Section 4 : Communication when complete
2022 CLD 1279 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
TARIQ AZIZ VS MAKHDUM AHMED MAHMUD
Ss. 136 & 160—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 4—Election—Revocation of agreement—Pre-condition—Corporate democracy, principle of—Applicability—Petitioners assailed election of Stewards of Race Course Club on the plea that they had informed respondent regarding contesting of election and sought return of their withdrawal letters—Validity—Only requirement for communication of revocation of proposal was that the same came into knowledge of the person to whom it was made—Revocation of withdrawing from contesting elections made by petitioners to respondent was duly communicated to him and came into his knowledge who himself admitted such factum in his affidavit—Respondent at one hand did not handover withdrawal letters of petitioners before holding of Annual General Meeting (AGM) and on the other hand, elected ten candidates as Stewards without consent and without giving right to vote—Such act of respondent was not only violative to Art. 27 of Articles of Association of the Club but also was against principle of corporate democracy denying right of vote of petitioners to participate in AGM—Court was empowered under S. 160 of Companies Act, 2017, to declare election of all directors or any one or more of them invalid if it was satisfied that there had been material irregularity in its holding—High Court declared that proceedings at AGM were not in accordance with law and were invalid in terms of S. 136 of Companies Act, 2017—High Court also declared that in terms of S. 160 of Companies Act, 2017 elections of directors were invalid—High Court directed respondents to hold AGM afresh for the elections of Stewards of the Club in accordance with law and Articles and Memorandum of Association of the Club—Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.
2017 PLD 11 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
LAFARGE PAKISTAN CEMENT LTD. VS DECENT COAL COMPANY
VII, Rr. 2 & 10 & Ss.19 & 20(c)—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.4—Money suit—Contract for sale and purchase through letter—Plaint rejection of—Scope—Agreement for sale and purchase was entered at place “A” through letter between the parties whereas suit for recovery of amount was filed at place “B”—Contention of defendant-corporation was that Court at place “A” had jurisdiction to try the present suit—Defendant-corporation filed an application for return of plaint which was dismissed—Validity—Parties had entered into a contract for sale and purchase through correspondence via e-mail and fax—Offer of defendant-corporation was e-mailed to plaintiff at place “B” from place “A”—Said offer was accepted by the plaintiff from place “B” and conveyed to the defendant-corporation at place “A” via e-mail—Purchase order was faxed by the defendant- corporation from place “A” to plaintiff at place “B”—When proposal and acceptance were made by letters then the contract was made at the time when and the place where from the letter of acceptance was posted/mailed—Acceptance of offer by the offering party and intimation with regard to such acceptance would result in contract—Contract would be completed when offer of one party was accepted by the other party—Contract by correspondence would be completed where the acceptance had taken place—Place of delivery of acceptance would be irrelevant and same did not provide any cause of action—Suit could not be filed at the place where letter of acceptance was delivered as delivery of letter of acceptance was not a part of cause of action—Plaintiff in case of breach of contract had option to file suit at the place where it was made—Present suit had rightly been filed at place “B” in view of accrual of cause of action at the said place—Civil Court at place “B” had jurisdiction to proceed with the suit filed by the plaintiff—No illegality had been committed by the Trial Court while rejecting the application for return of plaint—Revision was dismissed in circumstances.
2017 PLD 11 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
LAFARGE PAKISTAN CEMENT LTD. VS DECENT COAL COMPANY
4—Communication when complete—Communication of a proposal would be complete when it came to the knowledge of the person to whom it was made—Communication of acceptance would be complete as against the proposer, when it was put in a course of transmission to him, so as to be out of power of acceptor.
2010 CLD 599 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
GULSHAN ADAMJEE VS MUSLIM COMMERCIAL Bank LTD.
