Agreement

Suit filed by appellant/plaintiff was dismissed by High Court as first page of the agreement did not contain signatures and thumb impression

Validity

If first page of agreement was taken out of consideration, as it did not contain signatures/thumb impressions of any of the parties as well as of the witnesses, the suit for specific performance could not be decreed

Supreme Court declined to interfere in findings of High Court which were the result of thorough examination of documentary as well as oral evidence

Appeal was dismissed.

Term "agreement" under Ss.2(1)(b) and 4 of Competition Act, 2010 includes any type of contract, understanding or arrangements whether formal or informal that results in any form of cooperation or coordination between parties in a way that could hinder competition

This can include both horizontal (between competitors) and vertical (between different levels of supply chain) agreements.

Actual dent caused to the case of the petitioner was due to non-appearance of respondent (defendant)/vendor in the witness box

Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, permits the Court to draw an adverse inference against the party who fails to appear in the witness box

Therefore, no matter how strong (consenting) the written statement filed by respondent /vendor was, it lost its efficacy as he did not make himself available for cross-examination and his written statement could not have been treated as substantive piece of evidence

Sole evidence of the petitioner was inconsequential as whatever he deposed was hearsay

Respondent being plaintiff discharged his onus by appearing in the witness box personally and producing attesting witnesses as well as a scribe

Conversely, the vendor/respondent failed to present himself for cross-examination and this was fatal to the case of the petitioner as well as respondent/vendor

Appearance of the vendor in written box was also imperative as respondent/plaintiff in his evidence had placed on record (got exhibited) the criminal proceedings and said proceedings were decided in his favour

Therefore, the failure of the respondent /vendor to appear in witness box and depose to rebut the evidence of the respondent/plaintiff had serious consequences as under the law it amounted to admission

Deposition of the petitioner being subsequent purchaser qua the subject matter agreement to sell was just hearsay as he was not in a position to depose with respect to the existence and contents of the subject matter agreement to sell

Impugned judgments and decrees did not warrant any interference, in circumstances

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Non-production of required number of marginal witnesses is non-compliance of mandatory provision of law which is fatal.

Arbitration agreement not only imposes a "positive" obligation upon parties to proceed with a dispute but also creates negative undertaking for parties which obligates them not to bring any claims falling within the scope of arbitration agreement, in a forum other than arbitration.

Arbitration agreement not only imposes a "positive" obligation upon parties to proceed with a dispute but also creates negative undertaking for parties which obligates them not to bring any claims falling within the scope of arbitration agreement, in a forum other than arbitration.

If contents of document in question were specifically denied, then beneficiary of the document was to prove the same, specially where executant was Parada observing lady or an illiterate person

Claiming person had to prove that document was executed with free consent and knowledge of executant and consideration amount was also paid

High Court was not satisfied with genuineness of document in question and its execution was not proved as neither consideration amount was proved nor it had been proved that the executant was given understanding about its contents

High Court set aside concurrent judgments and decrees passed by two Courts below as error had been committed while appraising evidence of respondent/plaintiff

Revision was allowed accordingly.

Term 'agreement' as conceived under the Act is very broad and encompasses the 'entering into' any/or all practices, arrangements and understandings that come within the purview of S. 4(1)

When S. 4(1) is read with the definition of 'agreement' in S. 2(1)(b) of the Act contractual elements like offer and acceptance, free consensus of parties, lawful consideration or for that matter enforceability of the agreement itself, are not relevant facts in determining whether any 'agreement' has been entered into

Prohibition under S. 4 pertains to all agreements whether these are: legally enforceable or not, with or without consideration or entered voluntarily or involuntarily.

An agreement can take a variety of forms and does not have to conform to the usual notion of a standardized written, binding or legally enforceable instrument

In line with this definition, a practice that has continued over a period of time in a particular market or industry qualifies to be an "agreement" and such an agreement can be scrutinized by the Commission.

