SIDAT HYDER MORSHED ASSOCIATES (PVT.) LTD. vs TRADE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF PAKISTAN art

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

SIDAT HYDER MORSHED ASSOCIATES (PVT.) LTD. VS TRADE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF PAKISTAN art.114---acquiescence, concept of---Estoppel by silence---Principle---Essence---Contractual dispute---amount under a contract not being released to the contractor---authority not formally expressing dissatisfaction with the work done by contractor---Conduct of authority---acquiescence---'Deemed satisfaction'---Scope---Lack of communication to the contractor, can only be classified as 'deemed satisfaction' i.e. acquiescence by the respondent / authority---The respondent/authority through its conduct i.e. silence and more particularly its omission to respond to the claims of the contractor, would cause the contractor to believe that the work done was satisfactory. Citation Name: 2026 PLD 103 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case SIDAT HYDER MORSHED ASSOCIATES (PVT.) LTD. VS TRADE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF PAKISTAN arts.114, 117, 118 & 119---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.100 & O.XLI, 31---Contractual dispute---Non-releasing of contractual amount---authority withholding payment to contractor---No formal expression of dissatisfaction with work performed---Conduct of authority---Prolonged silence regarding quality and deliverables---Effect---Doctrine of 'acquiescence' attracted---Silence amounting to implied acceptance---'Deemed satisfaction' of work rendered---Implication---authority withholding satisfaction certificate without objection---Legality---authority estopped from denying satisfaction after passive conduct---Scope---Failure to object or terminate contract within reasonable time---Effect upon release of contractual amount---Briefly, the appellant, a private consultancy firm, entered into a consultancy contract with a statutory authority, pursuant to which certain professional services were to be rendered and payments released milestone-wise against invoices---although a mobilization advance was paid, the remaining amount claimed under the contract was not released, leading the appellant to file a recovery suit for Rs.14,950,000/----The suit was dismissed by the trial court and the dismissal was upheld by the appellate court, whereafter the appellant filed a second appeal before the High Court---The issue before the High Court was "whether the appellant was entitled to the remaining amount of Rs.14,950,000/- under the contract?"---Held: appellant over a period of time submitted various invoices, some of which were processed without the satisfaction reports---The reports of satisfaction were to furnished from respondent to the appellant---No such report was forthcoming from the respondent---Moreover, no letter or response was ever furnished by respondent expressing dissatisfaction with the work done by the appellant---Respondent had the option of termination the contract if performance of the appellant so wanted but such option was not opted for by the respondent---Respondents were estopped from raising the objection at a belated stage for the reason that admittedly some invoices were processed and payments were duly made, without the said satisfaction report been furnished by the respondent---"Intentional relinquishment of a known right" was in essence, the discretion of the respondent to convey its dissatisfaction to the appellant, which admittedly was never done and such failure could only be classified as acquiescence---Respondent, in the present circumstances had a "duty to speak" and raise concerns about the work tendered by the appellant---Once the appellant stepped into the witness box and exhibited the work done and the relevant invoices, the burden shifted to the respondent to satisfy that the tasks undertaken by the appellant, under the contract, were not satisfactory---This was the burden of proving a particular fact under art.119 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984,whilst the initial and even the general burden was on the appellant under arts. 117 and 118, and the said burden was discharged and the burden thereafter shifted to the respondent---Present appeal fell within the narrow scope of second appeal and was allowed, in circumstances.

SIDAT HYDER MORSHED ASSOCIATES (PVT.) LTD. vs TRADE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF PAKISTAN art — 2026 PLD 103 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 PLD