Breach

2019 CLC 1568 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

BreachGovernment contractors having not been paid for the services renderedEffect

Contention of petitioners was that they had rendered services but no payment for the same had been made by the authorities

Validity

When Government through its functionaries entered into or awarded a contract to a private party or entity then there would be a reasonable and legitimate expectation that its functionaries would honour the agreed commitment unless there were sufficient reasons for revoking a contract and/or not making the payments

Contract in the present matter had not been revoked

Government was bound to honour the said contract

Breach of contract on the part of the State could be considered to be breach of statutory obligation and same was amenable to constitutional jurisdiction of High Court

If petitioners had carried out the work in the terms of the respective contracts then non-payment of admitted claims was unjustified and illegal

Authorities had breached the contracts and this act was violation of Art. 18 of the Constitution

Authorities were directed by the High Court to pay the undisputed monetary claims of petitioners within two weeks after completing the codal formalities

Constitutional petition was disposed of, accordingly.

2013 MLD 1891 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 25(3)Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Arts. 56 & 115Promise to payBreachSuit for recovery of balance amount of work done by plaintiffDefendant's plea that suit filed on 27-1-1997 for work done on 3-7-1990 was barred by limitationProof

Defendant in its report dated 6-2-1996 submitted in High Court in reply to constitutional petition filed by plaintiff had admitted that final payment of Rs.6,43,156 as per bill submitted by defendant was due

Nothing on record to rebut such report duly signed by defendant, which would constitute a promise in terms of S. 25(3) of Contract Act, 1872 to pay balance amount to plaintiff

Defendant's refusal to pay balance amount to plaintiff was a breach of such promise

Plaintiff had filed suit on 27-1-1997 after disposal of his constitutional petition by High Court on 29-9-1996

Plaintiff's claim would fall within ambit of Art.115 of Limitation Act, 1908 and not Art. 56 thereof

Suit was decreed in circumstances.

2013 PLD 586 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Rr. 4 & 5Time period for sending samples for examinationBreachEffect

Language employed in Rr.4 & 5 of Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analyst) Rules, 2001, coupled with the fact that no consequence was provided for their breach, made the said rules advisory and not mandatory.

1984 SCMR 1328 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 73 & 74Contract for sale of houseBreach

Parties entering into agreement for sale of house but later entering into second agreement rescinding earlier agreement and expressly stipulating that if purchaser started any proceedings against seller, unpaid amount due to him shall be forfeited

Purchaser addressing letter to Martial Law Authorities complaining against seller a Government servant regarding his financial status

Finding of High Court that such letter did not constitute "proceedings" stipulated in agreement between parties upheld.

1967 PLD 83 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 73-Contract for sale of goods-Breach-Suit for damages-Measure of damages: difference between contract price and market price prevailing on date of breach-Vendor having specified time allowed to deliver goods cancelling contract after making part delivery

Quantum of damage in such case: difference between contract price and market price on last day of specified period for performance of contract—Plaintiff and defendant both wrongly assuming date of cancellation of contract us date of breach.-Defendant, in appeal against decree, not entitled to plead that plaintiff jailed to prove market rate ore date of actual breach, viz. the last date for delivery of goods.

1965 PLD 202 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 73, Explanation-Damages Breach of contract-Mere failure of plaintiff, in suit for damages, to furnish evidence for ascertaining details of damages-No ground for granting nominal damages only

Court itself competent, in circumstance, to ascertain quantum of damages.

1961 PLD 1 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Breach-Seller agreeing to supply 2,000 maunds of cottonseed in November in gunny bags to be supplied by buyer-Bags supplied on November 30-Breach lies on buyer's side for failure to supply bags a reasonable time beforehand.