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

TRADING CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN vs SADAN GENERAL TRADING LLC through Local Agent KZK Industrial & Commercial Co — 2025 CLC 525 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Citation
2025 CLC 525 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Court
Sindh High Court
Year
2025
Reporter
CLC
Parties
TRADING CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN vs SADAN GENERAL TRADING LLC through Local Agent KZK Industrial & Commercial Co
Subject matter
Criminal
Provisions referred to
S. 74---A; S. 74; Contract Act (IX of 1872); Contract Act

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

TRADING CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN VS SADAN GENERAL TRADING LLC through Local Agent KZK Industrial & Commercial Co. Maxim "in jure non remota causa sed proxima spectatur"---Connotation---In law, the immediate, not the remote cause, is regarded---As such the maxim substantiates precept that law concentrates on proximate cause of loss or damage when adjudicating compensation, ensuring that an aggrieved party is entitled to reasonable compensation, notwithstanding absence of proven actual damage or loss. Citation Name: 2025 CLC 525 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case TRADING CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN VS SADAN GENERAL TRADING LLC through Local Agent KZK Industrial & Commercial Co. Ss. 18 & 30---Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 74---Award made rule of Court---Objection, dismissal of---Awarding of compensation---Appellant/Trading corporation of Pakistan was aggrieved of dismissal of its objections and being awarded only 50% of performance amount as compensation---Validity---Aggrieved party, under S. 74 of Contract Act, 1872 was still entitled to reasonable compensation for breach of contract, even if it could not prove actual damage or loss---This ensured that party at fault could not avoid liability simply because other party could not quantify the damage---Reasonable compensation should not exceed penalty---Compensation awarded should be reasonable and should not exceed the amount specified in contract or penalty stipulated---Aim is to prevent excessive or punitive penalty that are disproportionate to the breach---There was no basis for awarding 50% of performance amount to appellant/Corporation under S. 74 of Contract Act, 1872---When award was presented before Judge in Chambers of High Court, respondent/company did not raise any objection---After order in question and decree was passed by Judge in Chambers of High Court, respondent/company chose not to appeal against the same---Appellant/Corporation could not question award and order/decree---Division Bench of High Court declined to interfere in partial acceptance of award and its confirmation as rule of Court a the same showed no significant irregularities---Objections of appellant/Corporation did not demonstrate that Judge in Chambers of High Court either deviated from legal standards or misapplied judicial principles---Intra Court Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Other judgments reported in 2025 CLC

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