Breach of Contract

Complainant was advocate and accused was his client who paid professional charges in shape of cheque which was dishonoured on presentation

Held: If client failed to make full fee payment, the amount could be recovered through civil remedies

Initiation of criminal case against one's own client could only be considered in exceptional circumstances where no other remedy was available

Failure to pay for service, such as legal representation, does not necessarily result in penal consequences

State of consciousness that is culpable is the essential component of criminal liability

Dishonestly issuing a cheque is punishable with up to three years' imprisonment under section 489-F, P.P.C. and the offence necessitates rigorous examination

Alternative remedies were available under civil law, such as claim for compensation for loss or injury resulting from breach of contract under section 73 of Contract Act, 1872 and suit for recovery under Civil Procedure Code, 1908

Provision of section 489-F, P.P.C. is intended to function as a safeguard against fraud, rather than as a blade to enforce civil recovery

Mens rea (dishonest intent) must be established in order to incur penal consequences and criminal proceedings under 489-F, P.P.C. must not be used as a substitute for civil remedies

Bail was allowed.

Onus to prove damages

Respondent/plaintiff was employee of appellant/Company who sought recovery of general and special damages early retirement from service on the plea of being penalized wrongly

Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of respondent/plaintiff

Validity

Respondent/plaintiff need not have led any special evidence to quantify damages in lieu of pain and suffering as they were damages that could not be quantified by reducing them to a financial number

Damages in lieu of pain and suffering fall within the category of general damages

Once respondent/ plaintiff established through evidence wrongful conduct of appellant/ company that would naturally have caused pain and suffering

It was for Court to determine quantum of damages that would be compensatory in nature and satisfy conscience of Court that respondent/plaintiff as claimant had been duly compensated for bearing such pain, suffering and agony inflicted on him

High Court declined to interfere in judgment and decree passed by Trial Court

High Court directed appellant/company to pay interest on decretal amount from the date of judgment until the day when such amount was paid by appellant/ company to respondent/plaintiff

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

High Court while exercising its constitutional jurisdiction cannot settle the terms and conditions of a contract between the parties, nor can it direct the Executive to incorporate or omit any specific stipulation therein, as such matters fall exclusively within the domain of the Executive

It is equally well-established that in matters concerning the enforcement of contractual obligations, High Court ordinarily refrains from exercising constitutional jurisdiction to enforce the terms and conditions of the contract and/or to provide a remedy for its breach

The constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be ousted, especially where an element of perversity or patent illegality is prima facie apparent on the face of the record

It is a recognized principle of law that albeit the constitutional jurisdiction should not be exercised ordinarily in matters arising out of breach of contract, however, an exception exists where the breach has been committed by the Government, a semi-Government body, or a Local Authority, necessitating the resolution of intricate and disputed legal questions

In such circumstances, the grievance may appropriately be addressed through the exercise of jurisdiction under Art. 199 of the Constitution.

Damages are costs that are imposed not as a deterrent or as a means to punish person(s) or party(s) who has/have breached a contract but instead to bring the person(s) or party(s) who has/have suffered from the breach of contract into a position which they would have been had the breach of contract not accrued

Said principle is known as the principle of restitutio in integrum (restoration to original condition)

It therefore stands to reason that damages are in fact the compensation that the law awards when a breach of contract occurs as compensation for the loss that a person or party has suffered from a breach of contract.

Onus would lie on a plaintiff or claimant to prove that there had been a contract entered into between the parties; that there had been a breach of contract; and the extent of the damages claimed thereof.

However, the nature of general and special damages and proving the two are different compared to each other.

Damages are costs that are imposed not as a deterrent or as a means to punish person(s) or party(s) who has/have breached a contract but instead to bring the person(s) or party(s) who has/have suffered from the breach of contract into a position which they would have been had the breach of contract not accrued

Said principle is known as the principle of restitutio in integrum (restoration to original condition)

It therefore stands to reason that damages are in fact the compensation that the law awards when a breach of contract occurs as compensation for the loss that a person or party has suffered from a breach of contract.

