Act/Law wise: Judgment of Supreme Court of Bangladesh (AD & HCD)
Contract/ Agreement Matter | |||
---|---|---|---|
Section/Order/ Article/Rule/ Regulation | Head Note | Parties Name | Reference/Citation |
Writ jurisdiction in case of breach of contract–– |
Writ jurisdiction in case of breach of contract–– Case of
Superintendent Engineer, RHD Sylhet and others v. Md. Eunus and Brothers
(Pvt.) Ltd. reported in 31 BLD (AD) 1 the decision of this Division
reported in 9 BLC (AD)1, noted earlier, was considered and six conditions
were formulated, which would permit entertaining an application within the
writ jurisdiction in case of breach of contract. These were as follows:
|
Government of Bangladesh =VS= M/S. AMS Faraj Construction | 6 LM (AD) 23 |
In absence of any specific provision |
In absence of any specific provision in the Agreement/policy guideline or
under any law, the price cannot be changed by giving retrospective
effect–– The Government/the Ministry cannot enhance the price of the
goods violating the terms of the contract executed between BPC, the
Ministry and the Writ Petitioner. However, according to the Agreement there
is no legal bar for reformulating the price of petroleum products by the
Government but in absence of any specific provision in the Agreement/policy
guideline or under any law, the price cannot be changed by giving
retrospective effect. It is to be noted that it is not disputed that the
Government previously by Gazette Notification dated 10.01.2013 re-fixed the
price of the petroleum products and the said Gazette Notification was given
effect on the next date from the date of publication of the Gazette
Notification.
|
Bangladesh Petroleum Corporation =VS= Petromax Refinery Ltd. | 9 LM (AD) 146 |
Agreement for sale of Property–– |
Agreement for sale of Property–– The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is restored with modification of the amount of compensation which will now be Tk. two crores. The respondent is directed to execute and register the sale deed in question on receipt of this amount from the appellant within three months from date, failing which, the appellant will be at liberty to get the kabala deed executed and registered through Court on deposit of the said amount in Court. If the Purchaser fails to pay the amount ordered by us within the time allowed by us, then the agreement for sale in question shall stand cancelled and the Vendor will be entitled to regain vacant possession of the suit property within one month thereafter. .....Mahua Khair =VS= Amena Begum Ali Ispahani, [3 LM (AD) 246] ....View Full Judgment |
Mahua Khair =VS= Amena Begum Ali Ispahani | 3 LM (AD) 246 |
There was no clause in the agreement–– |
There was no clause in the agreement–– We find from the judgment of the trial Court that the learned Judge noted that there was no clause in the agreement that it would be cancelled for non-performance of any of the terms and that time was not of the essence of the contract and cancelling the agreement was illegal. The suit for specific performance of contract was barred by limitation was therefore, not accepted. Purchaser did not perform her part in obtaining Income Tax Clearance Certificate. .....Mahua Khair =VS= Amena Begum Ali Ispahani, [3 LM (AD) 246] ....View Full Judgment |
Mahua Khair =VS= Amena Begum Ali Ispahani | 3 LM (AD) 246 |
Black-listed for failure to perform in contract–– |
Black-listed for failure to perform in contract–– There was no provision for the company to claim damages or compensation for breach of contract. Equally there was no provision for terminating or rescinding the contract for any reason other than breach of the contract. From the facts and circumstances before us we find that the instant contract was rescinded due to the fact that the company had been black-listed for failure to perform in another contract. There is no term in the present contract that it (the contract) can be rescinded or terminated for the reason that the company is/may be black-listed for its non-performance in respect of another contract. Hence, we are of the view that the rescission in the way and for the reason that it was done, was not lawful, such action being beyond the terms and conditions of the contract. The appellant company is entitled to receive the full contractual amount of Tk.85,98,775.50/- with deduction only of Tk. 22,02,856/-,which was received as part bills. Hence, the respondent is directed to pay Tk. 63,95,919.50 to the appellant company. The appellant company shall be reimbursed by the respondent the actual amount of the earnest money and security deposit, if any, which they claim to have paid at the time of entering into the contract. .....A. Latif & Co. Ltd =VS= Executive Engineer, LGED Rangpur, [3 LM (AD) 26] ....View Full Judgment |
A. Latif & Co. Ltd =VS= Executive Engineer, LGED Rangpur | 3 LM (AD) 26 |
Consultancy fees–– |
Consultancy fees–– Consultancy fees for the second power plant, the High Court Division concluded that this contract was signed long after the consultancy agreement and was not resultant from the said consultancy. We also find that the plaintiff admitted in his cross-examination that the second contract was signed six years after 03.05.1998. We, therefore, do not find any illegality in the reasoning given by the High Court Division that the plaintiff is not entitled to receive any consultancy fees for the second contract. .....Muhammad Iqbal Hussain =VS= Westmont Power (BD) Ltd., [3 LM (AD) 422] ....View Full Judgment |
Muhammad Iqbal Hussain =VS= Westmont Power (BD) Ltd. | 3 LM (AD) 422 |
Contract–– |
Contract–– The writ-petitioner challenged the Department due to the fact that their bid was not successful. Before this Division it was argued that the writ petition involved a commercial contract and hence, the High Court Division was wrong in holding the writ petition maintainable. Upon referring to the six conditions noted above, it was held that the contract does not fulfill any of the requirements to make the same statutory contract or contract entered into by the Government in the capacity as sovereign. We find that the contract in question having been entered into by the official liquidator was not a sovereign contract and hence it was not amenable to the writ jurisdiction. The appeal is allowed and the judgement and order of the High Court Division is set aside. ...Government of Bangladesh =VS= M/S. AMS Faraj Construction, [6 LM (AD) 23] ....View Full Judgment |
Government of Bangladesh =VS= M/S. AMS Faraj Construction | 6 LM (AD) 23 |
Contract– |
Contract–
|
Government of Bangladesh =VS= M/S. AMS Faraj Construction | 6 LM (AD) 23 |
Consultancy fees– |
Consultancy fees–
|
Muhammad Iqbal Hussain=VS=Westmont Power (BD) Ltd. | 3 LM (AD) 422 |