Summary: Petitioner bank impugns rule of full bench of NIRC wherein an employee was declared as workman and was subsequently reinstated in service with all back benefits

Summary: Background: A joint venture (JV) between a Chinese company and a local engineering firm was awarded a contract by a national highway authority for constructing an additional carriageway. Disputes arose between the parties regarding the delay and performance of the project, leading the JV to file a suit for specific performance, declaration, permanent, mandatory, and temporary injunction against the national highway authority. The trial court issued a status quo order and appointed a Local Commission to inspect the site. The national highway authority then filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, seeking to stay the court proceedings and refer the matter to arbitration, as stipulated in the contract's arbitration clause. The trial court granted the application and stayed the proceedings, which led the JV to file the present appeal. -----Issues: 1- Whether the trial court erred in staying the proceedings and referring the matter to arbitration under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. 2- Whether the national highway authority's conduct caused delays and impediments that justified the JV’s inability to complete the project on time. 3- Whether the trial court properly exercised its discretion in vacating the interim injunction and directing the preservation of the project’s subject matter. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Islamabad High Court upheld the trial court's order to stay the proceedings and refer the matter to arbitration. The court emphasized the importance of honoring arbitration clauses in contracts and found no legal infirmity in the trial court’s decision. The court reasoned that: The arbitration clause in the contract required disputes to be referred to the Engineer first, and if unresolved, to arbitration. Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 aims to respect arbitration agreements and prevent parties from bypassing agreed arbitration procedures. The JV had the option to seek an extension due to COVID-19 but did not utilize it. The trial court’s order provided the parties with an opportunity to resolve their disputes through arbitration as agreed in the contract. ----Citations/Precedents: Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Vs. M/s Pak Saaf Dry Cleaners (PLD 1981 SC 553) Province of Punjab v. Ehsan Fazal & Company, Lahore (1986 CLC 2800) M/s Associates Construction Limited v. WAPDA (1989 MLD 206) Haji Soomar Haji Hajjan v. Muhammad Amin Muhammad Bashir Limited (1981 SCMR 129) Messrs S.M. Qasim & Co. Vs. Messrs Ch. Azimuddin (PLD 1962 Lahore 95) Farid Virani Vs. Feroz Virani (PLD 2013 Sindh 386) Judgment dated 22.04.2016 in F.A.O. No.59 of 2013 titled "Infospan (Private) Limited Vs. M/s Telecom foundation and another"

Summary: (a) Arbitration Act (X of 1940)-------Ss. 20, 5 & 12---Application to file in court arbitration agreement---Authority ofappointed arbitrator or umpire irrevocable except by leave of court---Power of court wherearbitrator is removed or his authority revoked---Scope---Court shall make an order ofreference to the arbitrator, named by the parties either in the arbitration agreement or in anarbitration clause of a contract---Until the authority of an appointed arbitrator has not beenrevoked with leave of the Court under S. 5 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, and/or where anappointed arbitrator has not been removed by the Court under S. 12(2) of the Arbitration Act,1940, a duly named arbitrator cannot be substituted by the Court in proceedings under S. 20of the Arbitration Act, 1940.Dar Okaz Printing and Publishing Limited Liability Company v. Printing Corporationof Pakistan Private Limited PLD 2003 SC 808; Mst. Surriya Rehman through Attorney v.Siemens Pakistan Engineering Company Ltd. PLD 2011 Kar. 571 and Pakistan TradingCompany v. M.M. Isphani, Ltd. and another PLD 1960 Dacca 81 rel.(b) Arbitration Act (X of 1940)-------Ss. 20, 5 & 12---Application to file in court arbitration agreement---Authority ofappointed arbitrator or umpire irrevocable except by leave of court---Power of court wherearbitrator is removed or his authority revoked---Scope---Unless an arbitrator is not removedby the Court on the application of any party to a reference, a Court cannot remove orsubstitute an appointed arbitrator.(c) Arbitration Act (X of 1940)-------Ss. 8 & 12---Power of court to appoint arbitrator or umpire---Power of court wherearbitrator is removed or his authority revoked---Scope---Unless an arbitrator fails to use allreasonable dispatch in entering on and proceeding with the reference and making an award,an appointed arbitrator cannot be removed or substituted---Likewise an arbitrator may be substituted and Court may appoint a new arbitrator where an appointed arbitrator neglects orrefuse to act or is incapable of acting or dies---New arbitrator can be appointed by the Courton the application of a party made under subsection (2) of S. 8 & S. 12 of the ArbitrationAct, 1940.