However, the nature of general and special damages and proving the two are different compared to each other.

Onus would lie on a plaintiff or claimant to prove that there had been a contract entered into between the parties; that there had been a breach of contract; and the extent of the damages claimed thereof.

Claim of the plaintiffs was that the defendants (appellants) had entered into a contract whereby they had assured to get them performed Hajj against the money, so obtained by the defendants but they failed to arrange Hajj visas

Defendants had never denied the claim of the plaintiffs rather had admitted the claim to such extent with further claim to have paid such amount to a company

Nothing was produced on record that such deposit was permissible as per contract between parties or was with consent of plaintiffs

In absence thereof, such plea could not help the defendants in escaping their liabilities to honour the contract as well as compensation for breaching the same within the meaning of Contract Act, 1872

Defendants had only applied for quota which was never granted to them yet they not only took amount from the people, including plaintiffs in name of 'getting such persons performed Hajj'

Performing Hajj is normally the greatest desire of a Muslim who, for his life, prays and gathers money for such purpose, therefore, when a person with complete satisfaction of performing Hajj is denied by the contractor (travel agency), the mental shock and agony is inevitable

Defendants being Directors of the company could not escape their liabilities towards the company

Appeal was dismissed.

Accused had entered into an agreement in the year 2019 regarding some orchid for harvesting and marketing different fruits for a period of three years; he had paid the amount for the first year and some amount for second year but he could not pay the remaining amount for subsequent period and dishonoured cheques pertained to that unpaid amount

Contention of accused that the date of agreement was tampered with was substantiated from the fact that agreement was shown to be executed in the year 2019 while some of the cheques were shown to be handed over to the complainant having dates of the years 2017 and 2018

Business relation between the parties was admitted regarding which an admitted agreement was also available on record and it appeared that the matter was a case of breach of contract

Complainant had not filed a civil suit for rendition/ settlement of accounts

Maximum punishment in the present case was three years, as such, it did not fall under the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.

Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances.

Landlords filed suit for recovery of price of articles which were removed by the tenant while handing over possession of the suit property

Trial court decreed the claim to a certain extent

Validity

Landlords had to first prove that at the time of handing over possession of the property on rent, said articles were installed and handed over to the tenant

Trial Court had erred in law while holding that the tenant had failed to prove that the articles belonged to him, hence, he had no right to remove the same and as such liable to pay price so that the landlords be compensated

Landlords had not alleged that at the time of handing over the possession of the suit property on rent to the tenant said articles were installed

Revision petition was allowed, concurrent findings of the courts below were set aside and the suit was dismissed, in circumstances.

Suit was decreed with the direction to the executant of agreement to sell to execute conveyance deed in favour of plaintiff but no relief of possession was extended

Validity

Plaintiff had paid all the consideration amount to the defendant/builder of housing society

Defendant had sold suit land in favour of subsequent purchaser and he was bound to refund amount so realized by him to the plaintiff

Builder had failed to complete construction by due date and even he had not returned consideration amount received by him to the plaintiff

Subsequent purchaser had possession of suit property and its sale deed

Execution of conveyance deed through Court in favour of plaintiff would render sale deed in favour of defendants as ineffective

Case of plaintiff for specific performance against the builder had been made out but it had become a case of hardship for the subsequent purchaser

Relief of specific performance, even if contract was enforceable, was discretionary and same could be withheld by the Court

When Court had concluded that grant of relief of specific performance had been made out but it would be a case of hardship to other side or unfair and inequitable to any third party who was not at fault then it should compensate the plaintiff

Builder had breached contract and only execution of title document was not specific performance of a contract of sale of immovable property when plaintiff was not in possession of suit premises

Execution of title document had to be coupled with delivery of possession of suit property to the plaintiff

Court could not grant decree of possession of suit property to the plaintiff owing to the presence of bona fide purchaser of suit premises

Plaintiff should have been granted relief of specific performance with additional compensation, in circumstances

Court in suit for specific peformance could grant two decrees of compensation combined in one judgment in a suit for specific performance

