RECORDER REPORT

ISLAMABAD: Sindh High Court (SHC) has issued a notice to a leading tractor manufacturer, who allegedly failed to timely provide details of 954 tractors to the SHC.

The SHC had stopped from selling 954 tractors to any third party, as it was under the contractual obligation to sell these tractors to the original buyer. The company was legally bound to provide details of aforesaid tractors with model, chassis and engine numbers before the Court.

In the matter of contempt of court proceedings against a leading tractor manufacturer, the SHC has issued a notice to the said manufacturer and directed the alleged contemnor to explain its position on next date of hearing on September 2, 2024.

In an appeal to the High Court, the petitioner informed the SHC that the tractor manufacturer was required to provide the details of 954 tractors including model, engine number and chassis numbers to the court, but the contemnor failed to provide the said details and hence committed contempt of court.

“Let notice be issued to the alleged contemnor only for the time being. The interim order passed earlier will continue till next date of hearing”, SHC order added.

On March 29, 2024, the Chief Justice of Sindh High Court (SHC) has stopped this leading tractor manufacturer from selling 954 tractors to any third party.

The SHC had issued an order (124 of 2024) against the said company.

The tractors were required to be delivered to the poor farmers at the agreed price of Rs 12,51,600 per tractor including 5% sales tax, but the company raised the price of each tractor by Rs.148,400 and also stopped supply to the said buyer. Despite full payment made of 1001 tractors, the delivery of only 47 tractors was made.

Subsequently, the applicant company has filed an appeal before the Chief Justice of the SHC.

The SHC has issued directives to the company not to sell 954 tractors to any third party, and shall provide details of aforesaid tractors with model, chassis and engine numbers before the court by April 16, 2024.

According to the order of the SHC, the appellant (buyer company) has filed a Suit seeking declaration, injunction, damages and recovery of amount towards KIBOR in respect of 954 tractors, were required to be delivered to the appellant company pursuant to a conclusive contract towards purchase of 1001 tractors, through their authorized dealer on the basis of booking order issued on June 21, 2022 at the rate of Rs. 12,51,600 per each tractor prevailing at the relevant point of time, including 5% sales tax.

The total amount of sale consideration in the sum of Rs. 1,252,851,600 was paid by the appellant company through 91 pay orders, which was also received and deposited in the bank account of company without any objection and still lying along with huge amount of profit accrued thereon.

However, in spite of having received the entire sale consideration and availability of 1,001 tractors, the delivery of only 47 tractors was made immediately.

The company was under legal obligations to make the delivery of remaining 954 tractors also within 60 days from the date of booking i.e. June 21, 2022, at the agreed price of Rs. 12,51,600 per tractor including 5% sales tax in terms of SRO 837(1)/2021 as well as their commitment through advertisements and correspondence with their authorized dealers.

Admittedly, the entire sale consideration was duly received in respect of 1001 tractors booked by the appellant on behalf of their customers.

The computer generated details of such orders and the amount received against each tractor, totalling to 1001 tractors were issued.

However, the delivery of only 47 tractors was made immediately, whereas, the delivery of remaining 954 tractors was withheld without any factual or lawful excuse in spite of repeated requests in writing by the appellant company, whereas, instead of fulfilling their contractual and legal obligation, the company has demanded increase/revise price in the sum of Rs.148,400 on each tractor, in violation of law, including sections 4, 18, 19, 32, 33 and 34 of the Sales of Good Act, 1930.

According to counsel for the appellant, once the entire sale consideration in respect of 1001 tractors on agreed price, without any consideration of its enhancement or revision was received by the respondents, where after, the part delivery of 47 tractors was also made, therefore, the contract between the parties became conclusive and the respondents were not justified to back off from such contractual obligations or demand any extra amount from the appellant on the pretext of revised price at a subsequent stage.

Hence, non-delivery of the remaining 954 tractors and asking for enhanced price by the company, besides being illegal and contrary to agreed terms of sale/purchase, is based on mala fide.

The company neither made delivery of the remaining tractors, nor even acceded to the request of the appellant to refund the amount of 954 remaining tractors, on the contrary, insisted upon enhanced/revised price on the one hand, and also earned huge profits on the amount of the appellant at the rate of 22% profit from the bank.

The buyer has a prima facie case for grant of interim relief, including delivery and/or attachment of the remaining 954 tractors, which were admittedly manufactured and ready to be delivered to the appellant as per booking orders, which included the names of customers, model, engine and chassis numbers of the tractors.

In the meanwhile, subject to deposit the differential amount, i.e., Rs 148,400 per tractor through bank guarantee before the Nazir of this Court, company is restrained from selling 954 tractors to any third party till next date, and shall provide details of aforesaid tractors with model, chassis and engine numbers before the Court on the next date,“ SHC earlier order added.