Summary: The case involves a contract dispute resolved through arbitration, with multiple rounds of litigation and appeals. The Award was initially upheld but later set aside by the High Court, leading to the Supreme Court appeal.Supreme Court found that the Trial Court had properly considered the record and objections, and its findings were legally and factually sustainable. The respondents had participated in the arbitration proceedings without raising any objection to the extensions of time given to the arbitrators. The court also addressed the issue of serving notice under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, stating that substantial compliance had occurred, as the parties were present when the award was filed in court. The court emphasized that the purpose of notice is to make parties aware of the proceedings, and formal compliance in this case would have been a mere technicality. The doctrine of substantial compliance was applied, as the procedural fault did not affect the essence of the dispute. The court concluded that the objections raised by the respondents were unfounded, and the Trial Court's actions were deemed appropriate.

Summary: Petitioner is member of Islamabad Club since 1986. Owing to an incident wherein his son misbehaved with security of the club, petitioner's membership has been revoked. review under regulations has also been refused by the Club Administration.

Summary: (Petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973)Held: (i) In presence of arbitration clause in the agreement, the writ petition was not maintainable and the petitioners if felt aggrieved, they could have invoked arbitration clause or could have filed appeal under the relevant laws.(ii) Contractual obligation could not be invoked in constitutional jurisdiction, as the same could be enforced through Courts of ordinary jurisdiction by invoking provisions of Arbitration Act, 1940.(Petition was dismissed in limine).

Summary: ICA in WP 3508-17(Seeking suspension of impugned order dated 07-06-2017 of PTA and to issue commencement certificate)

Summary: the respondent, after initiating suit related to the subject matter of the arbitration agreement and then abandoning it, could not unilaterally resort to arbitration without following the prescribed procedure---115 CPC revisional jurisdiction should only be exercised in specific circumstances, such as when a subordinate court exceeded its jurisdiction or acted illegally.---The petitioner contended that an appeal should be allowed even though the original orders had been set aside. This was based on a reference to a previous legal case. The respondent parties presented differing views on whether the petition should be converted into an appeal. The Court ultimately allowed the petition to be converted into an appeal since it was filed within the prescribed period.The case revolved around the validity of an arbitration agreement. The appellant, the petitioner in this case, had challenged the enforceability of the agreement and the subsequent arbitration proceedings. The appellant's argument was that the respondent had initiated court proceedings and abandoned them, which barred them from unilaterally resorting to arbitration.The High Court judge's judgment held that the respondent had not been barred from initiating arbitration proceedings after abandoning the court case. However, the judge's interpretation of the law was deemed incorrect by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent, having initiated a court suit related to the subject matter of the arbitration agreement and then abandoning it, could not unilaterally resort to arbitration without following the prescribed procedure.Furthermore, the Supreme Court found issues with the High Court judge's exercise of revisional powers under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court emphasized that revisional jurisdiction should only be exercised in specific circumstances, such as when a subordinate court exceeded its jurisdiction or acted illegally. The Court found that the questions framed by the High Court were not suitable for consideration in a revision, and thus, the judgment could not be sustained.Additionally, the Supreme Court commented on the Arbitrator's Award, highlighting concerns about the haste with which it was made and the lack of due process. The Court concluded by allowing the appeal and setting aside the High Court's judgment.

Summary: Against impugned order dated 21.12.2019 whereby learned ADJ modification the judgement and decree dated 26.06.2019

Summary: Arbitration--Award--Appeal Dismissed.