Order of specific performance might be substituted with compensation for it with additional compensation for breach of contract

High Court observed that court, in the present case, should have passed an adequate decree of compensation both as substitution of specific performance and additional compensation for breach of contract

Decree of specific performance of an agreement to sell through execution of title document against the builder in favour of plaintiff was in the field with no result and there was likelihood that builder would avoid the said decree

High Court passed order for attachment of movable and immovable property of builder who had received consideration amount from the plaintiff but had not returned the same

Plaintiff was entitled for adequate compensation keeping in view escalation in valuation of suit premises and value of currency which had gone down due to inflation in the country

Property of builder would remain attached till the judgment was executable

Second appeal was allowed accordingly.

In order to succeed in a claim for damages under S. 73 of the Contract Act, 1872, claimant had to prove the same through positive evidence; whereas liquidated damages could only be granted under S. 74 of the Contract Act, 1872 ,when inter alia, an aggrieved party proves default / breach of contract by the other party.

Parties may determine expected losses and agree for an amount to be paid in breach of contract and earnest money was part of purchase price when transaction went forward, and same was forfeited when a transaction fell though by reason of fault and failure of vendee

Discretion, however lay with the Court to interpret and implement a forfeiture clause in an agreement

Court, if forms an opinion, that amount mentioned in an agreement as liquidated damages for breach, penalty or forfeiture; was unreasonable, then it was not necessary to implement such clause

Court was not to permit a party to keep the entire amount if it was exorbitantly high and unreasonably harsh.

Contention was that matter between the parties pertained to civil liability and a civil suit for specific performance of the contract was subjudice continuation of the proceedings was an abuse of process of law

Validity

Criminal cases were decided on the basis of material so collected by the prosecution during the course of investigation and the evidence recorded in the Trial Court and that too, after appraisal of evidence by court in accordance with law applicable thereto

High Court could not assume the role of an investigating agency or of a Trial Court to dilate upon the factual controversies involved in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction

Criminal as well as civil proceedings can be proceeded side by side and mere filing of a suit was not a ground for quashing of FIR

Factual controversies involved in the present case could not be resolved in writ jurisdiction

Constitutional petitions were dismissed in circumstances.

Any party who claims damages on account of breach of contract is required under law to establish contract, breach thereof and extent of damages put forward/claimed in a suit for damages.

Plaintiffs were required to produce the original agreement to sell as primary evidence as well as attesting witnesses of the same

Plaintiffs did not pay any part of the alleged sale consideration to the defendant

Discretionary relief of specific performance could not be grated where a party seeking such relief had itself failed to perform its agreed part of contract or committed breach thereof

Plaintiffs had failed to discharge their burden to prove the sale agreement in circumstances

Defendant had not received any part of the alleged sale consideration and he was not obliged to fulfill any of his obligations thereunder

Impugned agreement to sell had become void for lack of consideration

Plaintiffs did not take any step to deposit the sale consideration in the Trial Court

Courts below had failed to appreciate the important questions of law involved in the present matter

Impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Court were set aside and suit was dismissed

Second appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

Contention of defendant was that plaintiff did not pay the balance sale consideration on or before the date fixed for performance of agreement to sell and same stood cancelled and advance payment had been forfeited

Trial Court directed the plaintiff to deposit the balance sale consideration in the Court but same was not deposited

Validity

Parties had agreed that agreement to sell would stand cancelled if seller refused or buyer defaulted leaving them to claim refund, penalty and forfeiture as the case might be

If court had decided that specific performance ought not to be granted and contract was broken by the defendant then it could award compensation if plaintiff was entitled to it

Plaintiff, in the present case, was not entitled to specific enforcement of sale agreement

Section 29 of Specific Relief Act, 1877 barred the plaintiff from subsequently suing for compensation for breach of contract if his suit for specific performance was dismissed

Questions whether plaintiff was entitled to discretion in the refund of advance payment made and/or compensation for alleged breach by the defendant, and alternatively, whether defendant was entitled to forfeit the advance payment was to be decided being still open

Suit would survive to the extent of compensation, in circumstances.

