Section 21 : Effect of mistakes as to law
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status of a statute and unless it was shown that any term of the agreement was violative of the law, it could not be rescinded by a party.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 CLD 1192 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL CREDIT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD. VS KHAIRPUR SUGAR MILLS LIMITED
9—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss. 18, 19 & 21—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.152 & O.XXIII, R.3—Recovery of bank loan— Compromise decree, modification of— Illegality and misrepresentation—Voidable agreement— Determination— Defendant’s challenge was directed towards compromise agreement on the ground that it was tainted by illegalities amounting to misrepresentations and hence liable to be modified—Validity—Remedy sought, i.e. relief under S.152, C.P.C., was only available against decree—Compromise decree and agreement were not the same thing—Relief under S.152, C.P.C. was available in respect of a compromise decree without compromise agreement being impugned at all—Correction of compromise decree was not the same thing as modification of compromise agreement—Power to “correct” decree did not confer any power to modify agreement, as the two matters were separate and distinct and must be so dealt with—None of the provisions of Ss.18 and 19 of Contract Act, 1872, invoked by defendant were applicable—High Court declined to modify decree passed earlier on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties—Application was dismissed in circumstances.
2012 CLD 1136 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL CREDIT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD. VS KHAIRPUR SUGAR MILLS LIMITED
9—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss..18, 19 & 21—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXIII, R.3 & S.152— Recovery of bank loan—Compromise decree, modification of— Illegality and misrepresentation— Voidable agreement—Determination—Defendant’s challenge was directed towards compromise agreement on the ground that it was tainted by illegalities amounting to misrepresentations and hence liable to be modified—Validity—Remedy sought, i.e. relief under S.152, C.P.C., was only available against decree—Compromise decree and agreement were not the same thing—Relief under S.152, C.P.C. was available in respect of a compromise decree without compromise agreement being impugned at all—Correction of compromise decree was not the same thing as modification of compromise agreement—Power to “correct” decree did not confer any power to modify agreement, as the two matters were separate and distinct and must be so dealt with—None of the provisions of Ss.18 and 19 of Contract Act, 1872, invoked by defendant were applicable—High Court declined to modify decree passed earlier on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties–Application was dismissed in circumstances.
2012 PLD 324 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL CREDIT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD. VS KHAIRPUR SUGAR MILLS LIMITED
9—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss. 18, 19 & 21—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.152 & O.XXIII, R.3—Recovery of bank loan—Compromise decree, modification of—Illegality and misrepresentation–Voidable agreement—Determination—Defendant’s challenge was directed towards compromise agreement on the ground that it was tainted by illegalities amounting to misrepresentations and hence liable to be modified—Validity—Remedy sought, i.e. relief under S.152, C.P.C., was only available against decree—Compromise decree and agreement were not the same thing—Relief under S.152, C.P.C. was available in respect of a compromise decree without compromise agreement being impugned at all—Correction of compromise decree was not the same thing as modification of compromise agreement—Power to “correct” decree did not confer any power to modify agreement, as the two matters were separate and distinct and must be so dealt with—None of the provisions of Ss.18 and 19 of Contract Act, 1872, invoked by defendant were applicable—High Court declined to modify decree passed earlier on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties—Application 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.
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 CLC 1514 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD AMEER QASMI VS MUHAMMAD AZHAR
Ss. 20, 21 & 22—Mistake as to a matter of fact entertained by one of parties, held, would not make contract voidable, but mistake as to matter of fact entertained by both parties would make contract void.
1983 CLC 2697 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
SALEH MUHAMMAD & BROS. VS IBRAHIM
Ss. 10. 21 & 22-Lease agreement of saw-mill – Applicability of West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)Lessees taking saw-mill from lessors under lease agreement for eleven months-Use of saw-mill dominating whole agreement-Plot whereupon mill situates assigned only secondary position-Words used in agreement further indicating sawmill rather than plot underneath given on hire. Stipulation regarding engagement of employees, payment of wages, income-tax, etc. showing transaction between parties about running of mill-Held agreement with regard to operation of saw-mill and not plot and mere inclusion of plot as part of agreement would’ not alter complexion of deal-Held further, saw-mill not governed by West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959.
1967 PLD 275 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
SYED GHOUSUDDIN AHMED VS CHAIRMAN, KARACHI PORT TRUST
Contract Act 1872 —-, Ss. 19, 20, 21 & 22′-Karachi Port Trust is statutory body and governed by Karachi Port Trust Act, 1886 and Bye-laws-Contract of high valuation can be made with consent of Board-Board giving consent upon basis of mistake of question of fact-No valid contract-Application under S. 20 of Arbitration Act (X of 1940), by contractor in such circumstances not maintainable.
1959 PLD 616 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
LAL DIN VS MST. SARDAR BIBI AND ANOTHER
Contract Act 1872 S. 21-Miscalculation of shares of heirs according to Muslim Law is not a mistake contemplated by section 21.