Ss.2, 3 & 4—Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881), S.68–Banking Companies Ordinance (LVII of 1962), S.5(d)—Suit for recovery of amount of Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs)–Plea of plaintiff that FDRs in his favour were issued in years, 1970 and 1971 by Dacca Branch of the Bank; that in November, 1971, due to deteriorating conditions of East Pakistan, he could not present FDRs to Dacca Branch for encashment, thus, he wrote letter to President of the Bank enclosing therewith original FDRs requesting for transferring its funds to its Branch at Karachi for issuance of fresh FDRs; that President sent such letter along with FDRs to his Karachi Head Office to carry out instructions given by plaintiff, but no action was taken by the Bank, which later on returned FDRs to plaintiff after fall of East Pakistan; and that such act of President of the Bank accepting FDRs had amounted to an undertaking and agreement by Bank to issue fresh FDRs from Karachi and having failed to do so, Bank was liable to pay to plaintiff amounts of FDRs along with interest–Plea of Bank was that FDRs issued by its Dacca Branch had to be presented to Dacca Branch for encashment and could not be sent to its President for such purpose–Validity—FDRs had been issued by Bank acknowledging that amounts mentioned therein were received by Bank for a specific period of time and to pay at agreed rate of interest mentioned therein on production thereof—No condition was mentioned on FDRs that only Dacca Branch would be liable to pay its amount—Such act of President of the Bank accepting FDRs for encashment, even if there was any condition presenting same at issuing Branch, would tantamount to waiver of such condition by corporate entity and Bank was liable to pay amount covered by FDRs together with agreed rate of interest–Plaintiff after fall of East Pakistan could not present FDRs to Dacca Branch due to its closure by Bank—Bank had concealed evidence pertaining to date when FDRs were received for compliance of plaintiffs instructions to transfer amounts thereof to its Karachi Branch—Presumption in such circumstances could be drawn that such evidence, if brought on record, would have gone against the Bank—Plaintiff had deposited amount of FDRs with Bank as legal entity, thus, closure of its Dacca Branch or winding up of its business in a particular area would not absolve Bank from its liability to pay amount deposited with Bank through its Dacca Branch—Suit was decreed in circumstances.
2007 CLC 462 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
TRADING CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN (PVT.) LIMITED VS Messrs NIDERA HANDELSCOMPAGNIE B.V. MEENT 94, P.O. BOX 676, 3000 AR ROTTERDAM THE NETHERLANDS and another
—S. 4—Binding contract—Contract is complete only upon acceptance of offer which acceptance should be absolute and unqualified; it is the communication of an offer and intimation of its acceptance which creates a contract—Evidence, in the present c
2006 SCMR 930 SUPREME-COURT
FATEH KHAN (deceased) through L.Rs. and another VS SURRIYA BEGUM
–Ss. 39 & 42—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss.4, 18, 25 & 214—Registration Act (XVI of 1908), S.60—General power of attorney by an illiterate Pardanashin lady for Court case allegedly containing power in favour of attorney to sell her property—Sale
2004 YLR 1612 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD YOUNAS MALIK VS PUNJAB PRIVATIZATION BOARD and 3 others
—-Art. 199—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.4—Constitutional petition—Fresh auction during pendency of Constitutional petition filed by highest bidder seeking enforcement of his offer—Offer of intervenor in fresh auction was more than petitioner—E
2001 CLC 104 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
BUSINET INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LTD. VS ARAMEX INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LTD.
20—Contract Act (IX of 1872) S.4—Cause of action, accrual of— Execution of contract between the parties—Disputed contract was despatched from a ,foreign country by defendant and the same was signed by plaintiff at place “K” and returned to the defendant in foreign country—Plaintiff filed suit on the basis of the contract at place “K”—Defendant raised objection to the jurisdiction of Courts at place “K”. on the ground that the contract was never executed in Pakistan—Validity—Where there was a concluded contract between the parties, the despatch of the contract from foreign country would amount to an offer and return of the same by the plaintiff after execution thereof to. the defendant in foreign country and affixation of his signature thereafter would be an acceptance by the plaintiff of such offer—
1984 PLD 430 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS SUNBEAM CORPORATION (REGD).
4-Acceptor sent through post its acceptance of bids of proposer but proposer did not receive acceptance and not paid balance amount so as to face cancellation of concluded sale-Whether acceptance of offer transmitted to proposer through post created a binding contract Late-receipt or non-receipt of acceptance by proposer and its failure to pay balance payment-Effect-Contract relating to immovable property-Time not essence of contract.
1962 PLD 509 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
COL. K. M. SANA, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (MEDICAL), PROVINCIAL HEALTH DIRECTORATE, LAHORE VS THE GOVERNMENT OF WEST PAKISTAN
Contract Act 1872 Governor deciding to appoint S as Deputy Director, Health Services-Details of emoluments not worked out but capable of being ascertained–Formal contract yet to be drawn up-Contract of service, held, complete.
1961 PLD 14 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MESSRS HUSSAIN BROS. VS PUNJAB VEGETABLE & GENERAL MILLS CO. AND ANOTHER
Breach of contract, suit for—Can be tried by Court at place of communication of cancellation of contract-Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 4.