Plaintiff entered into an agreement to purchase a residential apartment owned by defendant for which earnest money was given at the time of agreement and remaining amount was to be paid on date specified in the agreement

Defendant could not provide documents of suit property till date agreed by parties

Plaintiff filed suit for specific performance of agreement against defendant but same was dismissed by Single Judge of High Court

Validity

Both parties had attempted to shift blame on to the other and had maintained that they were ready to fulfil their respective part of agreement

No notice whatsoever was given by defendant to plaintiff, calling upon him to complete execution and registration of sale deed in his favour by expressing his readiness to perform his part of contract

No provision existed in agreement for its cancellation by either of the parties

By ignoring admission of defendant in respect of agreement to sell, terms and conditions thereof, and in disregard of the fact that defense set up by defendant was never in relation to willingness of plaintiff, rather it was related to plea that time was essence of contract

Division Bench of High Court set aside judgment and decree passed by the Single Judge of High Court and suit was decreed in favour of plaintiff

High Court Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Contract existed between the parties and suit could not be deemed to be a suit on basis of tort nor could Arts. 21, 22 and/or 36 of Limitation Act, 1908 be applied to the same

Suit was for compensation of breach of contract and same was governed by Art. 115 of Limitation Act, 1908 providing limitation of 3 years from date of breach of contract or where there were successive breaches when such breach occurred in respect of which suit was instituted or where breach was continuing when it ceased

Plaintiff instituted suit within 3 years and same was within time

Application was dismissed in circumstances.

Suit earlier filed was dismissed and thereafter another suit was instituted in which plaint was rejected on the ground of res judicata

Plaintiff who was not party in the earlier suits filed suit for enforcement of another agreement to sell for the same suit land but plaint was again rejected on the principle of res judicata

Validity

When subject-matter of the previously instituted suit was not the same and parties were also not the same then principle of res judicata was not applicable

Plaintiff was neither party to the earlier suits nor specific performance of alleged agreement to sell had been prayed

Present suit was not hit by the principle of res judicata

Bar of res judicata would be applicable where issue was raised, determined and decided in the former proceedings between the parties

Earlier suits were not decided on merits in the present case

Principle of res judicata was not applicable in circumstances

Rejection of plaint did not operate as res judicata against the plaintiff in a subsequent suit

Where earlier suit was dismissed as withdrawn then there was no adjudication or determination of the dispute on merits

Principle of res judicata was not applicable where earlier suit was dismissed as withdrawn

Title of suit land did not vest with the defendants in the present case

Plaintiff could not have expected the defendants to transfer rights or title in the suit land which they did not possess

Agreement to sell could only be specifically enforced against a party/vendor who was owner of the property at the time of execution of agreement to sell

Plaintiff had paid earnest money to the defendants and they should not enjoy earnest money and the suit property

Vendor on breach of contract for sale of immovable property was bound to refund the amount of earnest money to the vendee and pay damages for the loss of bargain by paying market value of the property minus the contract price

Plaintiff, in the present case, had not prayed for the award of damages against the defendants

Court had discretion in the matter of granting appropriate relief and grant damages in lieu of specific performance even if plaintiff had not prayed for the same

Plaintiff had no privity of contract with the defendants in the present case

Plaint could only be rejected if all the reliefs claimed were barred by law

Impugned order passed by the Trial Court was set aside

Matter was remanded to the Trial Court to decide the same afresh after having written statement of defendants

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

Suit for compensation for breach of contract could be filed within three years to be reckoned when contract was breached.

