PAKISTAN STATE OIL COMPANY LIMITED versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN, MINISTRY OF WORKS, THROUGH SECRETARY
Article 42 and 54 Oil Company On the plaintiff's declaration and permanent injunction, on the one hand, an oil company was forcing the defendant to become a dealer in view of the dealership agreement, on the other hand the plaintiff refused to waive the security deposit. When the request was made by the defendant, there was no private status of the agreement between the plaintiff and the plaintiff so that any contract signed between the defendant and the defendant had any legal right to compel and There was no authorization because he was not guilty and prosecuted due to incompetence of security. The clause and the position of the plaintiff were also affected by the principle of approval and priority party. In the same breath, the party could not be allowed to approve and react, but it would be bound to its previous position. The defendant had to be stopped. In the case of a plot where the petrol station was barred from entering into a contract with another party, the principle of legal tenancy was not applicable in this case as it was not only in respect of the property owned by the claimant. The lease expired, but it was ultimately executed in favor of the plaintiff, therefore, the leaseholder was not entitled to claim legal benefits at the expiration of the lease, especially when the Sindh retired. Under Section 10 of the Premises Ordinance 1979, the case filed by the plaintiff was dismissed on the ground that the Sindh-owned lover The provisions of the Sis Ordinance, 1979 cannot apply to land owned by the Federal Government. \ R \ n \ r \ n
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2010
