Summary: The case revolved around the petitioner's application under Section 17 of The Arbitration Act, 1940, where they sought to make an award a Rule of Court. During the proceedings, some respondents filed an application to set aside the award, and the petitioner applied to summon witnesses. The trial Court allowed this application and the petitioner deposited the necessary fees. However, the trial Court, using its powers under Order XVII Rule 3 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, dismissed the petitioner's application for making the award a Rule of Court. On statements of three witnesses were recorded, but the summoned witnesses were absent. The trial Court closed the petitioner's evidence and scheduled the case for the respondents' evidence. Dissatisfied with this order, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the District Judge, Hafizabad, which was dismissed. The petitioner argued that the trial Court's order, shifting the responsibility of producing summoned witnesses to them, was erroneous and contrary to the law. They contended that the revisional Court failed to correct this error. The Court concluded that the trial Court had acted against the mandatory provisions of law in its handling of the summoned witnesses and that the revisional Court had also erred in its judgment. As a result, the Court allowed the petition, setting aside the impugned judgment and orders and directing the trial Court to take appropriate measures to secure the attendance of the summoned witnesses.

Summary: "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) --- ----S. 47 & O. XXI, R. 23-A---Arbitration Act (X of 1940), S. 14---Application for making award as rule of court---Consent decree---Execution petition---Objections---Contention of decree holders was that objections to execution petition could not be considered unless judgment debtor had deposited the decretal amount or furnished security in lieu thereof---Validity---Validity of decree could only be challenged before the Executing Court if the same was void or had been passed by the court having no jurisdiction---Provisions of O.XXI, R.23-A, C.P.C. were mandatory and objections to the execution by a judgment debtor could not be considered unless judgment debtor had deposited the decretal amount or furnished security in lieu thereof---Executing Court could not go beyond the decree---Judgment debtor could not escape from his obligation under the decree---Requirement of notice and hearing were duly complied with at the time of trial---Executing Court could not be burdened with re-trial---Compromise decree was in fact a contract, breach of which might give rise to fresh cause of action to decree holder---Decree was neither void nor it had been passed by a Court having no jurisdiction---Objections to execution application taken by the judgment debtor were over-ruled, in circumstances."

Summary: Arbitration Act (X of 1940)--- ----Ss. 30 & 33---Contract for supply of vehicles---Arbitration award in favour of defendant was remitted by the court with directions to the arbitrator to state reasons for the award, which direction was not complied with by the arbitrator---Defendant, during pendency of said arbitration proceedings, appropriated an amount lying with it, which amount was in consideration for another later contract between the parties---Plaintiff's present suit for recovery sought recovery of the said amount---Held, that the defendant's act of appropriation of amount in respect of the earlier contract from amount lying with the defendant under a contract was not justified nor lawful---Failure of defendant to pursue legal remedy for recovery of said amount once arbitration award was set aside by the court rendered the defendant liable to refund the said amount forthwith---Suit was decreed accordingly.

Summary: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S.22-A---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.419, 420, 467, 468 & 471---Arbitration Act (X of1940), Ss. 30 & 33---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Cheating and forgery---Justice of peace---FIR, registration of---Scope---Contention of the petitioner was that respondents by preparing a forged arbitration agreementhad committed an offence under Ss. 419, 420, 467, 468 & 471, P.P.C.---Application forregistration of FIR was dismissed by the Justice of Peace/Sessions Judge---Validity---Civildispute between the parties with regard to partition of Shamilat property was on record---Petitioner had turned a civil dispute into criminal proceedings just to continue his possessionover a piece of land---If a property dispute in arbitration agreement or award on any ground hadbeen raised then a specific remedy under Ss. 30 & 33 of Arbitration Act, 1940 was available tothe petitioner---Dispute with regard to property had been referred to the arbitrators---None of thepersons except petitioner after 13 years of execution, initiated proceedings for the registration ofFIR against respondents---Averments made by the petitioner had not been supported by otherexecutant of such arbitration agreement/award---Petitioner had an alternate and efficacious remedy to seek grievance before the competent court of law---Constitutional petition was notmaintainable which was dismissed, in circumstances.PLD 2007 SC 539 and 2003 YLR 1941 ref.