Contention of plaintiff was that defendant had not paid all the consideration amount of suit property and impugned sale mutation was null and void

Suit was decreed concurrently

Validity

Plaintiff had alleged non-payment of sale consideration of suit property and had relied upon an agreement

Defendant had not specifically denied the said agreement in his written statement

Plaintiff had not only exhibited the alleged agreement but had also produced its scribe, marginal witnesses, notary public and stamp vendor

Defendant was required to prove the payment of entire sale consideration but he had failed to produce any witness in that regard

Statement of defendant with regard to payment of consideration amount was self-contradictory

Defendant had not come in the Court with clean hands and was not a truthful witness

Plaintiff was still in possession on the suit property and defendant had failed to prove the payment of sale consideration

Essential ingredients of "sale" were missing and there was no sale in the eye of law

Mutation was not a title deed and it did neither confer any title nor take away any right

Transfer of suit property in favour of defendant and impugned sale mutation as well as registered deed had automatically became null and void

Trial Court had decreed the suit with regard to recovery of outstanding sale consideration and had declared impugned mutation null and void despite the fact that plaintiff was entitled to any one of the two reliefs

Impugned mutation being void one could not sustain legally, in circumstances

Decree to the extent of recovery of outstanding sale consideration was set aside and findings to the extent of declaration of impugned mutation as null and void were maintained

Revision was disposed of accordingly.

Contention of plaintiff was that his father had delivered suit property in favour of defendant temporarily as plaintiff was minor at that time but defendant had not returned suit land to the plaintiff on attaining his majority

Suit was dismissed concurrently being time barred

Validity

Plaintiff had filed present suit after lapse of 37/39 years of his attaining the age of majority

Suit was time barred, in circumstances

Courts below had rightly dismissed the suit

Will deed was not a valid agreement to file a suit for specific performance

Suit for specific performance could only be filed for performance of an agreement to sell

Two persons i.e. promisee and promiser who had agreed with their free consent for a lawful object and legal consideration were necessary to constitute a valid agreement

Alleged will deed contained only signature/thumb impression of father of plaintiff and there was no offer by one person and acceptance by the other

Said will deed neither disclosed the description of the parties nor the terms and conditions of agreement and it did not fulfil the requirements of agreement

Suit of plaintiff was not maintainable, in circumstances

Plaintiff had failed to prove his case by adducing reliable evidence in the Trial Court

No illegality or irregularity had been committed by the Courts below while passing the impugned judgments and decrees

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Parties and witnesses though should execute document at the end, but parties must also sign each page if document was written out on more than one page.

Negotiable instrument under S.4 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, required that it should be an unconditional promise for making payment

Agreement had its own meaning and definition and if there was a promise to pay certain amount with reference to 'agreement' it was sufficient to bring such document out of the scope of S.4 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

Such was not a short cause within the ambit of O.XXXVII, C.P.C. and holder of such document (plaintiff) was required to file a regular suit in the Court having jurisdiction

Suit was dismissed in circumstances.

Mere consent of two or more would not constitute a legal binding 'agreement' which legally had to be reduced into writing

Agreement was always a bilateral document/transaction which required two or more (promisor and promisee) to have agreed against some consideration

Document which created an obligation upon one alone cannot legally qualify the meaning of an "agreement" enforceable in law.

"Receipt" being a document signed by party acknowledging receipt of certain thing, created no legal obligation or liability upon any other person (not signatory of document), hence, cannot be termed to be a "bilateral document"

"Receipt" cannot qualify the term "agreement" which had got its own independent ingredients.

Till the disputes that are covered under arbitration agreement remain unresolved, parties would be free to take recourse to arbitration for resolution of disputes and other party would be contractually bound to submit disputes to arbitration.

Decree for ownership with regard to Shamilat deh land on the basis of any agreement by a private person or cognovits could not be granted.

Law did not permit a party to read in an implied condition which was never agreed to by the parties at the time of entering into the agreement.

Agreement which was not in conflict with any statute could be enforced.

Agreement can be made orally.

"Consideration for each other" required that both the parties of agreement had to make promise for some lawful act against lawful consideration.

Behavior and conduct of the parties would matter in absence of a writing to conclude whether there existed any "agreement" or otherwise

Plaintiff had supplied goods under some understanding and for consideration

No written agreement was on record between the parties but plaintiff and defendant had proved whole transaction from their conduct and attitude

No specific and clear denial was available to the claim of plaintiff

Defendant had paid sales tax on the goods received directly from the plaintiff

Binding contract between the parties could be concluded from their conduct in circumstances

Both the parties had come face to face and transaction was confirmed

Action of agent was binding upon the principal when the principal had confirmed the acts of the agent

No illegality had been committed by the courts below with regard to appreciating the factual controversies

Transaction took place at place "K" where defendant had ordered the goods and goods were sent and sales tax amount was enchashed

Most of the part(s) of transaction were completed from place "K"

Courts below had not erred while holding that cause of action accrued to the plaintiff at place "K"

Defendant could not deny the legal obligation by taking the cover of jurisdictional defect

