Find a Lawyer

ENAYAT SONS (PVT.) LTD. versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, FINANCE AND OTHERS

Article 114 The Contract Act (IX of 1872), Section 15 and 16, the principle of equitable recovery of damages was dismissed by the High Court Plea taken by the plaintiffs that their issued Demand of Demand Certificate was forcible. And was due to illicit influence. Waldetti plaintiffs have no further claim under the contract beyond the net amount of the final bill, demanding that authorities make no demands in connection with the final payment. No further claim against them for acting as estoppel provided any evidence in the context of Sections 15 and 16 in force or ineffective effect. The Treaty Act, 1872, was based on facts between the parties in relation to their claim of dismissal of the plaintiff's case under unfair influence by the authorities, to prove that their certificate of nomination was forcibly granted and given by them. The dispute was based on the conclusions reached by the appellate court, and the High Court affirmed that when false statements or evidence were not read out, such simultaneous findings were obtained by the Supreme Court. I cannot interfere with any significant question of law within the meaning of Article 185 (3) of the Constitution. Rennes had failed, was granted leave to appeal family advocate from Tando Allahyar lawyer