Summary: Arbitration Act (X of 1940)-------Ss. 30, 32 & 33---Arbitration agreement---Award---Bar to institute suit---Scope---No suitwould lie to set aside, amend or modify the arbitration agreement or award---Suit was barredunder S. 32 of Arbitration Act, 1940 if a party had affirmed the existence of arbitration award orits validity--Aggrieved party might seek remedy of either challenging the validity or existence ofarbitration award or raising grounds for setting it aside---Plaintiff instead of availing properremedy had filed suit which was barred under S. 32 of Arbitration Act, 1940---Impugnedjudgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court were based on proper appreciation ofevidence---No illegality or perversity had been pointed out in the impugned judgment anddecree---Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

Summary: The case revolves around an application made by the respondent under Section 41 of the Arbitration Act 1940, seeking the matter to be referred to arbitration. The appellant's position was that the learned Single Judge had erred in referring the matter to arbitration under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act 1940. The respondent's counsel countered that the impugned order had been passed after hearing both parties, and therefore the legal objection was without substance. They also argued that applications under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act are heard and decided similarly to an ordinary suit on the Original side of the court. The Court examined the legal objection raised by the appellant and determined that this objection needed to be addressed before considering the merits of the case. The Court noted that the matter was only listed for the hearing on the relevant date, and not for the final hearing of the entire suit or the application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. Despite the respondent's argument, the Court ruled that the matter could not have been referred for arbitration under Section 20 on that date as it amounted to finally deciding the main application/suit. Court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to the learned Single Judge for a fresh decision on the application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, providing a reasonable opportunity for both parties to be heard, preferably within two months.

Summary: ----Background: Defence Housing Authority (DHA), Islamabad and Multi-National Venture Development Pvt. Ltd. (MVD) entered into a Joint Venture Agreement (JV Agreement) on 09-12-2006 for marketing, designing, financing, construction, commissioning, management, operation, and maintenance of DHA-1 Phase-II Extension Overseas Sector. The JV Agreement was terminated on 27-03-2008 by mutual consent, and a new agreement was executed on 06-06-2008 for marketing, pre-selling, designing, constructing, commissioning, and financing a project comprising commercial shops and offices. Disputes arose between the parties, leading to arbitration proceedings under clause 22.1 of the Agreement. The respondent (MVD) initiated arbitration by appointing its arbitrator, Lt. General (Rtd) Syed Abdul Ahad Najmi, and invited DHA to appoint its arbitrator. DHA failed to appoint an arbitrator within the stipulated time, resulting in MVD seeking the court's intervention under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. ----Issues: Whether DHA could appoint its employee, Col. (Retd.) Ijaz Hussain, who had already represented it during conciliatory proceedings under clause 22.1, as its arbitrator. Whether the court had the power to appoint a sole arbitrator in the circumstances where DHA failed to appoint an independent arbitrator. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Independence and Impartiality of Arbitrator: The court emphasized that an arbitrator must be independent, impartial, and neutral. DHA's appointment of Col. (Retd.) Ijaz Hussain, an employee, was inappropriate as it violated the principle that an arbitrator must not have any interest in the dispute. The appointment of an employee who had already represented DHA in conciliatory proceedings was deemed biased and unacceptable. Court's Power to Appoint Arbitrator: The court held that under Section 9(b) of the Arbitration Act, 1940, it had the authority to appoint a sole arbitrator when one party fails to appoint its arbitrator within the specified time. Given DHA's unreasonable stance and failure to appoint an independent arbitrator, the court appointed Justice (Rtd.) Munir A. Sheikh as the sole arbitrator to ensure a fair resolution of the dispute. -----Citations/Precedents: Crescent Steel and Allied Products Limited vs. Sui Northern Gas Pipeline Limited (2013 CLD 1110) Federation of Pakistan vs. Muhammad Akram Sheikh (PLD 1989 S.C. 689) Muhammad Farooq Shah vs. Shakirullah (2006 SCMR 1657) State of Andhra Pradesh vs. I. Chandrasekhara Reddy and Others (AIR 1998 SC 3311) Lahore Development Authority vs. Khalid Javed Co. (1983 SCMR 718) ----Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed, and the court's appointment of Justice (Rtd.) Munir A. Sheikh as the sole arbitrator was upheld. The court reiterated the importance of appointing independent and impartial arbitrators to uphold the integrity and purpose of arbitration agreements.

