor such act could directly or indirectly oust the jurisdiction of Income Tax Appellate Commissioner to revise such assessment—Agreed assessment, if hit by provisions of S.65 of the Ordinance, could be re-opened by Assessing Officer in the like manner in which an Inspecting Additional Commissioner could proceed to revise an agreed assessment, if the same was erroneous insofar as the same was found prejudicial to the interest of Revenue—Inspecting Additional Commissioner under S.66-A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 could proceed to exercise jurisdiction and order enhancing or modifying the agreed assessment, cancelling it and directing a fresh assessment to be made—Blanket protection to an agreed assessment could neither be in accordance with law nor the public policy.
2000 CLC 4 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
FAISAL FABRICS LTD. VS TOWN COMMITTEE, KHURRIANWALA
Ss. 42 & 56—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss. 11, 14 & 15—Suit for declaration and permanent injunction—Appointment of defendants as Directors of Company—Execution of agreement by defendants—Contention raised by plaintiffs was that the agreement was a result of coercion, undue influence and misrepresentation and that the defendants were minors at the time of execution of agreement—Validity—Where the plaintiffs failed to establish that the agreement in question was obtained under duress and coercion, the plaintiff could not challenge the appointment of defendants as Directors or as shareholders of the company and the plaintiffs had become strangers to the company—Plaintiffs were not entitled to be appointed as Directors of the Company merely on the fact that the defendants were minors at the relevant day—Suit was dismissed accordingly.
1999 CLC 1057 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
RAZA HUSSAIN VS MUHAMMAD KHAN
12—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss. 14, 17 & 18—Specific performance of contract of sale of land made by female who was Pardanashin and illiterate lady—Protection to Pardanashin and illiterate lady —Entitlement–Plaintiff who also happened to be Advocate of vendor lady in different litigations relating to her lands, had claimed that the lady had agreed to sell disputed land for consideration through agreements of sale arrived at between him and vendor lady—Lady who allegedly executed contract of sale having died, her grandsons who were made defendants in suit had alleged that deceased who was a Pardanashin lady was over 100 years of age at the time of execution of alleged agreements of sale and was incapable of exercising her free consent and that deceased lady was absolutely illiterate and plaintiff in his capacity as her standing counsel might have got several documents thumb-impressed by her without appraising her of their implications—Court had concluded that alleged agreements of sale executed by lady were not binding on defendants as plaintiff was unable to discharge burden of satisfying Court that she had executed agreements with full knowledge and consent—Validity—Vendor lady who was proved to be Pardanashin and illiterate was entitled to protection which law had afforded to illiterate and Pardanashin women and said protection was different from one of fraud or misrepresentation vitiating a contract—Allegation of fraud must be proved by a person alleging same, whereas when a transaction was made by a Pardanashin lady, onus was always on person claiming advantage of such transaction to show that same was made with free-will of Pardanashin lady—No fault could be found with judgment of Court on ground that Court had examined said question irrespective of fact that fraud was not proved in transaction.
1997 PLD 62 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
ABDUL RAHIM VS U.B.
Ss. 6 & 2(e)—Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 17—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss. 16, 10 & 14—Contract—Document relating to finance—Attestation by witnesses—Validity—Where signatures are obtained on blank forms/documents, mere attestation by the number of witnesses thereon in terms -,of Art: 17(2)(a), Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 would not save the document from being .declared unenforceable on grounds of unconscionability, inequality of bargaining power as well as economic duress.
1995 CLC 1751 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
SAFDAR ALI VS MUHAMMAD MALIK
Ss. 10, 11, 14, 15 & 16—Specific Relief Act (1 of 1877), S. 12—Splitting up of claim—Partial specific performance, when could not be permitted—No partial specific performance of contract could be permitted unless not only share of vendees but also proportion in which they had paid price was mentioned in agreement in question—Price having been mentioned in lump sum, transaction in question was not capable of being split up.
1963 PLD 825 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
TAJ DIN VS ABDUR REHMAN
Contract Act 1872 S. 14-Person signing document illiterate-Onus lies on party relying on document to prove beyond doubt that signature was obtained after document had been properly explained to person signing.