Summary: CR: Against the order dated 05-09-2018 passed by Learned Additional District Judge (East) Isb

Summary: Background:The petitioner filed a Civil Petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution against the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench's judgment dated 26.05.2011, which dismissed Civil Revision No. 574 of 1992.---Issues:Whether the reference of the matter to the arbitrator by the court was permissible under the law.Whether there were any apparent errors in the award that required assessment by the trial court.Whether the defects noted by the appellate courts were adequately addressed by the petitioner.---Holding/Reasoning:The court noted that the reference of the matter to the arbitrator by the court was impermissible under the law. Even if considered as irregular, the trial court failed to assess the award for apparent errors. The defects noted by the appellate courts remained unaddressed by the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner failed to make a case for leave, and the Civil Petition was dismissed.---Precedents/Citations:Jaffar Abbas and 2 others v. Ahmad and another (PLD 1991 SC 1131)Sh. Ghulam Mohammad and another v. The Bank of Bahawalpur Ltd. and 21 others (1971 SCMR 148)Dr. Ansar Hassan Rizvi v. Syed Mazahir Hussain Zaidi and 3 others (1971 SCMR 634)Muhammad Ibrahim Khan and others v. Maulvi Behram (through his heirs) (1972 SCMR 608)Ashfaq Ali Qureshi v. Municipal Corporation, Multan and another (1984 SCMR 597)Messers Qamaruddin Ahmad & Co. v. Government of Pakistan (1985 SCMR 1775)Muhammad Mansha and 7 others v. Abdul Sattar and 4 others (1995 SCMR 795)Jameel Ahmad v. Late Saifuddin through Legal Representatives (1997 SCMR 260)Civil Aviation Authority, Karachi v. Rist Consultants (Pvt.) Ltd., Lahore (1998 SCMR 2393)Attiqullah v. Kafayatullah (PLJ 1981 SC 330)Tariq Hussain and another v. Additional District Judge, Vehari (2006 CLC 514)The Project Director, Peoples Programme v. Khawaja Muhammad Sarwar (1989 CLC 1030)Muhammad Jamil v. Municipal Committee, Mandi Bahauddin through Chairman and another (2001 MLD 568)Syed Mukhtar Hussain Naqvi v. Mst. Hajiani Zubeda and another (2003 YLR 3289)

Summary: Discussion on Arbitration Law (Arbitration Act 1940 - Award)---The plaintiff filed a suit invoking the arbitration clause of the contract. The court referred the matter to arbitration, which resulted in an award. The plaintiff sought to have the award upheld, while the defendant raised objections, attempting to set aside the award. The objections were based on various grounds, including the alleged cursory treatment of certain issues in the award, failure to consider amounts paid by the defendant, the nature of the contractual relationship, and the claim that the award was void. The court reviewed the objections and examined whether they were valid within the scope of the Arbitration Act. The court emphasized that the arbitrator's role was to be the final judge of both legal and factual matters, as long as they adhered to the contract and law. The court noted that an award could only be set aside on specific grounds, such as arbitrator misconduct, invalidity, or errors on the face of the award. The court determined that the objections raised by the defendant were either not substantiated or fell outside the permissible grounds for setting aside an award. Additionally, the court found that the objections were time-barred, as they were filed after the statutory limitation period. Despite discussing the objections on their merits, the court upheld the award, considering it well-reasoned and in accordance with the evidence presented during arbitration. Consequently, the objections to the award were dismissed, and the award was made the rule of the court.

