Find a Lawyer

KHALID & COMPANY versus CANTONMENT BOARD, MALIR

Sections 42, 54, 55, 56 (f) and 21 of the Transfer Property Act (IV of 1882), Section 105 Assessment Act (V of 1882), Sections 4, 52, 60 and 63 of the Contract Act (IX of 1872), Sec. 73 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), OVII, the RAI suit terminated the contract for failure to meet the terms of the cattle in the Cantonment Board's Board for Announcement and Prohibition and then decided to operate the kettle itself. Will The plaintiff, who published a public notice in the market and newspaper on the basis of partnership, challenged such notice by filing a case under OVII, R 11, CPC, alleging special relief. The legitimate relationship between the plaintiff under Section 42 of the Act, 1877, and the agreement of the defendants, licensors and licensors according to the plaintiff was also that on the orders of the superior administration for any reason, in the case of proper and / or corrupt, Such arrangements will be automatically terminated. The Geller Payment Board informed the plaintiff of the decision to operate the cattle market itself and it was disclosed in the notice that the actions taken in the plaintiff were considered and the plaintiff was not entitled to any arbitrary relief because he The facts were hidden and did not come to the court with open hands. The publication of the paper was implemented and the agreement was subsequently implemented by the board with another contractor plaintiff, while the provisions of section 6 f (f) of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 The permanent injunction could not be approved, if any, for the claimant to claim compensation for breach of contract that was canceled without notice or by breaching the terms of the agreement. best advocate from Qalandarabad lawyer