The UNITED INSURANCE COMPANY OF PAKISTAN LIMITED vs PROVINCE OF SINDH through Chief Secretary R

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

The UNITED INSURANCE COMPANY OF PAKISTAN LIMITED VS PROVINCE OF SINDH through Chief Secretary R.35---Contract cancelled by Procuring Agency---Bidder blacklisted---Procuring Agency, powers of---Scope---Procuring Agency (Transport and Mass Transit Department) cancelled contract with Insurance Company (Appellant ) submitting / claiming that the Appellant was blacklisted at the time of being given the contract, a fact allegedly unknown to them (Procuring Agency /Respondent)---Validity---Admittedly, the Appellant successfully bid and was granted the agreement by Respondent and the said agreement was unilaterally terminated by the Respondent vide cancellation letter---Submission put forth by the Respondents did not appear to hold merit for the reason that in order to initiate blacklisting proceedings an entire process had been established, inter alia, under R.35 of the Sindh Public Procurement Rules, 2010 ('the Rules' 2010), and, in the present case, Respondent was the procuring agency itself having powers to initiate the process of blacklisting---Therefore, for the Respondent to grant the Appellants contract and then subsequently claiming they were unaware of the blacklisting appeared to be contrary to the provisions contained in the Rules 2010---Furthermore, the Respondents had failed to provide any documentation showing blacklisting related proceedings initiated against the Appellant---Rule 4 of the Rules 2010, upon which the Respondents had relied, merely states procurement to be conducted in a fair and transparent manner, which is a commonly known principle and does not offer the Respondents any legal assistance in the circumstances---Therefore the High /Appellate Court set aside the Impugned stay-declining order, returning the matter /suit to the Trial Court for adjudication on merits---Appeal was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2026 CLC 418 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case The UNITED INSURANCE COMPANY OF PAKISTAN LIMITED VS PROVINCE OF SINDH through Chief Secretary Ss.5, 20 & 22---Contract---Unilateral cancellation---Scope and effect---Procuring Agency (Transport and Mass Transit Department), relying on S.20 Contract Act, 1872, cancelled contract with Insurance Company (Appellant) submitting / claiming that the agreement was contradictory to law and void---Validity---Respondents in their cancellation letter had, absurdly, stated that the agreement (which they entered into with the Appellant) was contradictory to law and void; which appeared bizarre considering that the same was the Respondent's own agreement, and it would be contrary to the principles of law and justice for the Respondents to be allowed to issue a void contract and then rely on the illegality of the contract to absolve themselves from the obligations contained therein---If such argument were permitted, it would open aplethora of litigation for any person/agency who did not wish to continue with their obligations under a contract by simply claiming that their own issued agreement was illegal and unlawful---Respondents in said regard had relied on S.20 Contract Act, 1872, which was not applicable in the circumstances while Ss. 5 & 22 of the Contract Act, 1872, would be better applicable to the matter in hand, but even these provisions of law would not help the plea of the Respondents but, to the contrary, would aid the Appellant---Respondents being duty bound could not divest themselves from their contractual obligations under the agreement in such manner, as certain rights would have accrued to the Appellant upon entering the agreement---Therefore the High /Appellate Court set aside the Impugned stay-declining order, returning the matter /suit to the Trial Judge for adjudication on merits---Appeal was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2026 CLC 418 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case The UNITED INSURANCE COMPANY OF PAKISTAN LIMITED VS PROVINCE OF SINDH through Chief Secretary arts. 4, 10-a & 25---Contract---Unilateral cancellation of---Right of party to be heard---Scope---Procuring agency (Transport and Mass Transit Department), relying on S.20 Contract act, 1872, unilaterally cancelled contract with Insurance Company (appellant)---Validity---appellant ought to have been given a proper notice to explain any grievance the Respondents may have had, before they unilaterally cancelled the agreement; by not doing so, the Respondents had violated established principles of natural justice being audi alteram partem (no one should be judged unheard) and nemo judex in causa sua (rule against bias), as well as legal rights of the appellant protected under the arts. 4, 10-a and 25 of Constitution---appellant (as any citizen) was entitled to a fair hearing and was protected against any bias which prima facie was shown against them in the instant matter, as the Respondents did not provide any opportunity for a fair hearing or notice to the appellant to explain / redress their grievance before cancellation of the agreement---Therefore the High /appellate Court set aside the impugned stay-declining order, returning the matter /suit to the Trial Judge for adjudication on merits---appeal was allowed accordingly.

The UNITED INSURANCE COMPANY OF PAKISTAN LIMITED vs PROVINCE OF SINDH through Chief Secretary R — 2026 CLC 418 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 CLC