Interest on contract amount

contractual amount along with interest

2024 C L C 1236

[Islamabad]

Before Babar Sattar, J

Messrs SECO SAFE WORKS through Owner / Proprietor----Appellant

Versus

The CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through Chairman----Respondent

R.F.A. No.93 of 2013, decided on 19th June, 2023.

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---

----S. 34---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.12---Suit for recovery of contractual amount along with interest---Payment of interest---Scope---Discretionary powers of the Court---Scope---Appellant (plaintiff / contractor) impugned judgment of Civil Court whereby his suit was decreed without interest---Validity---Section 34 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, provides that where a decree is for payment of money, the Court may "order interest at such rate as the Court deems reasonable to be paid on the principal sum adjudged, from the date of the suit to the date of the decree, in addition to any interest adjudged on such principal sum for any period prior to the institution of the suit, with further interest at such rate as the Court deems reasonable on the aggregate sum so adjudged, from the date of the decree to the date of payment, or to such earlier date as the Court thinks fit"---In the present case, though it was correctly held by the Civil Court that defendant /respondent (Capital Development Authority) was in breach of its contractual obligation, however, it (Civil Court) erred in not considering that the appellant was entitled to payment of interest on the outstanding amount due and payable as of 25.04.1997 i.e. ten days from the expiry of the 30-day period for submission of invoice after the date fixed for completion of work, which was 15.03.1997---Failure to pay such consideration at the time fixed in accordance with the contract established that respondent/CDA was in breach of its obligation to make such payment---Appellant was out of pocket for over a decade during which period respondent /CDA continued to benefit from goods and services supplied by the appellant without having paid for such goods and services in accordance with the terms of the contract---After the appellant had established as a plaintiff that he was not in default of his obligations under the contract and had completed the supply of goods and services in the period prescribed in the contract i.e. 15.03.1997, and the respondent / CDA on the other hand was in default of its obligation to pay consideration by the period fixed within the contract i.e. 25.04.1997, the appellant was entitled to payment of interest on the amount as well as for monetary award in view of breach of contract on part of CDA---Once the Civil Court had concluded that the appellant was not a defaulting party and CDA was the defaulting party and had withheld payments to the appellant in breach of the provisions of the contract, it ought to have granted interest on the outstanding payments from date from which payment of consideration had become due, as under S. 34 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, the Court is empowered to grant interest on payments even for a period prior to the institution of the suit---Grant or refusal of interest is a discretion vesting in court exercisable on the basis of known principles of administration of justice---Just as discretion vested in executive authorities cannot be exercised arbitrarily, the discretion vested in the court must be structured and exercised in a manner guided by principles of equity and fair administration of justice---Payment of the entire consideration under the contract became due on date fixed for completion of work (25.04.1997)---Appellant was entitled to interest on the outstanding amount of consideration from such date till the time that the amount had been paid at average bank rate of interest---Therefore, CDA would pay interest, in addition to the decretal amount, calculated on the total consideration payable starting from date fixed for completion of work (25.04.1997)---Appeal was allowed to the said extent.

       Najm Koreshi v. Chase Manhattan Bank now Muslim Commercial Limited, Lahore and others 2015 SCMR 1461; Lahore Development Authority v. M/s Faisal International Construction Corporation Limited 2004 CLC 1879 and Federation of Pakistan v. M/s Aalme Engineers (Pvt.) Ltd. 2015 CLC 1273 ref.

       Muhammad Safdar Ali Bhatti and Raja Muhammad Tariq Khan for Appellant.

       Amir Latif Gill for Respondent.

 مندرجہ ذیل اس کیس کے اہم نکات ہیں:

1. ادائیگی پر سود کا اطلاق:

سول پروسیجر کوڈ 1908 کی دفعہ 34 کے تحت، عدالت کو اختیار حاصل ہے کہ وہ مالی معاملات پر سود کا تعین کرے، جو کیس کے حقائق اور انصاف کے اصولوں کے مطابق ہو۔

2. سول عدالت کی غلطی:

سول عدالت نے اپیل کنندہ (ٹھیکیدار) کے حق میں ڈگری تو دی، لیکن بقایا رقم پر سود دینے کے حوالے سے غور نہیں کیا، جو کہ ایک قانونی غلطی تھی۔