Limitation for performance of contract was three years either from the date fixed for performance or if no such date was fixed, in that case when the plaintiff had notice that performance was refused

Plaintiff served letter on the defendants which was not only acknowledged by the defendants but they also showed inability to pay legal fee in their written statement

Present suit was within time

No illegality or legal infirmity had been pointed out in the impugned judgments passed by the courts below

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

Contention of plaintiff-employee was that defendant-company had caused financial loss to him by terminating his service contract illegally

Validity

Plaintiff-employee was bound to establish additional assurance or representations made to him by the defendant-company

Nothing was on record apart from the terms and conditions of appointment of plaintiff-employee

Nothing was on record that termination from service had resulted into breach of any assurance or promise

Principle of master and servant was involved in the present case

Only remedy for the plaintiff-employee was to file suit for damages in circumstances

Plaintiff-employee could not ask for restitution of his service in circumstances

Burden to prove his entitlement to the reliefs on the grounds as stated in the plaint was on the plaintiff-employee

Any compensation or damages could not be awarded to the plaintiff-employee for a loss or damage which had been sustained by him indirectly by reason of breach of contract

Plaintiff-employee was bound to show that defendant's action of terminating his service was against the terms and conditions of contract

Plaintiff and defendant were in equal position to choose to terminate service by giving a 30 days written notice in advance or making the payment in lieu thereof

Defendant-company was within the domain to terminate service of plaintiff-employee by resorting to scheme of appointment letter

Defendant-company had not committed any breach of contract in circumstances

Thirty days period contained in the appointment letter was too short for a person to find out a new job in the private sector

Period of 120 days was reasonable within which a person could secure a new job of the same stature in the private sector

Plaintiff-employee was entitled to either 120 days written notice in advance or payment in lieu thereof

Plaintiff-employee had received 30 days salary in lieu of the stipulated notice and other emoluments and deductions

Plaintiff-employee was directed to be paid the salary of remaining 90 days and other emoluments as per his entitlement

Suit was partly decreed accordingly.

General principles for granting compensation when beneficiary alleged breach of contract were regulated by Ss. 73 & 74 of the Contract Act, 1872 and without proving the actual loan even a fixed amount, stipulated as for liquidated damages, did not become automatically payable.

Party could maintain his right to claim damages with reference to a breach of contract but such right would not be available for the party with reference to natural, local or international changes causing effect upon value of the subject of contract particularly when this was not so mentioned in the agreement.

Plaintiff had filed suit on the basis of an oral agreement between him and the other defendant and no specific role had been mentioned in the plaint against the defendant

Main grievance of the plaintiff was against the defendant Company and its officials whereas the defendant was only an estate advisor for said Company

Defendant was not a beneficiary of the alleged oral agreement

Compensation for breach of contract could be claimed from a party which had breached the terms of the agreement

Person who was not a party to contract was neither necessary nor proper party in a suit for damages

High Court set aside order of Trial Court and allowed the defendant's application for striking out his name as defendant in the suit

Revision was allowed, accordingly.

Passing of decree on doctrine of "unjust enrichment" (no one can be permitted to derive benefit from an undue advantage to become unjustifiably enrich at expense of another)

Scope

Plaintiff was bound to prove that defendant was enriched by receipt of a benefit; that such enrichment was at plaintiff's expense; that such enrichment and/or retention of benefit was unjust; and that defendant could legally be compelled to compensate plaintiff

Mere such assertions would not entitle plaintiff for damages without discharging his such legal obligations to prove the same.

Plaintiff had filed suit on the basis of an oral agreement between him and the other defendant and no specific role had been mentioned in the plaint against the defendant

Main grievance of the plaintiff was against the defendant Company and its officials whereas the defendant was only an estate advisor for said Company

Defendant was not a beneficiary of the alleged oral agreement

Compensation for breach of contract could be claimed from a party which had breached the terms of the agreement

Person who was not a party to contract was neither necessary nor proper party in a suit for damages

High Court set aside order of Trial Court and allowed the defendant's application for striking out his name as defendant in the suit

Revision was allowed, accordingly.

Essential principles.

