| Case ID |
1bb21238-18ab-4c38-9db5-1d1d8aa98756 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Suit No. 862 of 2006 |
| Decision Date |
Aug 30, 2006 |
| Hearing Date |
Aug 30, 2006 |
| Decision |
The court ruled that the agency established under the Advertising Agency Agreement was not an agency coupled with interest as defined under Section 202 of the Contract Act. The court found that the plaintiff, while having incurred expenses in executing the agency's duties, did not possess a pre-existing interest in the subject matter of the agency that warranted irrevocability. Thus, the principal could revoke the agency upon providing the requisite notice as stipulated in the agreement. It was determined that any termination would not preclude the agent from seeking damages for premature termination, thus dismissing the plaintiff's application for injunctive relief and directing the defendant to file the original arbitration agreement in court. |
| Summary |
In the case of Suit No. 862 of 2006, the Sindh High Court addressed the complexities surrounding agency agreements, particularly focusing on the nuances of an agency coupled with interest as per Section 202 of the Contract Act (IX of 1872). The plaintiff, Messrs TIME N VISIONS INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LTD., claimed that their agency relationship with the defendant, DUBAI ISLAMIC BANK PAKISTAN LIMITED, was irrevocable due to substantial investments made in the agency's operations. The court clarified that for an agency to be deemed coupled with interest, there must be a pre-existing interest in the agency's subject matter, which was not established in this case. The ruling emphasized that the agency could be terminated with proper notice, and any disputes regarding the agency's termination should be resolved through arbitration, thereby reinforcing the importance of adhering to contractual terms in agency relationships. This case serves as a pivotal reference for understanding agency law and the implications of contractual obligations within the legal framework. |
| Court |
Sindh High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Messrs TIME N VISIONS INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LTD.,
DUBAI ISLAMIC BANK PAKISTAN LIMITED
|
| Judges |
MAQBOOL BAQAR, J
|
| Lawyers |
Abdul Hafeez Pirzada,
Hasaam-ud-Din,
Abdul Sattar Pirzada,
Rasheed A. Razvi,
Mahmood Mandviwala
|
| Petitioners |
Messrs TIME N VISIONS INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LTD.
|
| Respondents |
DUBAI ISLAMIC BANK PAKISTAN LIMITED
|
| Citations |
2007 SLD 2955,
2007 PLD 278
|
| Other Citations |
Huma Enterprises and 3 others v. S. Pir Ali Shah and others 1985 CLC 1522,
West Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation, Karachi v. Aziz Qureshi 1973 SCMR 555,
M/s. Business Computing International (Pvt.) Ltd. v. IBM World Trade Corporation 1997 CLC 1903,
Ghulam Ishaq Khan Institute of Engineering, Science and Technology and another v. M/s. Hassan Construction Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. Engineer and Consultants 1998 CLC 485,
Manzoor Construction Co. Ltd. v. University of Engineering and Technology, Taxila 1984 CLC 3342,
Muhammad Younus and 2 others v. Abdul Ghaffar and others 1998 MLD 1622,
M/s. Jamia Industries Ltd. v. M/s. Pakistan Refinery Ltd., Karachi PLD 1976 Kar. 644,
Mst. Neelam Nosheen and others v. Raja Muhammad Khaqaan and others 2002 MLD 784,
Pak National Construction Co. v. State Bank of Pakistan PLD 1977 Kar. 838,
Progressive Engineering Associates v. Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation Limited 1997 CLC 236,
Roomi Ent. (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Stafford Miller Ltd. 2005 CLD 1805,
Philippine Airlines v. Paramout Aviation (Pvt.) Ltd. and others PLD 1999 Kar. 227,
Muhammad Yousuf v. M/s. Urooj (Pvt.) Limited and another PLD 2003 Kar. 16
|
| Laws Involved |
Contract Act (IX of 1872),
Arbitration Act (X of 1940),
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)
|
| Sections |
202,
20,
12,
42,
55
|