Summary: (a) Arbitration Act (X of 1940) ----S. 20---Arbitration agreement---Enforcement---Disputes under Joint Venture and Shareholders Agreement (JVA)---Civil suits were filed invoking Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, for resolution of disputes arising from the JVA, which governed the investment and management of two private limited companies---Clause-24 of the JVA provided for disputes to first be resolved through mediation and, if unresolved, to be referred to arbitration conducted by two arbitrators, one being a retired High Court Judge and the other a Chartered Accountant---The arbitration clause was admitted by both parties, and they consented to the appointment of Mr. Justice (R) Sair Ali and Mr. Rashid Ibrahim (Chartered Accountant) as arbitrators---Court directed the arbitrators to appoint an Umpire within 15 days and to proceed with arbitration under the Act---Civil suits were allowed to the extent of arbitration proceedings. (b) Contract Law---Mediation and Arbitration Clauses ----Joint Venture and Shareholders Agreement (JVA)---Validity of arbitration clause---Parties bound by their agreement---Arbitration clause upheld by the court, ensuring resolution of disputes in accordance with agreed terms---Appointment of arbitrators by mutual consent reinforced the validity and enforceability of the JVA's dispute resolution mechanism. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) ----Order XXXIX, Rules 1 & 2---Interim relief---Principles---Application for suspension of a discharge notice and restraining orders on board meetings and capital expenditure---Court declined interim relief, noting that the relief sought was directly related to the main dispute in the suit, which was to be resolved through arbitration---Applicants failed to establish irreparable loss or balance of convenience in their favor---Interim relief application dismissed.

Summary: The appellant questioned the order dated 02.06.2014 passed by the trial court, which had issued status quo in a suit for declaration, permanent injunction, and recovery of damages.The appellant was a multinational company engaged in manufacturing and bottling aerated waters and beverages. They awarded a construction contract to the respondent for setting up a plant in Multan. However, the respondent allegedly failed to fulfill its contractual obligations, leading to the termination of the contract. The appellant filed applications under sections 20 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, seeking arbitration and an injunction to restrain the respondent from en-cashing bank guarantees. Subsequently, the respondent filed a second suit for declaration, permanent injunction, and recovery of damages.During the appeal, the appellant argued that the second suit was not maintainable due to the principles of res judicata and Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as it raised the same cause of action as the earlier proceedings under the Arbitration Act. The respondent countered that the second suit was valid as it was not a full-fledged civil suit, but an application under the Arbitration Act.The court ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that the application under the Arbitration Act should be treated as a suit, and res judicata applies in this case. The court found that the second suit was barred by law, lacked territorial jurisdiction, and should be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the second suit's plaint was rejected.

Summary: [Arbitration Law (Section 20 of Arbitration Act, 1940 )] (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. XXIII, R. 3---Contract---Compromise between parties---Scope---Lawfully entered contracts by and between parties are binding upon them irrespective of placing such contracts before court of law by means of joint applications under O. XXIII, R. 3, C.P.C. (b) Arbitration Act (X of 1940)--- ----S. 20---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXIII, R.3---Arbitration--- Dispute resolution--- Role of court---Compromise between parties---During pendency of proceedings under S.20 of Arbitration Act, 1940, parties entered in compromise and sought disposal of suit under O. XXIII, R. 3, C.P.C.---Validity---Court was only gateway to adjudication of dispute between parties and not adjudicator in its own right---Present was not a regular suit under common law and dispute resolution was not possible by court of law under S.20 of Arbitration Act, 1940---Court was not empowered to examine and even comment on "dispute/issues" between parties, lest it could prejudice case of either party---Provisions of O.XXII, R. 3, C.P.C. were not applicable to arbitration suit under S.20 of Arbitration Act, 1940---Court appointed sole arbitrator for resolution of dispute between parties in terms of arbitration agreement---Suit was disposed of accordingly.