Section 15 : “coercion” defined
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status of a statute and unless it was shown that any term of the agreement was violative of the law, it could not be rescinded by a party.
2012 YLR 1454 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
BIBI SAKINA VS Haji ASMATULLAH
39—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss.15 & 16—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VI, R. 4—Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 117 & 118—Suit for cancellation of mutation entry and sale agreement—Plaintiff’s plea that such entry and agreement was result of fraud, coercion and undue influence—Burden of proof—Plaintiff would be bound to prove such plea by leading evidence to the effect that defendant was in a position to dominate his will and advanced to him, threats—Plaint and evidence led by plaintiff did not disclose method through which plaintiff was threatened or put under influence for purpose of effecting suit mutation in revenue record—Suit was dismissed, in circumstances.
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.
2007 SCMR 969 SUPREME-COURT
ENAYAT SONS (PVT.) LTD. VS GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Finance and others
—-Art. 114—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss.15 & 16—Recovery of damages—Principle of estoppel—-Applicability—Coercion or undue influence—Proof—Factual controversy—Suit for damages decreed by Trial Court in favour of plaintiffs, was dismisse
2007 SCMR 969 SUPREME-COURT
ENAYAT SONS (PVT.) LTD. VS GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Finance and others
—Ss. 15 & 16—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3)—Recovery of damages—Judgment at variance—Principles—Suit for damages decreed by Trial Court in favour of plaintiffs was dismissed by Appellate Court and revision filed by plaintiff was
2006 CLC 1863 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ALLA-UD-DIN BUTT through L.Rs. VS QAMAR-UD-DIN BUTT
–S. 42—Arbitration Act (X of 1940), S.33—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.12(2)—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.15—Suit for declaration—Dispute over ownership of shop—Agreement between parties arrived at through mediation of respectables that
2004 CLD 915 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Messrs AGHA FABRICS. (PVT) LIMITED VS UNION BANK LIMITED
?
2004 PLD 705 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
RICE EXPORT CORPORATION VS INT. EXPORTS
—-Ss. 148, 149 & 15—-Bailment contract—Shortfall in the handling of goods handled by the defendant was much below the well recognized standard and it was due to natural causes which were beyond the control of defendant and not due to any negligence
2003 PLD 405 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
AMBER AHMED KHAN VS PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION, KARACHI AIRPORT, KARACHI
—-Ss. 15 & 16—Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984); Art.119—Coercion and undue influence—Burden to prove lies on person alleging the same.
2001 SCMR 265 SUPREME-COURT
DILBER HUSSAIN HASHMI VS MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK
Contract Act 1872 —-S. 15—“Coercion”—-Defined. The term “coercion” is defined in section 15 of the Contract Act. It means committing or threatening to commit any act forbidden by the Pakistan Penal Code or unlawful detaining or threatening to detain any property to the prejudice of any person whatever, with the intention of causing any person to enter into an agreement.
2000 CLC 4 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
FAISAL FABRICS LTD. VS TOWN COMMITTEE, KHURRIANWALA
Contract Act 1872 Ss. 15 & 16—Contract—Elements of coercion, undue influence and misrepresentation—Proof—Where such allegations were pleaded against a contract the same were to be proved in the manner as that of the allegations of fraud—Allegations of coercion, undue influence and misrepresentation were to be proved through strong and independent evidence.
1998 PLD 132 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ZAKAULLAH KHAN VS GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN
Ss. 15, 16 & 19—Arbitration Act (X of 1940), S.14—Letters Patent Lahore (1911), Cl. 10—Contractor’s claim to enhanced rate than accepted by him at earlier stage—Matter referred to arbitrator—Arbitrator found that acceptance of rates by contractor at relevant time was “under forced circumstances “—Such finding was exclusively relatable to domain of facts—Arbitrator being Judge, of facts and law, High Court would have no jurisdiction to give finding that he misconducted himself—Finding of High Court (Single Judge) to the contrary was set aside while that of Trial Court making award rule of Court was restored.
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.
1994 PLD 303 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN VS JAVAID NASIM, SOLE PROPREITOR
—-S. 15—Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 114—Plea of coercion, strain and estoppel —Contractor receiving payment of final bill without raising objection regarding payment for the additional work allegedly done by him–Contractor also did not pl
1994 MLD 656 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
ISLAMUDDIN TAIMURI VS ESMAIL MUHAMMAD BAHI
Contract Act 1872 —-Ss.15 & 16—Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.133—Suit on negotiable instrument (cheque)—Defendant setting up pleas of coercion and undue influence by Authorities while putting his signature on the cheque in question—Defendant’s such version having not been challenged in cross-examination his plea of coercion and undue influence in signing cheque in question was established on record.—[Undue influence].
1993 PLD 232 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
SULTAN VS NAZAR SULTAN
—- 0.XXXII,, Rr.1 & 15 — Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss.11 & 15 — Sale of land through a registered sale-deed — Seller, through his next friend filed a suit, claiming possession of the land alleging that the sale was void as he was not a person of
1987 PLD 466 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
IRSHAD H.KHAN VS PARVEEN AJAZ
15–Coercion–Concept–Plaintiff alleged to have been defrauded by defendant’s husband, informed the defendant that her husband was likely to be arrested and his name was likely to appear in local newspapers, as he had defrauded the plaintiff of a substantial sum of money–Defendant was not made to sign for an amount which was in excess of what her husband owed to the plaintiff nor plaintiff threatened to commit any offence against her husband or herself or her property–Threat of criminal prosecution against husband of defendant, held, would not amount to coercion in circumstances.
1984 PLC 259 NATIONAL-INDUSTRIAL-RELATIONS-COMMISSION
VS
—-S. 15-“Coercion”, definition of-Not exhaustive-Has no general application-Introduced merely for limited purpose of Chap. II of the Act.
1966 PLD 121 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
ABDUR REHMAN VS KHALILUR REHMAN AND OTHERS
Gift – Right of revocation dies with donor-Suit for revocation-Donor’s death during pendency of suit or appeal Legal representatives not entitled to continue proceedings-Suit not for revocation (rijaa) but for cancellation (tansikh) of gift deed stands on different footing-Such suit not only competent but right to sue survives after death of plaintiff donor-Specific Relief Act (1 of 1877), S. 39 read with Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss. 15, 16, 17 & 18.
1962 PLD 409 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
SHEIKH MUHAMMAD OBAID VS MUHAMMAD RAFI QURESHI
Contract Act 1872 Ss. 15 & 16—“Undue influence” inform of “coercion”-Undue influence can arise even in cases between strangers-Agreement got executed by means of threat of criminal prosecution-When can be said to have been obtained by coercion.
1959 PLD 348 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
KAZI NOOR MOHAMMED VS PIR ABDUL SATTAR JAN
Contract Act 1872 S. 15-Coercion-Creditor procuring from debtor a written agreement to pay debt due, by threats to involve debtor in criminal case for which there is some basis-Not sufficient to avoid agreement on basis of coercion.