Contractual obligation

2022 PLC(CS) 604 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Art.199Constitutional petitionMaintainabilityContractual obligationScope

Any duty or obligation falling upon a public servant out of a contract entered into by him as such public servant, cannot be enforced by the machinery Art. 199 of the Constitution.

2021 CLC 1553 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Art.199Constitutional petitionContractual obligationScope

Appellant challenged the order passed by Single Judge of High Court whereby all the actions for recovery of excess amount paid to respondents were set aside

High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction abstained from interfering in matters entailed resolution of disputed and controversial facts

Challenge before the Single Judge of High Court was regarding two letters both of which simply required the officer of the appellant to recover the amount from the respondents in view of certain observations carried out during the audit proceedings

Decision of Public Accounts Committee was merely confined to directing the initiation of proceedings for recovery and nothing more

Appeal was allowed, in circumstances and the impugned order was set aside

2020 PCrLJ 335 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 498Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 406"Criminal breach of trust"Pre-arrest bail, grant ofDelayed FIRContractual obligationFurther inquiryScope

Allegation against accused was that he along with his co-accused took complainant's jewelry for the purpose of selling it, however, he declined to return the jewelry or the cash

Occurrence was reported to the police with a delay of 6 months without any plausible explanation

Even on the stated facts case was one of default in fulfillment of a contractual obligation or a claim to be settled through rendition of accounts in plenary jurisdiction of civil court

Investment for profit could not be equated with entrustment within the contemplation of S. 406, P.P.C.

Alleged guilt of the accused was necessarily a matter of further inquiry

Prima facie, prosecution had no sufficient incriminating material to connect the accused with the commission of alleged offence

Case of accused was covered under subsection (2) of S. 497, Cr.P.C. calling for further inquiry into his guilt

Accused had joined the investigation

Offence under S. 406, P.P.C. did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C.

Petition for grant of pre-arrest bail was accepted, in circumstances.

2019 CLC 127 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Art. 199Constitutional jurisdiction of High CourtScopeContractual obligationScope

Contractual rights, commitments, undertaking and obligations have to be enforced through courts of ordinary jurisdiction, which could not be interfered with by the High Court while exercising its constitutional jurisdiction

Normal remedy being suit for contractual rights and obligations was to be availed instead of filing petition under Art. 199 of the Constitution.

2018 PLD 657 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Art. 199Constitutional petitionContractual obligationScope

Contractual obligation cannot be enforced by invoking Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court.

2017 MLD 467 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Art. 199Constitutional petitionContractual obligationEnforceabilityScopeTrading Corporation of Pakistan (TCP) advertised for the purchase of Cotton and petitioners applied for the same

Officials of the corporation visited the premises of the petitioners and assured/promised that contract of purchase would be executed

Corporation, however, refused to execute the contract on the pretext that Federal Government had restrained the corporation to purchase cotton any more

Petitioners contended that they had been subjected to discriminatory treatment as the corporation had executed a contract with another party

Validity

Petitioners had filed the application (for grant of the contract) well before the instructions conveyed by the Federal Government, whereby the TCP had been restrained to sign any further contract

Letter/instructions of the Federal Government had specifically advised to the TCP to complete the process of sampling of the offered contracts, and the petitioners, in the present case, had made an offer for contract; therefore, the corporation was bound to complete the process of sampling to sign the contract in favour of the petitioners

Instructions whereby the corporation had been restrained to sign further contract had prospective effect

No ground was available to refuse to sign the contract with the petitioners who had approached the corporation well within time and fulfilled all the requirements and conditions

Corporation, having put the machinery in motion by visiting the premises of the petitioners, had refused to sign the contract on the lame excuse, with mala fide intention and ulterior motive

High Court observed that the officers of the corporation were granting the contract to the persons of their own choice or liking and directed the corporation to execute the offered contract with petitioners as per the policy

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

2016 CLCN 114 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Art. 199Constitutional petitionMaintainabilityContractual obligation

Grievance of petitioner was that he could not lift sugar from warehouses as the sale price fixed by Provincial Government was not acceptable to him

Validity

Petitioner wanted enforcement of contractual obligations which could not be looked into by High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Art. 199 of the Constitution

Proper remedy for resolution of such disputes was before Civil Court of competent jurisdiction

Petition was dismissed in circumstances.

2015 SCMR 1575 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 18(g)Corruption and corrupt practiceContractual obligation

Provisions of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, are neither meant nor attracted/applicable for the purposes of settling scores of civil nature or disputes emanating out of contract between few individuals and delinquents (who allegedly violated the contract) having no criminal intent and motive behind it

Person aggrieved of contractual breach of civil contract, must resort to civil remedies subject to certain conditions.

