Specific performance | -Pecuniary compensation
 |
| Specific performance | -Pecuniary compensation |
2024 C L C 1549
[Sindh]
Before Ahmed Ali M. Shaikh, CJ and Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry, J
SPEC ENERGY DMCC----Appellant
Versus
PAKISTAN PETROLEUM LIMITED and another----Respondents
High Court Appeals Nos.28 and 29 of 2021, decided on 18 September, 2023.
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---
----O.XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 12, 21(a) & 56(f)---Intra Court Appeal---Specific performance of agreement---Interim injunction, refusal of---Pecuniary compensation---Agreement not enforceable---Effect---Appellant / plaintiff company was awarded contract who failed to complete the project---Respondent / defendant company terminated the contract and did not allow appellant / plaintiff company to remove it's equipment from the site---Judge in Chambers of High Court dismissed applications moved by appellant / plaintiff company and restrained it from interfering with completion of works at the site---Validity---Contract had specified and fixed price payable to appellant / plaintiff company for performing works---Stages of payments to appellant / plaintiff company were pinned to milestones which too were identified in the contract---Standard existed in the contract for ascertaining actual damage caused to appellant / plaintiff company by its non-performance so as to attract S.12(b) of Specific Relief Act, 1877---Appellant / plaintiff company was to design and build a gas processing facility for respondent / defendant---Contract did not award any concession to appellant / plaintiff company so as to raise any issue of operating profits for appellant / plaintiff company---Pecuniary compensation for its non-performance would afford adequate relief so as to attract S.12(c) of Specific Relief Act, 1877---Appellant / plaintiff company did not plead special circumstances to demonstrate otherwise, as a consequence, the contract was hit by S.21(a) of Specific Relief Act, 1877, which stipulated that a contract for non-performance of which compensation in money was an adequate relief, could not be specifically enforced---When subject contract was not specifically enforceable, the relief sought in the suit for incidental injunctions were barred by S. 56(f) of Specific Relief Act, 1877, which stipulated that injunction could not be granted to prevent breach of a contract, the performance of which would not be specifically enforced---Division Bench of High Court declined to interfere in orders passed by Judge in Chambers of High Court---Intra Court Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.
Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd v. Argyll Stores (Holdings) Ltd. [1998] A.C. 1; Bolan Beverages (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Pepsico Inc. 2004 CLD 1530 and Pakistan Associated Construction Ltd., v. Asif H. Kazi 1986 SCMR 820 rel.
Arshad M. Tayebaly, Omer Memon and Talha Javed for Appellant (in High Court Appeal No.28 of 2021).
Makhdoom Ali Khan, Ali Almani, Ghulam Hussain Shah and Sami-ur-Rehman along with Ms. Shanza Baig, Head Legal, Azam Shahani and Sayyed Tauqeer Hussain, Law Officers, PPL for Respondent No.1 (in High Court Appeal No.28 of 2021).
Nemo for Respondent No.2 (in High Court Appeal No.28 of 2021).
Arshad M. Tayebaly, Omer Memon and Talha Javed for Appellants (in High Court Appeal No.29 of 2021).
Makhdoom Ali Khan, Ali Almani, Ghulam Hussain Shah and Sami-ur-Rehman along with Ms. Shanza Baig, Head Legal, Azam Shahani and Sayyed Tauqeer Hussain, Law Officers, PPL for Respondent No.1 (in High Court Appeal No.29 of 2021).
Nemo for Respondent No.2 (in High Court Appeal No.29 of 2021).
Yاس کیس کا منفرد نکتہ یہ ہے کہ عدالت نے "Specific Relief Act 1877" کی دفعہ 21(a) کا اطلاق کرتے ہوئے یہ فیصلہ کیا کہ جب معاہدے کی مخصوص کارکردگی کے بجائے مالی معاوضہ ہی مناسب حل ہو، تو معاہدے کی مخصوص کارکردگی کو نافذ نہیں کیا جا سکتا۔ اس فیصلے میں عدالت نے معاہدے کی نوعیت اور اس میں طے شدہ مراحل کو مدنظر رکھتے ہوئے یہ نتیجہ اخذ کیا کہ مالی معاوضہ غیر کارکردگی کی صورت میں مناسب اور کافی ہوگا، اور اس لیے مخصوص کارکردگی کی درخواست یا حکم امتناعی کا کوئی جواز نہیں بنتا۔
یہ نکتہ خاص طور پر اہم ہے کیونکہ یہ "خاص کارکردگی" اور "مالی معاوضہ" کے مابین تعلق کو واضح کرتا ہے، اور اس سے یہ سبق ملتا ہے کہ جب مالی معاوضہ ممکن ہو، تو مخصوص کارکردگی کا مطالبہ عدالت میں کامیاب نہیں ہوتا۔
Comments
Post a Comment