Category: Intel

A sale agreement for the purchase of a property stipulated that the agreement automatically terminates in the case of the failure to deliver the property within 160 days from the date of the delivery of the default notification from the buyer. The seller failed to deliver the property on time, so the buyer sued both the seller and the contractor for breach of contract and demanded specific performance. The Primary Court in Muscat held that specific performance was not possible and ruled that the contract is rescinded, while the Court of Appeal in Muscat ruled specific performance against the seller and ordered him to deliver the property. The seller contested the decision at the Supreme Court on the grounds that specific performance was not possible due to a force majeure event, i.e. the failure of government entities to provide electricity and water connections, but the Supreme Court rejected this argument on the grounds that an experienced developer such as the one in this case should have known to plan around government procedures. However, the Supreme Court also ruled that the Court of Appeal did not consider the fact that the buyer had not paid up the full price of the property when ordering specific performance, and accordingly referred the case back to the Court of Appeal for reconsideration.

In a contractual dispute over rent payments, the Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal in Sohar cannot, at its own initiative, set aside the judgment of the Primary Court in Suwaiq on the basis that the court has no jurisdiction due to the existence of an arbitration clause in the contract if none of the parties to the dispute raised this as a defence.

The Supreme Court held that a civil lawsuit made directly by the Indian Embassy in Muscat on behalf of Indian nationals is still valid, even though the Indian Embassy in Muscat had no legal standing in the case, because the embassy was authorised by law and by the evidence presented to the court to represent these Indian nationals.

The Supreme Court held that a creditor who distributes copies of an arrest warrant issued against a debtor to the public commits a tortious act that warrants compensation for damage to reputation.

The Supreme Court held that an insurer can refuse to provide compensation to an insured vehicle because the driver was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol, in accordance with article 15(c) of the Vehicle Insurance Law.

The Supreme Court held that regularly maintained commercial books constitute valid evidence for a merchant against an adversary merchant in disputes concerning commercial acts, even if the commercial books are created by the merchant relying on them.