Public procure­ment contracts are governed by the Public Procurement Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002 and- Rules framed thereunder, which is a special law on the subject

Failure of contractor to supply the goods at agreed price according to the schedule of supply may be a breach of contract which may cause delay the main project, therefore, Procuring Agency is obliged under the law to proceed against the contractor for appropriate action including cancellation of contract at his cost and risk in accordance with law

Contractors are not entitled to any claim beyond the scope of contract and law unless it is provided in the contract for payment of extra cost on the basis of acceleration of price if project is not completed within contract period and no such claim is entertdinable without determination of cause of delay or the reason of non-completion of project within time

Extra payment on the basis of acceleration of prices in the normal circumstances is undue favour to the contractors, which amounts misappropriation of government funds on the part of concerned officials, therefore, the officials involved in such matters must face the consequence of criminal charge and also departmental action for misconduct

Supreme Appellate Court observed that Chief Secretary, Government of Gilgit-Baltistan in cases of extra payment at the cost of burden on the exchequer may hold inquiry into the cause of delay or justification of extra payment to a contractor set the law at motion for action in accordance with law.

Certain amount by way of occupancy value required to be paid by the allottees was mentioned in the respective allotment orders

Such orders also contained a provision to the effect that construction on the allotted plot would be raised within a specified period of time and in case of failure to do so, allottee would be liable to pay non-utilization fee

It could be true that the non-utilization fee in the terms of penalty envisaged by clause 25 of the Allotment Regulations, could be theoretically enforceable, but S.74 of the Contract Act, 1872 had contemplated certain pre-conditions to be satisfied

In the first instance there had to be a sum payable, whether by way of penalty or compensation for breach of contract, in the contract itself; and secondly the non-breaching party was entitled only to reasonable compensation, subject to the maximum amount fixed in the contract

Amended clause 25 of the Regulations did not stipulate any amount and in any case the quantum of fee claimed by Authority in certain cases running into millions of rupees was against the occupancy value of a few thousands, could not by any stretch of imagination be deemed reasonable

Amount claimed, in circumstances; could not be lawfully demanded by the Authority

Petitions were allowed to the extent that the demand notices in excess of the amount stipulated under the original contract was valid.

Party claiming damages had to firstly plead and then prove by sufficient, trustworthy, independent and. cogent evidence that the concluded agreement existed between the parties, the other party committed breach of contract, such breach entitled the first party to damages and the foremost factor was quantum of damages

Principles for ascertaining the quantum of general and special damages stated.

Solitary statement of one plaintiff was not sufficient to decree the colossal suit amount as plaintiffs' witness did not state anything about damages

Plaintiffs through his failure to produce evidence totally failed to prove that due to breach of contract they were in fact entitled to damages and to what extent, which were sine qua non for the grant of damages under S.73, Contract Act, 1872

Held, plaintiffs, in circumstances, had not proved that they suffered any loss and also failed to prove, through production of evidence on record, that they were entitled for decree of the total amount claimed in the suit.

Party claiming damages had to firstly plead and then prove by sufficient, trustworthy, independent and cogent evidence that the concluded agreement existed between the parties, the other party committed breach of contract, such breach entitled the first party to damages and the foremost factor was quantum of damages

Principles for ascertaining the quantum of general and special damages stated.

Non-­production of evidence by plaintiff to the effect that he, on account of any act and deed of defendant, had suffered claimed loss

Effect

Plaintiff would not be entitled for alleged claim of damages.

Defendant was entitled to be supplied with necessary particulars of his claim.

Breach of contract-Plaintiff's suit decreed against defendant establishment and such decree maintained by the High Court in appeal

Defendant's contention that suit was incompetent because of arbitration clause in the contract, would not prevail inasmuch as such contention was not taken or agitated before Courts below and thus could not be allowed to be raised at the petition stage

Leave refused.

Price of cotton having shot up, defendant not fulfilling its obligation of supplying requisite quantity of cotton and plaintiff purchasing 1000 bales of cotton at the enhanced rate ruling in February 1973 and thus suffering loss

Trial Court, on the admission of defendant's witness regarding prices of cotton, adopting Rs.140 per maund as sale price prevailing on 1-2-1973 to determine quantum of damages and decreeing the suit accordingly

No illegality found to have been committed by Trial Court in forming a basis for working out damages in circumstances of case

Equity also was not in favour of defendant-appellant who had, in view of increase in price, chosen not to supply cotton to plaintiff-respondent-Defendant-appellant, held, must, therefore, compensate plaintiff-respondent in the decretal amount

Appeal dismissed.

