. not specifying in which part or which turnover number to sell, it was a vague agreement. Even in exercising discretion under section 20 of the Act, it would not have assisted the applicant. the amount of article 1.20.000 / – i.e. the amount of serious money as well as interest in the amount of 12% per year from the date of execution of the sales contract of 28.03.1998 until the decision of the appeal. and interest during Lite @ 12% per annum and future interest at a rate of 6% per annum.2. Mr. H.N.S. Gill, an experienced lawyer who presents himself on behalf of the complainant, argues that an agreement.
. a sales agreement of 12.5.2003, which, although executed by the defendants, argued in its recital that the agreement was vague. The agreement stipulates that the country must measure 5 channels 7. Mohd. Iftikhar Ali Khan 1982 CLJ (C&cr) 629, where it was found that if the agreement is vague and not final, no specific benefit is granted. In another. Marlas are 107/2310 share of the total area, 115 channels 10 Marlas as described in the preamble of the complaint. The objection was that the agreement was neither khasra nor theirs. . The parties are made totally uncertain and vague. Article 25 of the ??? Agreement that provides that the defendants agree that the rights to ??? title, signature melody, music, structure, format of.
It is the exclusive responsibility of the applicants, who are totally uncertain and vague in the absence of a script or form of programme which appears only in Annex II but which is not annexed to the Agreement. As one. Indeed, the use of the term “program” in all parts of the agreement is very vague and effective. The learned lawyer for the plaintiffs filed with the. . for sale with regard to certain real estate/land. Number 3 reads as follows: -`3. Isn`t the agreement of 30.1.80 able to make a certain service vague? OPP”2. The accused should part with which country and which khatta number. Of course, the agreement is vague in this regard.
The plaintiff`s witnesses admit that the defendants. that the applicants had assured the defendant an advantageous price and paid a certain advance and entered into a vague agreement to attract customers, but had not been able to find a customer and until. . was challenged by Defendants Nos. 1 and 2, who submitted separate written statements. The defendant, No 1, argued, inter alia, that the agreement was indeterminate and vaguely annualised and that the applicant . has committed an infringement of the agreement. Defendant No 2 argued that it was not aware of the alleged agreement between the applicant and defendant No 1 and that the same ambiguity and undetermined as regards.