Summary: Arbitration Act---The learned counsel for the defendant has been unable to demonstrate any infirmity with respect to the Award, within the ambit of Section 30 of the Act or otherwise, and as a consequence thereof the objections to the Award are hereby dismissed.---In the case presented, the Claimant successfully sought restitution from the Respondent, amounting to USD 14,264,272.98, for iron ore supplied under a contractual agreement. Following a dispute over non-payment, the Claimant initiated arbitration proceedings per the contract's arbitration clause. During the proceedings, the Respondent argued that the contract became void due to international sanctions against the Claimant's country of incorporation. However, the arbitrator rejected this argument, emphasizing that the sanctions did not absolve the Respondent of its liability under the contract. Furthermore, the Respondent contested the requirement to pay the sum in Pakistani Rupees based on the prevailing exchange rate at the time of payment, citing it as unjust and contrary to public policy. The court, however, upheld the arbitrator's decision, stating that honoring the contractual obligation did not violate public policy, and the exchange rate provision was reasonable. The court reiterated that interference with arbitration awards is limited to specific grounds outlined in the law, and found no valid reason to set aside the award. It emphasized that the arbitrator's decision was well-founded and supported by evidence, dismissing the objections raised by the Respondent. Ultimately, the court upheld the arbitration award, directing the Respondent to fulfill its payment obligation as determined by the arbitrator. The decision underscored the principle that contractual obligations must be honored unless prohibited by law or against public policy, and affirmed the finality of arbitration awards within the parameters of the law.

Summary: Arbitration Law (Section 20 of Arbitration Act, 1940)---The case revolves around the plaintiff's request for a reference to arbitration based on an arbitration clause in contracts executed between the parties. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant owes contractual dues that have not been paid despite the defendant's admission of liability. The plaintiff's lawyer argues that the contracts contained arbitration clauses and that the plaintiff had raised invoices for the dues, which remained unpaid. The plaintiff had also allegedly performed its obligations under the contracts and sought negotiation before resorting to legal action. The defendant claims that Sui Southern Gas Company Limited (SSGCL) is a proper party to the proceedings and that the dues were contingent upon payment from SSGCL. The judge dismisses the defendant's application to implead SSGCL in the case, as SSGCL is not party to the contracts and has no obligation to join arbitration proceedings. The judge concludes that the arbitration clauses are clear and enforceable. The judge rejects the defendant's argument regarding the dispute resolution mechanism in the contracts, stating that it does not apply to the present dispute over unpaid dues. In light of the facts presented and the existence of an arbitration agreement, the judge allows the plaintiff's suit and refers the matter to arbitration. An arbitrator is appointed to determine the dispute between the parties in accordance with the law. Overall, the judgment orders that the case be referred to arbitration based on the existence of enforceable arbitration clauses in the contracts.

Summary: The order, dated 27.10.2017, dismissed the petitioner's application under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, seeking a stay of proceedings in an ejectment petition filed by respondent No.2.The petitioner argues that the Arbitration Act, being a special law, takes precedence over the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 (general law). The petitioner contends that since a dispute regarding rent is pending before an arbitrator, the Special Judge (Rent) should not proceed with the ejectment petition until the arbitration matter is resolved. The petitioner emphasizes its bona fide by disclosing its attempt to resolve the dispute through arbitration.On the other hand, respondent No.2 argues that the petitioner, having been granted leave to contest the ejectment petition, is using delaying tactics. The respondent asserts that the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) executed by both parties constituted a novation of the original lease agreement.After considering the arguments, the court examines the original lease agreement, the subsequent MOU, and relevant legal provisions. The court observes that the parties agreed to resolve unsettled disputes through arbitration in the original lease agreement but introduced a clause in the MOU allowing the lessor to file an ejectment petition in case of a violation. The court concludes that the petitioner's application for stay was rightly dismissed by the Special Judge (Rent) as it goes against the spirit of the MOU.Additionally, the court provides a detailed legal analysis of section 34 of the Arbitration Act, citing precedents to establish that a party must invoke section 34 before taking any steps in the proceedings. The court finds that the petitioner's filing of an application seeking leave to contest without simultaneously applying for a stay was a deliberate bypass of the arbitration proceedings.Ultimately, the court dismisses the petitioner's appeal, finding no material illegality in the impugned order, and notes that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a basis for the court's interference.