2015 YLR 619 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Art. 199Constitutional petitionLease, extension ofContractual obligationScopeMala fideEffectDiscretionary reliefPolicy framed by department, annulment ofScopePetitioner was directed to hand-over the possession of land leased out to him after expiry of lease period

Contention of petitioner was that he was entitled for another period of lease and impugned letter was based on mala fide

Validity

Petitioner should have demonstrated that there existed clear and undisputed right or interest in his favour to be recognized and respected to seek enforcement of corresponding obligations through a writ of mandamus

Relief sought by the petitioner could only be granted in a suit for specific performance of contract

Contractual obligations or disputes were not open to scrutiny under constitutional jurisdiction which could be redressed through other remedy available under the law

Respondent-department had formulated a policy that land should not be leased out for a period of more than 03 years and no further extension beyond 10 years would be granted in case of already leased land

Impugned letter had been issued in pursuance to the policy formulated by the competent authority and same had been made applicable throughout the country

Mala fide was a question of fact and same had to be specific and not vague in absence of which policy framed by the competent authority could not be annulled

Respondent-department had received a higher bid for the lease of land against the amount being paid by the petitioner

Discretionary relief could not be granted to help retention of ill-gotten gain even where the impugned action had been taken in deviation of certain recognized norms and procedures

High Court in absence of any illegality, arbitrariness or mala fide would not annull the policy framed by the competent authority

Constitutional petition was dis-missed in circumstances.

2014 CLD 992 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Art. 199Constitutional jurisdiction of High CourtScopeAlternate remedyContractual obligationFactual controversy

Issue related to resolution of facts which required recording of evidence in order to ascertain whether the petitioner was entitled to any transportation charges etc. or not and if so then to what extent and under what circumstances

When the facts were alleged then the same must be proved through evidence and not through a constitutional petition

Issue raised by the petitioner-company having stemmed from contractual obligation and in the contract proper forum had been provided for the redress of the grievance of the petitioner, the controversy raised by the petitioner in that petition could not be resolved by the High Court under its constitutional jurisdiction

Constitutional petition was dismissed with the observation that the petitioner-company could avail his remedy before the proper forum.

2014 CLD 400 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Art. 199Constitutional petitionMaintainabilityAlternate remedyContractual obligationPetitioner-company obtained contract through tender

Prayer of petitioner was for payment of escalation amount as per clause of agreement which he suffered due to price-hike in the construction material and increase in carriage charges

Validity

Arbitration clause existed in the agreement with regard to referring matters to the Superintending Engineer in case of any disagreement arising out of the contract and Superintending Engineer was to give his decision in writing not later than three months after reference was made to him

Said clause of agreement had provided forum to the parties to settle their disputes out of court through process of arbitration

Such was a forum where all the disputed matters would be discussed by recording pro and contra evidence by the experts

When agreement itself had provided forum for resolving a dispute, without availing such forum disputed questions of fact could not be placed before the High Court under its constitutional jurisdiction

High Court might issue writ only when facts were admitted and there was no alternate remedy to the aggrieved person

Neither facts of present case were admitted nor petitioner was divested of alternate forum for resolution of his grievance

Constitutional petition was not maintainable in circumstances

Petitioner might approach the department for arbitration as per clause of the agreement and if he opted for the same then Authorities were directed to proceed as per arbitration clause in accordance with law and merit

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

2014 YLR 399 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Art. 199Constitutional petitionMaintainabilityAlternate remedyContractual obligationPetitioner-company obtained contract through tender

Prayer of petitioner was for payment of escalation amount as per clause of agreement which he suffered due to price-hike in the construction material and increase in carriage charges

Validity

Arbitration clause existed in the agreement with regard to referring matters to the Superintending Engineer in case of any disagreement arising out of the contract and Superintending Engineer was to give his decision in writing not later than three months after reference was made to him

Said clause of agreement had provided forum to the parties to settle their disputes out of court through process of arbitration

Such was a forum where all the disputed matters would be discussed by recording pro and contra evidence by the experts

When agreement itself had provided forum for resolving a dispute, without availing such forum disputed questions of fact could not be placed before the High Court under its constitutional jurisdiction

High Court might issue writ only when facts were admitted and there was no alternate remedy to the aggrieved person

Neither facts of present case were admitted nor petitioner was divested of alternate forum for resolution of his grievance

Constitutional petition was not maintainable in circumstances

Petitioner might approach the department for arbitration as per clause of the agreement and if he opted for the same then Authorities were directed to proceed as per arbitration clause in accordance with law and merit

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

2014 MLD 1795 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Art. 199Arbitration Act (X of 1940), S.2(a)General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S. 24-AConstitutional petitionMaintainabilityContractual obligationAlternate remedyWithdrawal of assignment orderOrder, making ofRequirementsContention of petitioners was that no show cause notice was issued nor they were provided any opportunity of hearingValidity

Respondent-Authority had withdrawn assignment orders for the time being but same had not been cancelled or terminated and subject work had not been awarded/assigned to any other person or firm

No financial loss had accrued to the petitioners due to withdrawal of said assignment orders

Petitioners were entitled to the remuneration and reimbursable costs expenditure up to the effective date of termination in case of termination of any assignment orders as per conditions of contract executed between the parties

Issuance of any show cause notice or providing opportunity of hearing to the other party in a contract was not necessary

Necessity of issuing show-cause notice or providing an opportunity of hearing would arise when any disciplinary or penal action was required to be taken

Only an Authority, office or person conferred with the power to make any order or to give any direction under any enactment was obliged to give reasons for making such order or direction so far as necessary or appropriate

Respondents while issuing impugned letter had not acted as an Authority, office or person under any enactment but had acted as a promisor in a contract and they had not acted unfairly and unjustly

Controversies arisen out of a contract and contractual obligations could not be resolved and enforced through constitutional petition

Constitutional petition for enforcement of contractual obligation between promisor and promissee under an arbitration agreement was not maintainable

Petitioners had alternate remedy under Arbitration Act, 1940 to redress their grievances

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.