| Case ID |
d77fcd2f-6e2c-430d-b834-04a0bc5a3e66 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Second Appeal No. 100 of 1951 |
| Decision Date |
May 01, 1953 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The court held that the contractor, Sheikh Nazir Ahmad, was entitled to compensation as the number of lorries provided was of the essence of the contract. The Cantonment Board's interpretation that the contractor was only entitled to compensation if he incurred additional expenses was rejected. The court emphasized the cardinal principle of contract interpretation, which states that the intention of the parties must be derived from the language of the contract. The court found that the clause regarding the number of lorries was clear and unambiguous, establishing the contractor's right to compensation for the short supply of transport. The court also ruled that the clause giving the Executive Officer exclusive interpretative power over the contract was void as it contravened public policy. As a result, the contractor was allowed to deduct compensation from the balance owed to the Board. |
| Summary |
In this landmark case decided by the Lahore High Court, the interpretation of contractual obligations under the Contract Act of 1872 was scrutinized. The case revolved around a contract between the Cantonment Board, Sialkot, and Sheikh Nazir Ahmad for the removal of rubbish, where the number of lorries provided became the crux of the dispute. The court reinforced the importance of clear language in contracts, emphasizing that the intention of the parties should be apparent from the document itself. The decision highlighted that compensation for breach of contract does not necessarily require proof of actual damages, aligning with Section 74 of the Contract Act. The ruling also addressed the void clause that restricted the defendant's ability to challenge the Executive Officer's interpretations, marking a significant precedent in contract law. This case serves as an essential reference for understanding contractual rights and obligations, particularly regarding compensation claims in the event of breach. |
| Court |
Lahore High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Cantonment Board, Sialkot,
Sheikh Nazir Ahmad
|
| Judges |
MUHAMMAD KHURSHID ZAMAN,
B. Z. KAIKAUS
|
| Lawyers |
Yaqub Ali Khan,
Muhammad Abbas Mirza,
Syed Ghulam Abbas Jafri
|
| Petitioners |
CANTONMENT BOARD, SIALKOT CANTONMENT, THROUGH EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CANTONMENT BOARD, SIALKOT CANTONMENT
|
| Respondents |
Sheikh NAZIR AHMAD
|
| Citations |
1953 SLD 24,
1953 PLD 400
|
| Other Citations |
Bhal Panna Singh v. Bhai Arjan Singh A I R 1929 P C 179,
Michel Habib Raji Ayoub v. Skeikh Suleman El. Taji El Fareuqui A I R 1941 P C 101,
Mool Chand Behari Lal v. S. D. Chand & Company A I R 1947 Lah. 112,
Shenbagavandivammal v. Mupidathi Ammal A I R 1942 Mad. 720,
Radhakisan Jaikisan Ginning and Pressing Factory, Warud v. Jamnadas Nursery Ginning and Pressing Co. Ltd. (in Liquidation) A I R 1940 Nag. 228
|
| Laws Involved |
Contract Act, 1872
|
| Sections |
74,
23,
28
|