3. معاہدے کی خلاف ورزی:

سی ڈی اے نے معاہدے کے مطابق ادائیگی کرنے میں ناکامی دکھائی، جس کی وجہ سے اپیل کنندہ کو کئی دہائیوں تک نقصان اٹھانا پڑا، جبکہ سی ڈی اے نے خدمات اور سامان سے فائدہ اٹھایا۔

4. سود کا آغاز:

عدالت نے کہا کہ سود کی ادائیگی کا آغاز 25 اپریل 1997 سے ہونا چاہیے، کیونکہ یہ وہ تاریخ تھی جب معاہدے کے مطابق رقم ادا کی جانی تھی۔

5. عدالتی اختیارات اور انصاف کے اصول:

عدالت نے واضح کیا کہ عدالتوں کو اپنے اختیارات منصفانہ اور انصاف کے اصولوں کے تحت استعمال کرنے چاہییں، اور فیصلے کو غیر ضروری طور پر التوا یا امتیاز کا شکار نہیں ہونا چاہیے۔

6. متعلقہ نظائر (Precedents):

عدالت نے دیگر متعلقہ فیصلوں کا حوالہ دیا جن میں سود کی ادائیگی اور معاہدے کی خلاف ورزی کے معاملات شامل تھے:

Najm Koreshi v. Chase Manhattan Bank (2015 SCMR 1461)

Lahore Development Authority v. Faisal International Construction (2004 CLC 1879)

Federation of Pakistan v. Aalme Engineers (2015 CLC 1273)

7. فیصلہ:

اپیل کنندہ کو بقایا رقم پر سود کے ساتھ رقم ادا کرنے کا حکم دیا گیا، اور اپیل جزوی طور پر منظور کی گئی۔

یہ نکات کیس کے اہم پہلوؤں کو اجاگر کرتے ہیں اور عدالت کے فیصلے کا خلاصہ فراہم کرتے ہیں۔

For more information call us 0092-324-4010279 Whatsapp Dear readers if u like this post plz comments and follow us. Thanks for reading .as you know our goal is to aware people of their rights and how can get their rights. we will answer every question, so we need your help to achieve our goal. plz tell people about this blog and subscribe to our youtube channel and follow us at the end of this post.

Documentary evidence submitted through council statement .

Documentary evidence submitted through council statement .

2024 C L C 1246

[Lahore]

Before Muhammad Sajid Mehmood Sethi, J

NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY, ISLAMABAD through Project Director Zafar Mehmood----Petitioner

Versus

MUHAMMAD AFZAL BHATTI and another----Respondents

R.F.A. No.20881 of 2023, heard on 3rd June, 2024.

(a) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)---

----Arts. 72 & 133---Documentary evidence---Exhibited through statement of counsel----Legality---Right of cross-examination, non-availability of---Effect---Concept that documents cannot be admitted into evidence solely through statement of counsel during evidence is rooted in fundamental right to cross-examination, which is an essential aspect of adversarial legal system---Right to cross-examination allows opposing party to challenge veracity, authenticity and relevance of evidence presented, including documents---Admitting documents solely on the statements of counsel, compromises right of other party to cross-examine, which is not warranted by law---Trial Courts must ensure that all documentary evidence is subject to scrutiny of cross-examination to uphold principles of fairness and due process---Documents exhibited solely through statements of counsel without opportunity for cross-examination do not meet legal standards for admissibility of evidence---This ensures the integrity of judicial process and the rights of parties involved.

       Manzoor Hussain (deceased) through L.Rs. v. Misri Khan PLD 2020 SC 749; Mst. Akhtar Sultana v. Major Retd. Muzaffar Khan Malik through his legal heirs and others PLD 2021 SC 715 and Mst. Rasoolan Bibi v. Province of Punjab and others 2023 CLC 1171 rel.