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

Second appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Contention of plaintiffs was that they were owners of suit property which was given to the defendants for cultivation whereas defendants contended that they had purchased the said property through agreement

Suit of plaintiffs was decreed whereas that of defendants was dismissed

Validity

Agreement did not by itself create any right, interest or any charge on the property in dispute

Impugned agreement did not create any lawful title in favour of defendants

Defendants had a remedy to seek specific performance of said agreement

Every document purporting to create any right, title or interest of the value of Rs.100 and upward would require compulsory registration

Contract for sale of immovable property was a contract that sale of such property should take place on the terms settled between the parties subject to fulfillment of all other obligations

No sale of property by the owners was made in favour of defendants

Defendants were bound to produce the marginal witnesses of agreement to prove its execution

Non-production of such witnesses was fatal to the case of defendants

Recital of such document could not be said to have been proved

Defendants had failed to establish their right or interest in the suit property

Plaintiffs were recorded owners of suit land whereas defendants were neither bona fide purchaser nor lawful owners the same

Question of handing over disputed property to the defendants by the plaintiffs did not arise

Agreement executed in favour of defendants was not a valid and proved document

Presumption of truth was attached to the mutation

Some cultivable portion of suit-land was given to the defendants for cultivation only

Defendants were bound to provide due share of produce to the plaintiffs but they did not only withhold the same but also deprived them from their valuable right in the property since 2007

Defendants had neither purchased any piece of suit property nor had any lawful right to continue their possession over the same

Trial Court had rightly rejected the evidence produced by the defendants

Findings recorded by the Trial Court were based on proper appreciation of evidence

Defendants were directed to pay compensatory cost of Rs.50,000 jointly and severally to the plaintiffs

Tehsildar was directed to take the vacant possession of suit property and handover the same to the plaintiffs within a specified period

Appeal was dismissed with cost.

Agreement to sell did not create any right, title or interest in favour of any person.

Agreement to sell did not create any right, title or interest in favour of any person and existence of the same was open to doubt.

Plaintiff, as per its plaint had unequivocally accepted offer contained in letter in question and further withdrew proceedings initiated by it

Although details of earlier suit filed by plaintiff did not come on record during evidence but such averment had been reaffirmed by plaintiff's witness in his deposition

Nothing was on record from the side of defendant to controvert such assertion of plaintiff and defendant was estopped in law from turning its back and resiling from commitment made through letter dated 17-6-1974

Defendant invited offers for transfer of plot in question in response thereto plaintiff submitted offers and the same were accepted by Managing Committee of defendant society and unconditional offer was communicated to plaintiff without any reservation

Such was an unqualified acceptance and constituted valid contract for transfer of subject property by defendant to plaintiff

Defendant failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in allotment made in favour of plaintiff, therefore, it could not cancel the same

Suit was decreed in circumstances.

For proper comprehension and insight into an instrument it was to be read as a whole and where its language was simple, clearly understandable and capable of no ambiguity, then the intention of the parties to such instrument was to be gathered from its contents alone without adverting to any other extraneous consideration and in normal course it should have precedence over any other option.

Plaintiff claimed that there was agreement between parties regarding exchange of landed property and possession was accordingly surrendered to each other and on denying of defendant suit was filed

Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of plaintiff but Lower Appellate Court dismissed the suit filed by plaintiff

Validity

Factum of possession of plaintiff over suit land claiming in part performance controverted by defendant adding same to be a permissible possession as tenant by itself was not sufficient to prove agreement of exchange though it could have been considered a corroborative evidence if execution' of agreement was proved in accordance with law

Plaintiff failed to prove existence, terms and conditions of agreement in accordance with law

High Court declined to interfere with judgment and decree passed by Lower Appellate Court as the same was not contrary to law in order to attract provision of S.100, C.P.C.

Second appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Alleged agreement to sell did not contain the date of performance of the same and no separate receipt of payment of money had been produced

Impugned agreement to sell was allegedly signed by the defendant but no signature of plaintiff was available on the same

Signatures of son of plaintiff were available but there was no mention whether he was attorney or he had any power on behalf of his father to enter into an agreement to sell with the defendant

Local commission had assessed the value of suit property as Rs. 4,80,000 whereas under the agreement same had been mentioned as Rs. 22,000

Present suit had been filed after about 10 years of the alleged agreement to sell which was doubtful

Agreement to sell was signed by only one party and same could not be termed as an agreement under S. 2(e)(h) of Contract Act, 1872

Contract would come into existence upon acceptance of offer/proposal and to have an agreement there should be consideration for the promise

Both the parties to the agreement should agree for fulfilling the condition to such agreement for enforcement of the same in the future or performance of their part in the future and they should be able to file suit for specific performance on the basis of said agreement

When one of the parties had not signed the agreement then other party could not file suit for specific performance of said agreement against the party who had not signed the same

Ingredients of valid agreement were missing in the present case

Alleged agreement to sell was not an agreement in the eye of law

Findings recorded by the Appellate Court while decreeing the suit were against the law as well as evidence available on the file which were set aside with costs throughout

Revision was accepted in circumstances.

