Find a Lawyer

LIGHT INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD. versus M/S ZSK STICKMASCHTNEN

A. VII, Rr 10 & 11 Specific Relief Act (1 of 1877), a Declaration and Recovery by Defendant (Foreign Company) under Q VII, Contract of Section 42 Agency between a Foreign Principal and Agent in Pakistan 11 Declaration of application and termination of such contract for recovery & 11, the CPC shall instruct the plaintiff to stand on the matter and submit it to the foreign court on the basis of foreign jurisdiction in its agency contract. File your claim for judgment. The defendants' convictions were that these clauses of the agency's contract authorize special court. By treating it like a foreign arbitration clause, the foreign court (Germany) had a bound to the case that it held. According to the laws of Pakistan, the claim of the claimant was withheld by the lime, however, under the German laws, the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1908 were not affected and that the claimant made a claim if any. The court in Germany can be said that there was no mutual agreement between the government of Pakistan and Germany and accordingly if a court was approved by the Pakistan court, it could not be processed in the court of Germany and in the decree. To recover the money, if any, the plaintiff had. On the other hand, to refer to the German plaintiff's court, it claimed that the exclusive jurisdiction clause was uncertain and ambiguous, and that the jurisdiction of the court on this ambiguous clause could not be excluded. It was held that the agency contract clause is a void clause and cannot be processed on the basis of such void clause under section 28, the Contract Act. 1872; that the High Court (Pakistan) best advocate from Jalozai lawyer