1683/2017 Suit OPI Gas (Pvt) Limited (Plaintiff) V/S United Energy Pakistan Limited & others (Defendant)
Sindh High Court
Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar
Order Date: 10-AUG-17
(a) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 18---Sale purchase agreements---Creation of vested rights---"Freedom of trade"---Scope---Plaintiff sought to establish a vested right to be the sole supplier of LPG manufactured by defendants and sought to restrain the defendants from allowing any third-party to make such supply---Contention of plaintiff, inter alia, was that it had made a huge investment to enable such supply which had created a vested right in its favour---Validity----Investment of plaintiff had not created any vested right in its favour as the LPG itself belonged to the defendants prior to sale purchase contract between the parties and also upon termination of said contract---Huge investment in the business by a trader could not be considered as an investment to acquire any rights whatsoever in the product/property which was owned by the other contracting party beyond the limited extent incorporated in the written sale / purchase agreement---Plaintiff could also not interfere in the defendants' freedom of trade guaranteed by Article 18 of the Constitution---Suit was dismissed, in circumstances. 1994 CLC 728; Chitty on Contract (13th edition) page 56-57 from Volume.1 General Principles; AIR 1978 SC 798; AIR 2006 SC 40; Bank Alfalah Ltd. v. NEU Multiplex and Entertainment Square Company (Pvt.) Ltd. 2015 YLR 2141; Royal Foreign Company v. The Civil Aviation Authority and another 1998 CLC 374; Messrs World Wide Trading Co. v. Sanyo Electric Trading Co. Ltd. and another PLD 1986 Kar. 234 and Messrs Universal Business Equipment (Pvt.) Ltd., v. Messrs Kokusai Commerce Inc. and others 1995 MLD 384 ref. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. VI, Rr. 2 & 4---Pleadings generally---Practice of counsel/lawyers placing on record several documents which such counsel/lawyer did not even refer to during course of arguments or otherwise and such documents were not part of their own record needed in support of their pleadings---High Court observed that such practice was due to the reason that counsel/lawyer/ wanted to give an impression to the court that the case filed by them was an important one requiring immediate attention; which practice was against the basic principles of pleadings to be filed in court under O.VI, C.P.C. wherein emphasis of law makers/legislature was on "material facts" and "effect of material documents" in pleadings.Full judgment text for this case is not yet available on Pakistan Law Reports. Check the official Sindh High Court case law portal for the complete order.
This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.