SYED ALTAF HUSSAIN versus PROVINCE OF SINDH THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY
The case for the receipt of Section 10 money and the complainant's complaint was that despite the completion of the project, the payment was withheld by the authorities, no specific date of project completion was mentioned in the agreement and the parties were not informed. There was no other agreement that had an expiry of 18 years. An 18-month document was not signed in months and was not an integral part of the deal because it was issued by the authorities after the deal. Authorities have acknowledged and acknowledged that the project was completed by the plaintiff in June, 1996, the evidence presented by the plaintiff was discontinued by the plaintiff in the June utt contract, 1996 Not implemented according to the terms and the plan was ready to be handed over to the power of the claimant by the plaintiff in June 1996 1996, the plaintiff launched a demand for his controversial solution to keep the running bills and balances. On the completion of the payment, the project's irrelevant evidence presented by the claimant proved that the claim by the claimant. The entire amount withheld was stopped by the authorities for reasons that the parties did not agree on and were outside the scope of the agreement in June 1996, by the plaintiff not completing the project and proceeding with the plaintiff in all respects. Failing to pay bills and balances, authorities committed compromise and deliberate breach of contract The High Court directed authorities to pay a balance of disputed bills. The suit was also directed to balance and pay the money \ r \ n \ r \ n
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2013