Although such an oral agreement was permissible in law but it had to be proved through credible and unimpeachable evidence.

Concluded and performed agreement cannot be amended or altered without consent of party concerned unless there is allegation of fraud and misrepresentation against affected party.

Exceptions to the rule enumerated.

Whether signed letter issued by the authorities to the plaintiffs constituted an agreement within the meaning of S.2 of the Contract Act, 1872

Valid agreement

Scope

Plaintiffs had filed a suit against the authorities for the enforcement of a letter addressed to them, which the plaintiffs contended to be an agreement between the parties

Suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs and upheld in appeal by the appellate court below

Contention of the authorities was that no agreement was executed between the parties and the letter in question could not be considered as an agreement within the meaning of S.2(b) of the Contract Act, 1872

Validity

Letter in question neither bore the signature of the government official ( petitioner) nor the district officer (petitioner) concerned had any authority to issue such a letter

For the constitution of a valid agreement there must be at least two persons, i.e. promisor and promisee, who agreed with their free consent to a lawful object and legal consideration, as required by S.2 of the Contract Act, 1872

Letter in question only contained the signatures of one of the plaintiffs and, therefore, did not fall within the definition prescribed in S.2(b) of the Contract Act, 1872

Letter in question had not been executed by the competent person

Mere signing of a letter could not be termed as a "valid agreement" within the meaning of S.2 of the Contract Act, 1872, therefore, the plaintiffs were not entitled to any decree of enforcement of the letter in question

Revision petition was accepted, judgment and decrees of both the courts below were set aside and the suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed.

Plaintiff claimed to have purchased suit-land from defendant lady, who after receiving consideration amount executed agreement to sell and general power of attorney in his favour

Suit was decreed by Trial Court in favour of plaintiff but Lower Appellate Court dismissed the same

Validity

Defendant lady had passed intermediate, had been serving in the Health Department and also made sale / purchase of a cold storage, as such plea of being Pardanashin lady was no more available to her

Plaintiff had successfully proved his case by producing one marginal witness and Deed Writer who was as good as marginal witness

Defendant lady admitted her signatures on agreement to sell as well as payment receipts, therefore, presumption would be that she had signed the documents after receipt of consideration amount

Revocation of general power of attorney by defendant lady was an afterthought to deprive plaintiff from his lawful right which could not be allowed under the law

Lower Appellate Court had passed judgment against law and fact which could not sustain in the eye of law

High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction set aside judgment and decree passed by Lower Appellate Court and restored that of Trial Court

Revision was accepted in circumstances.

Plaintiff claimed that owners of suit land executed agreement to sell in his favour and received earnest money but sold the land to defendants

Suit filed by plaintiff was dismissed by Trial Court but Lower Appellate Court decreed the same in favour of plaintiff

Validity

Plaintiff succeeded in establishing that in fact the owners agreed to sell the land in favour of plaintiff and in that respect agreement in question was genuinely executed by them in his favour

Plaintiff successfully proved the agreement by producing two attesting witnesses as well as scribe of the document

Defendants who claimed themselves as bona fide purchasers did not produce any solid and confidence inspiring evidence in support of their version and possession was not delivered to them

If defendants were bona fide purchasers of disputed property and mutation was attested in their favour then why the possession of the property was not given to them

Mutation in favour of defendants was sanctioned in league with the original vendors

Defendants failed to point out any illegality or material irregularity in the judgment and decree passed by Lower Appellate Court

High Court declined to interfere in the judgment and decree passed by Lower Appellate Court

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Only those agreements are binding on parties which are in accordance with law of land in general and provisions of the Constitution in particular.

Any agreement between an Association of taxpayer and the Revenue has no binding effect against the express provisions of law unless the same is supported by any superior or subordinate legislation.

