PAK LAW GPT — Pakistan Case Law AI justice scale emblemPAK LAW GPTCase law · Urdu & English

Mian ASAD OMER MAGGO vs HEWLETT-PACKARD SINGAPORE (SALES) PTE LIMITED O — 2022 CLD 918 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Citation
2022 CLD 918 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Court
Sindh High Court
Year
2022
Reporter
CLD
Parties
Mian ASAD OMER MAGGO vs HEWLETT-PACKARD SINGAPORE (SALES) PTE LIMITED O

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Judgment text as reported

Mian ASAD OMER MAGGO VS HEWLETT-PACKARD SINGAPORE (SALES) PTE LIMITED O. I, R. 10(2)---Contract/partnership---Application filed by one of the defendants/a foreign Company to delete its name from array of the defendants on the ground that it had no privity of contract with the plaintiff; that the Company neither conducted its business nor had any operations (in Pakistan) within the jurisdiction of the Court; that plaintiff had no cause of action against the Company; that the plaintiff had never been induced by the Company to enter into contractual relationship with any of the defendants; that no document had been attached with the plaint by the plaintiff showing that the Company was a shareholder of the defendant or having any privity of contract with the plaintiff; that the Company was neither necessary nor proper party for effective disposal of the suit---Held, that it was stated in the written statement of the defendant/Company that the plaintiff was awarded certificate in November, 2009, for establishment of the brand stores of the defendant/Company in Pakistan; that plaintiff was nothing more than an authorized reseller of the Company who could seek and obtain discounts or commissions without the existence of a definitive contract; that such a certified reseller under valid contract could directly import from the Company, maintain a stock locally and sell the same; that despite the termination of the contract the plaintiff continued to retain signage, illegally holding himself out in the vein of a partner of the Company; that State Bank of Pakistan did not communicate/correspond with the Company; and that the Company was an entity outside the jurisdiction of the State Bank of Pakistan---Written statement stated that High Court could not exercise jurisdiction, as Cl. 25(g) of the contract expressly barred the same---Application was granted accordingly.

Other judgments reported in 2022 CLD

Back to the case-law library · Search Pakistani case law in Urdu or English