Suit for recovery of contractual amount along with interest.
 |
اہم عدالتی فیصلہ: معاہداتی رقم اور سود کی ادائیگی
معاہدے کی خلاف ورزی اور مقدمہ دائر کرنا
اس کیس میں Messrs SECO SAFE WORKS کے مالک نے کیپٹل ڈویلپمنٹ اتھارٹی (CDA) کے خلاف معاہداتی رقم کے ساتھ سود کی ادائیگی کے لیے مقدمہ دائر کیا۔ درخواست گزار نے موقف اختیار کیا کہ CDA نے معاہدے کی مدت کے اندر مقررہ رقم کی ادائیگی نہیں کی، جبکہ اس نے فراہم کردہ اشیاء اور خدمات سے فائدہ اٹھایا۔
سود کی ادائیگی کا قانونی دائرہ کار
عدالت نے واضح کیا کہ سیکشن 34، سول پروسیجر کوڈ، 1908 کے تحت عدالت کو اختیار حاصل ہے کہ وہ کسی رقم کی ادائیگی کے لیے سود مقرر کرے، خواہ وہ مقدمے سے پہلے کی مدت کے لیے ہو یا مقدمے کے دوران۔ عدالت نے یہ بھی کہا کہ سود کی ادائیگی یا عدم ادائیگی عدالت کے اختیارات میں شامل ہے اور یہ فیصلہ عدالتی انصاف اور اصولوں کے مطابق ہونا چاہیے۔
عدالت کا جائزہ اور فیصلہ
عدالت نے نوٹ کیا کہ سول کورٹ نے یہ درست طور پر طے کیا کہ CDA نے معاہدے کی خلاف ورزی کی۔ تاہم، عدالت نے یہ بھی واضح کیا کہ درخواست گزار سود کا حق رکھتا ہے کیونکہ CDA نے مقررہ وقت پر ادائیگی نہیں کی۔ معاہدے کے مطابق، کام مکمل کرنے کی تاریخ 15 مارچ 1997 تھی اور ادائیگی کی مقررہ آخری تاریخ 25 اپریل 1997 تھی۔ CDA کی جانب سے رقم کی تاخیر نے درخواست گزار کو دس سال سے زائد مدت تک مالی نقصان پہنچایا۔
اختیارات اور اصول انصاف
عدالت نے کہا کہ جیسے ایگزیکٹو اتھارٹیز کے اختیارات من مانی طور پر استعمال نہیں کیے جا سکتے، اسی طرح عدالت کے اختیارات بھی انصاف اور مساوات کے اصولوں کے مطابق استعمال کیے جائیں۔ عدالت نے فیصلہ دیا کہ CDA مقررہ رقم پر سود ادا کرے گی جو کام مکمل ہونے کی تاریخ سے لے کر ادائیگی تک شمار کیا جائے گا۔
نتیجہ اور اثرات
نتیجتاً، اپیل کو اس حد تک منظور کیا گیا کہ درخواست گزار کو مقررہ معاہداتی رقم کے ساتھ سود بھی ملے گا۔ یہ فیصلہ معاہداتی ذمہ داریوں کی ادائیگی اور عدالت کے اختیارات کے درست استعمال کی اہمیت کو اجاگر کرتا ہے۔
Must read judgement
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
[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
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.