First Appellate Authority's direction to allow adjustment of input tax as claim of registered person was based on consumption of packing material in exports

Department contended that the agreement was executed between the Collector and Association of Confectionery voluntarily and was binding upon the .contracting parties; and claim of input adjustment, being in excess of 20% limit had been rightly disallowed

Registered person contended that agreement relied upon was not of binding nature because it was not reduced into a statutory instrument

Validity

Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the department; and directed the concerned officer to allow the adjustment of input tax to the registered person because the same could not be denied on the basis of an agreement which was enforceable under the law.

Assessee contended that attention was drawn towards Agreement for construction of Plaza, all correspondence and notices issued under 5.62/13 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 by the then Taxation Officer along with replies during assessment proceeding for assessment years 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 but the same were ignored; and Taxation Officer (Audit) arbitrarily disbelieved the genuine agreement arrived at between the owner of Plaza and the contractor, executed with free and fair consent of the parties

Further, construction rates were applied on the basis of construction rate supplied by PWD vide their letter dated 15-11-2007, whereas proceedings under S.177(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 were started on 10-7-2009; and it could not be said that this "definite information" was acquired front Audit

Validity

Taxation Officer, in order for the assessment year 2002-2003, had accepted the version of the taxpayer including the rate of construction and had observed that the investment was declared in Tax Year 2003 and in Tax Year 2004 and no adverse inference was drawn

Notice regarding the same property were issued under S.13(1)(d) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 from assessment year 2001-2002 to Tax year 2004, for which the proceedings were dropped

Assessee had declared the total cost of construction of Plaza as on 30-6-2005 at Rs.83,00,000 and the Taxation Officer had assessed the cost of construction at Rs.85,66,370

Taxation Officer had not given any contractor's profit which according to taxpayer was 20%

Regarding construction, the affidavit of the contractor had also been furnished and there was no justification for not accepting the affidavit and agreement

Plaza on the basis of which the case of the taxpayer had been reopened was completed before 30-6-2003 and part of which was rented out on 19-6-2003

Rates applied by the Taxation Officer for the tax year 2004 to 2007 were not relevant

First Appellate Authority had reduced the cost of construction but he had not considered the fact that on behalf of the assessee, an affidavit of the contractor and the agreement had been furnished which had not been rebutted by the Taxation Officer, which should have been accepted

Department could not change the nature of contract intended by the parties under the pretext that a fiscal law in this behalf was different

No justification' existed for addition made by the Taxation Officer

Order of First Appellate Authority was vacated and order passed by the Taxation Officer was cancelled

Appeal of the taxpayer was allowed by the Appellate Tribunal.

Conduct could amount to a concerted practice even where the parties had not explicitly subscribed to a common plan defining their action in the market, but knowingly adopt or adhere to collusive devices which facilitate the co-ordination of their commercial behaviour.

If the parties had agreed that suit was to be filed in a particular court and the suit was filed in another court, the proper course for the court was to return the plaint for presentation to the court agreed upon by the parties.

Agreement by which parties did not intend to create any legal obligation, would not be enforceable in law.

Court could not grant relief on basis of such illegal terms and conditions.

Intention of the parties to the agreement could only be analyzed by the conduct of the parties.

Where the seller transfers or agrees to transfer the property to the buyer for a fixed price, the contract is complete.

Agreement to sell need not have been signed by parties or witnesses in presence of Oath Commissioner/Notary Public or . any other Officer or Authority.

Question whether a separate and independent agreement came into existence to pay time-barred debt within S.25(3), Contract Act being a question of fact required not only to be pleaded specifically but to be established by leading evidence

Plea neither raised specifically in plaint nor in issues

Case remanded back to Trial Court with option to appellant to amend suit suitably to bring his case within meaning of S.25(3), Contract Act.

Implied agreement-Custom or usage of Trade-Payment of overtime allowance was held to be an implied agreement apart from custom or usage of trade.

Interpretation-Government by virtue of Merger Agreement merely guaranteeing succession o "according to law and customs of the Bahawalpur State" and not guaranteeing application of customs in preference to other laws in force in State-Such stipulation. held, only meant succession to be according to rule of law in general-Such rule of law however not immutable for all times and Legislature competent to legislate in matter and pass any law modifying law of succession.

O. XXIII, r. 3 read with Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 23-Agreement-Order passed by consent in ejectment proceedings before Rent Controller resulting in compromise between parties-Agreement attempting to alter relevant law of succession and plaintiff having no legal title in property-Compromise, in circumstances, held, tainted with fraud and misrepresentation and thus not lawful and could not be acted upon.