(b) Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894)---

----Ss. 4 & 18---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 72 & 133---Acquisition of land---Compensation---Determining factors---Documents not put to cross-examination---Appellant was land acquiring authority and aggrieved of enhancing of compensation regarding acquired land owned by respondent / landowner---Plea raised by appellant / authority was that all documents relied upon by Referee Court were exhibited during statement of counsel for respondent / landowner---Validity---Respondent / landowner got exhibited as many as seventeen (17) documents during statement of his counsel---Referee Court as well as both the parties in total oblivion of legal position had allowed those documents to be exhibited---Such exercise was not permissible under well-established principles of law---Best evidence helpful to resolve the controversy was lost which had seriously affected precious rights of parties---High Court directed for strict adherence of such principle to ensure substantial justice and to save parties from substantial loss---High Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction reduced the compensation from Rs.2,000,000/- per Acre to Rs.1,500,000/- along with 15% compulsory acquisition charges and compound interest at the rate of 8% from the date of possession of acquired land to date of payment of enhanced amount of compensation---Appeal was allowed accordingly.

       Government of N.-W.F.P. and others v. Akbar Shah and others 2010 SCMR 1408; Mst. Fatima and 2 others v. Najeeb Ullah and another 2020 CLC 780; Lahore Ring Road Authority and others v. Mian Mumtaz Ahmad and others 2021 CLC 178; Muhammad Hussain and another v. Province of Punjab through District Officer Revenue, Multan and others 2021 YLR 2310; Wasab Khan and another v. Mst. Bagh Bhari and 5 others 2017 MLD 1552; Muhammad Munawar v. Abdul Razaq and 6 others 2018 CLC 1227; Usman Khan v. Mst. Shehla Gul and 2 others 2020 CLC 910; Muhammad Akhtar v. Mst. Manna and 3 others 2001 SCMR 1700; Malik Tariq Mahmood and others v. Province of Punjab and others 2023 SCMR 102; Federal Government of Pakistan through Ministry of Defence Rawalpindi and others v. Mst. Zakia Begum and others PLD 2023 SC 277; National Highway Authority v. Rai Ahmad Nawaz Khan and others 2023 SCMR 700 and Nawabzada Abdul Qadir Khan and others v. Land Acquisition Collector Mardan and others 2023 SCMR 950 ref.

       Muhammad Saim Chaudhary, Dewan Zakir Hussain and Saima Safdar Chaudhary for Appellant.

       Muhammad Zain Qazi, Assistant Attorney General on Court's call.

       Najaf Muzammal Khan for Respondent.

       Muhammad Saad Bin Ghazi, Assistant Advocate General on Court's call.

 

2024 C L C 1246

یہ کیس نیشنل ہائی وے اتھارٹی اور محمد افضال بھٹی کے درمیان تھا، جس میں دو اہم قانونی نکات زیر بحث آئے:

1. دستاویزی شہادت اور جرح کا حق:

دستاویزات کو محض وکیل کے بیان کے ذریعے قبول کرنا قانونی اصولوں کے خلاف ہے۔

جرح کا حق ایک بنیادی اصول ہے، جو کسی بھی دستاویز کی صداقت اور تعلق کو چیلنج کرنے کی اجازت دیتا ہے۔

ٹرائل کورٹس کو اس بات کو یقینی بنانا چاہیے کہ تمام دستاویزی شہادت جرح کے ذریعے منظور کی جائے۔

2. زمین کی قیمت کا تعین:

اپیل کنندہ (نیشنل ہائی وے اتھارٹی) نے اعتراض کیا کہ ریفرینس کورٹ نے 17 دستاویزات کو بغیر جرح کے قبول کیا۔

عدالت نے اس طریقہ کار کو غیر قانونی قرار دیتے ہوئے معاوضے میں کمی کی اور 15 لاکھ روپے فی ایکڑ کے حساب سے نئے معاوضے کا تعین کیا۔

معاوضے کی ادائیگی پر 8% کمپاؤنڈ سود اور 15% لازمی حصول چارجز عائد کیے گئے۔

یہ فیصلے دستاویزی شہادت کی قانونی حیثیت اور زمین کے معاوضے کے تعین میں انصاف کے اصولوں کی اہمیت کو اجاگر کرتے ہیں۔

For more information call us 0092-324-4010279 Whatsapp Dear readers if u like this post plz comments and follow us. Thanks for reading .as you know our goal is to aware people of their rights and how can get their rights. we will answer every question, so we need your help to achieve our goal. plz tell people about this blog and subscribe to our youtube channel and follow us at the end of this post.