Court has to award reasonable compensation not exceeding amount so named in contract.-[Compensation].

Finding of High Court being based on proper appreciation of evidence on record, leave to appeal refused.

S. 73-Breach of contract-No breach of contract committed by respondent transferor in respect of terms of transfer of lane.'-Applicant hence, entitled to force any other terms on respondent- Subsequent decision reducing rate of sale price being applicable to allotments made after allotment of plots to applicant, reduction of rate, held, applicable to future transactions and not to applicant's transaction.

Ss. 54 & 73-Sale of goods-Breach of contract-A's suit against H dismissed by Letters Patent Bench on legal consideration of delivery of shipping documents (i.e. invoice, bill of lading, and policy of insurance) being symbolical of delivery of goods purchased, placing same at buyer's risk and entitling seller to payment of their price-Letters Patent Bench also finding all legal requirements under C. I. F. Contract having been duly fulfilled by H it could not be held responsible for shipment of goods to have any hand in their shipment, or in preparation of various documents-Letters Patent Bench also holding there being no evidence for allegation against H of having made any misrepresentation or played fraud on A-Such findings not shown to be faulty on any account-Suit against H, held, rightly dismissed in circumstances.

73-Breach of contract-Short landing certificates-Short landing certificates containing qualification `said to be' short landed-Supports submission of M. S. Bars being neither weighed nor counted-Legitimate inference drawn from such documents : Bundles neither weighed nor counted at time of discharge and goods discharged not in accordance with marks and packing indicated in Export General Manifest-Large quantity of goods found in loose condition at jetty not examined for purposes of identification-Such fact, held further, deprives short landing certificates of their conclusive nature and survey report prepared at consignees' premises could have no material bearing on question of quantity of goods actually shipped.

S. 73-Breach of contract-Damages-Special Leave to Appeal to - Supreme Court-Damages already paid by appellants to other party, reasonable and in no way excessive-Amount paid as far back as ten years ago-Case, in its peculiar circumstances, held, not fit for examination of question of damages-Order granting leave to appeal recalled Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3).-Damages.

S. 73-Breach of contract-Respondent Railways reserving to itself right to terminate agreements at any time before expiry of contracted period by giving licensee a month's notice without assigning any reason and without being liable to pay any compensation- '' Notices of cancellation of lease served on petitioners by respondent in circumstances unexceptionable-High Court's other finding, viz., petitioners evidently secured space at Railway Station by exercise of pernicious influence through Minister of Railways based on proper evidence-Object of writ petitions, viz., to seek enforcement of contractual rights, held, could not be enforced by resorting to constitutional Jurisdiction of High Court-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art 199.-[Contract-Jurisdiction].

Ejectment-All Courts below concurrently finding respondent-landlord reasonably and bona fide intending to demolish existing shop and reconstructing same by amalgamating big own shop with that of his uncle -Landlord's uncle also filing ejectment application against his tenant and such application succeeding in sense of tenant having agreed to vacate premises within a year

Not possible, held, in circumstances, to hold respondent having merely adopted a device to pressurize petitioner into paying higher rent-Provisions of S 12(5) & (5-A), held further, provide sufficient safeguards against adoption of any dishonest device by landlord in such cases.

Ss. 203, 205, 206 & 73 -Principal and agent-Damages-Contract of agency -Termination of agency before expiry of agreed term Damages could be recovered only where such termination without "sufficient reason"-Loss of his reputation by agent-Could be considered "sufficient reason" for putting end to agency on part of principal- Whither there way "sufficient cause"-To be determined by circumstances of each case-Loss of reputation not mentioned in letter of revocation by principal as reason for termination of agency although there had been in fact some loss of reputation of agent on account of police action against him-Loss of reputation, in circumstance, although -may not be relied upon as furnishing "sufficient cause" for withdrawal of agency it nevertheless could be taken into consideration In assessing measure of damages-Breach of contract -Principles guiding Court in determination of measure of damages Compensation is payable for actual loss or damage caused