Summary: Arbitration Act (X of 1940)-------S.34---Contract containing arbitration clause---Dispute with regard to implementation ofcontract---Stay of proceedings---Plaintiff filed recovery suit wherein defendant before filinghis written statement submitted application for stay of proceedings and referred the matter tothe Arbitrator---Trial Court dismissed the application for stay of proceedings---Validity---Parties had entered into the agreement which contained arbitration clause---Dispute betweenthe parties had arisen out of the agreement and same should be referred to the Arbitrator inthe manner and mode provided by the arbitration clause---Plaintiff instead of arbitrationproceedings had instituted the present suit on the basis of a different stance contrary to thestance of the defendant---Plaintiff should have resorted to the arbitration proceedings to becarried out by the Arbitrator for resolution of controversies---Nothing was on record thatagreement containing arbitration clause had been executed under duress, undue influence oron account of any misrepresentation on the part of defendant---Plaintiff could not be allowedto avoid arbitration agreement, in circumstances---Impugned order passed by the Trial Courtwas set aside---Proceedings before Trial Court were stayed and matter was referred to theArbitrator for decision---Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.Sqd. Ldr. (R) Khurram Zaman v. Mrs. Afia Zafar 2008 CLD 662; Muratab Ali v.Liaqat Ali 2004 SCMR 1124 and Dar Okaz Printing and Publishing Limited LiabilityCompany v. Printing Corporation of Pakistan Private Limited PLD 2003 SC 808 rel.

Summary: The central issue revolved around the maintainability of the appeals. The learned Law Officer argued that, according to the Punjab Local Government Act, 2019, there is a remedy of appeal, and additionally, the arbitration clause in the rent agreement makes these appeals not maintainable. The appellants counter that there is no available remedy against the respondents' actions and that there is no order against which an appeal can be filed. The court deliberates on the definition of "Order" in the context of the Punjab Local Government Act, 2019, and concludes that any direction or determination resulting from proceedings, such as those of the District Assessment Committee, can be considered an order under the Act. Drawing parallels with the Civil Servant (Appeal) Rules, the court emphasized the broad interpretation of "Order." The judgment also discusses the applicability of Section 3 of The Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, regarding the maintainability of Intra Court Appeals. The court emphasized that if the law applicable provides for at least one appeal against the original order, then an Intra Court Appeal is not competent. Reference is made to previous cases to support this interpretation. Ultimately, the court dismissed the appeals, asserting that they are not maintainable in light of the proviso to Subsection 2 of Section 3 of The Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972.

Summary: Arbitration --- The petitioner entered into a contract with the National Transmission and Dispatch Company Limited (NTDC) to fulfill the requirements of a main contract. A dispute arose between the petitioner and the respondent regarding rental charges, ownership, and possession of tools and machinery. The respondent filed multiple arbitration applications under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The court appointed an arbitrator without the petitioner's consent. The petitioner challenged this order, arguing that the appointment without consent violates the express provisions of the Arbitration Act. The court, emphasizing the importance of consent in arbitration, set aside the order and directed the trial court to appoint a new arbitrator with the consent of both parties. The court also highlighted the inapplicability of section 8 of the Act to the matter at hand. No costs were awarded.

Summary: Arbitration Act (X of 1940)-------Ss. 14 & 17---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2--- Petition formaking award as a rule of Court---Temporary injunction, grant of---Requirements---Temporary injunction could not be granted only on the basis of prima facie case existing infavour of plaintiff but Court had to consider whether balance of convenience or irreparableloss to the party seeking such relief did co-exist or not---Pleadings, documents andsupporting evidence was to be examined and assessed tentatively for grant or refusal oftemporary injunction---Where complicated question with regard to merits of the caserequired framing of issue and evidence then temporary injunction should not be granted---Where question of amount or share of amount was involved then it could easily beascertained, however, if plaintiff succeeded in litigation then irreparable loss measurable interms of money could not be said to be irreparable loss---If petitioner succeeded in thelitigation in the present case then he could be compensated in terms of money and questionof balance of convenience and irreparable loss did not co-exist in his favour---Complicatedquestions with regard to merit of the case were involved in the present case which requiredframing of issue and evidence---Grant of temporary, injunction was premature, incircumstances---Revision was dismissed accordingly.Marghub Siddiqi v. Hamid Ahmed khan and 2 others 1974 SCMR 519; PLD 1992Lah. 86; 1982 CLC 344; 1987 CLC 640 and PLD 1983 Quetta 92 rel.