| Case ID |
d4ac5e1e-c308-4484-a70d-d77bb71729de |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Suits Nos. 106 and 107 of 2002 |
| Decision Date |
Jun 14, 2002 |
| Hearing Date |
May 28, 2002 |
| Decision |
The court dismissed the applications filed by the plaintiff seeking a restraint order against the defendants from claiming payment on the bills of exchange. The court found that the plaintiff had failed to establish a prima facie case and that the balance of convenience did not lie in favor of the plaintiff. The court emphasized that bills of exchange must be preserved and their sanctity should not be lightly interfered with, except in cases of strong evidence of fraud or forgery. The court reiterated that payment under a bill of exchange cannot be stopped unless a strong case is made out. The plaintiffs' claims were deemed insufficient to warrant intervention by the court, and thus the interim orders were recalled. |
| Summary |
In the case of Sindh High Court's decision in Suits Nos. 106 and 107 of 2002, the plaintiff, Messrs Chemiviscfibre Ltd., sought an order to restrain the defendants from claiming payment against bills of exchange linked to a contract for machinery supply. The court reviewed the claims under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, particularly sections 9 and 58, as well as the Contract Act, 1872, focusing on the nature of bank guarantees and the essential conditions for being a holder in due course. The judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to the agreed terms of payment and the implications of premature payment. The court underscored that any interference with the payment process must be backed by substantial evidence of fraud or similar misconduct. Given the lack of a strong prima facie case, the plaintiff's request was denied, reinforcing the sanctity of bills of exchange in commercial transactions. The decision also referenced several precedents that clarify the legal principles surrounding negotiable instruments, which are crucial for maintaining trust in financial dealings. This ruling serves as a significant reminder of the legal obligations arising from contracts and the protections afforded to parties in commercial agreements. |
| Court |
Sindh High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Credit Suisse, Berne,
Habib Bank Ltd., Karachi
|
| Judges |
Shabbir Ahmed
|
| Lawyers |
Muneer A. Malik,
Khalid Rehman,
Arshad Tayebally
|
| Petitioners |
Messrs Chemiviscfibre Ltd.
|
| Respondents |
Others,
Ing. A. Maurer S.A.
|
| Citations |
2003 SLD 757 = 2003 CLD 420
|
| Other Citations |
Bhola Nath Aggarwal and another v. The Empire of India Life Assurance Co. Ltd. AIR 1948 Lah. 56,
Messrs Rehmania Trading Company v. Messrs Eagle Star Insurance Company Ltd. PLD 1960 SC 202,
Messrs Brady & Co. Pakistan Ltd. v. Messrs Sayed Saigol Industries Ltd. 1981 SCMR 494,
Braja Kishore Dikshit v. Purna Chandra Panda AIR 1957 Orissa 153,
Sunderdas Sobhraj v. Liberty Pictures AIR 1956 Bom. 618,
Haral Textiles Limited v. Banque Indosuez Belgium, S.A. and others 1999 SCMR 591,
Ajaz Anis v. Tariq Isa and 6 others 1999 CLC 259,
Messrs U.D.L. Industries Ltd. v. Hongguang Electron Tube Plant and others PLD 1997 Kar. 553,
Pan Ocean Enterprises (Pvt.) Limited v. Thai Rayon Company Limited and others PLD 1990 Kar. 395,
Messrs Kohinoor Trading (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Mangriani Trading Co. and 2 others 1987 CLC 1533,
The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. v. Jainsons Clothing Corporation and another AIR 1994 SC 2778,
Syndicate Bank v. Vijay Kumar and others AIR 1992 SC 1066,
General Electric Technical Services Company Inc. v. Messrs Punj Sons (P.) Ltd. and another AIR 1991 SC 1994,
Centax (India) v. Inmar Impex Inc. and others AIR 1986 SC 1924,
United Commercial Bank v. Bank of India and others AIR 1981 SC 1426,
Messrs Synthetic Foams Ltd. v. Simplex Concrete Piles (India) (Pvt.) Ltd. AIR 1988 Delhi 207,
Messrs Banerjee & Banerjee v. Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. and others AIR 1986 Cal. 374,
National Oils & Chemical Industries, Delhi v. Punjab & Sindh Bank Ltd., Delhi and another AIR 1979 Delhi 9,
(Vatakkam Chirayil Parkum) Kurundaliammal v. T.P.E.N. Kunhi Kannan and others AIR 1930 Mad. 141
|
| Laws Involved |
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881,
Contract Act, 1872
|
| Sections |
9,
58,
126
|