Summary: Applicable principles enunciated to refer dispute to arbitration under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940----The case involves an appeal filed by the Appellant against orders dated 01.04.2019 and 22.04.2019 passed by the Civil Court, Lahore, under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The dispute arose from a contract between the Appellant (Employer) and the Respondent (Contractor) for the Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project. The Respondent claimed additional compensatory payments due to delays caused by litigation, which was rejected by the Engineer. Despite attempts to settle the dispute, including arbitration notices, the Appellant declined arbitration. The Appellant contested the referral to arbitration, arguing that no genuine dispute existed, citing various legal precedents. However, the Court found that the dispute was legitimate and fell within the arbitration clause of the contract. The Respondent had met the prerequisites under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, and the Court was satisfied that a real dispute existed. The Appellant's objections were deemed issues for the arbitrator to decide, and the Court upheld the referral to arbitration. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the orders to refer the dispute to arbitration.

Summary: Against compulsory retirement of the petitioner from Ex senior plant manager Atomic Energy Commission.

Summary: Bail After Arrest: FIR No. 413/2019, dated 25-11-2019, U/s 392/411 PPC, P.S Khanna, Islamabad.

Summary: Arbitration/Award---Summary Pending

Summary: The case at hand involves a dispute over the validity of an oral arbitration agreement and whether an award made through such an agreement can be enforced by the court. The dispute has persisted for 35 years and centers around land measuring 200 kanal in Bahawalnagar, Pakistan. The petitioners sought to have an award from an arbitrator, pertaining to the land dispute, enforced as a "Rule of Court" under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. However, the court dismissed their application, citing the absence of a written arbitration agreement. The dispute subsequently went through rounds of litigation and appeals. The key issue addressed in the judgment is whether an oral agreement for arbitration is valid and whether an award made under such an agreement can be enforced by the court. The court clarified that, according to Pakistani jurisprudence, an arbitration agreement must be in writing to be recognized. It cited previous rulings and legal principles to support this stance. Ch. Muhammad Saleem v. Muhammad Akram (PLD 1971 SC 516): This case underscores the necessity of a written arbitration agreement and highlights that oral agreements for arbitration are not valid under Pakistani law. Messrs Tribal Friends Co v. Province Of Balochistan (2002 SCMR 1903): This case emphasizes that an arbitration agreement must be in writing to be recognized, and it need not necessarily be signed by both parties. The manifestation of the intention to refer the dispute to arbitration through written documents is sufficient. Chief Engineer, Building Department v. Messrs Pakistan National Construction (1988 SCMR 723): This case reiterates the requirement for an arbitration agreement to be in writing, emphasizing that it is a fundamental condition for its validity. It contrasts Pakistani law with UK and Indian jurisprudence, highlighting the requirement for arbitration agreements to be in writing under the Arbitration Act, 1996 in the UK and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in India. Ultimately, the court dismissed the civil revision, upholding the lower courts' decisions. It emphasized that the requirement for a written arbitration agreement is a fundamental aspect of Pakistani law and that the petitioners failed to establish any illegality or irregularity warranting intervention by the court. In conclusion, the judgment underscored the importance of adhering to legal formalities, particularly in arbitration agreements, and reaffirms the principle that oral agreements for arbitration are not valid under Pakistani law.

Summary: Judgement Decree along with condonation of Delay.

Summary: WP: Service Matter: Pension Benifits of EOBI.

Summary: Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) issued by the Company can be considered as directions /instructions with a binding effect provided it is not violative of fundamental principles of law --- Issue: The appellant challenged the judgment and decree which modified the arbitration award concerning the liability for the theft of oil during transportation from Karachi to Lahore.Holding: The High Court upheld the judgment and decree of the learned Single Judge, which modified the arbitration award by holding the respondent liable only for the theft committed during the trip to KEL on 20.04.2011, and not for past trips.Reasoning: The court found that the imposition of penalties for 25 trips by the appellant and the reduction to 10 trips by the arbitrator were excessive, given that there were no prior complaints of embezzlement before the incident on 20.04.2011. The court concluded that penalties should only be imposed for the actual embezzled quantity discovered during the trip in question, in accordance with the Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and the agreement between the parties.Legal Precedents Cited:Wadero Muhammad Tayyab v. Akbar Hussain and Another (1989 MLD 3952)Muhammad Akhtar v. Mst. Manna and Others (2001 SCMR 1700)Saibesh Chandra Sarkar v. Bijoychand Mohatop Bahadur (AIR 1922 Calcutta 4)Khimji v. Nathibai (AIR 1925 Sindh 42)Devani v. Wells (2019 SCMR 711)Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation v. Hydro Quebec (2019 SCMR 454)Muhammad Sattar and Others v. Tariq Javaid and Others (2017 SCMR 98)M/s. Mechanised Contractors of Pakistan Limited v. Airport Development Authority, Karachi (2000 CLC 1239)A. Qutubuddin Khan S. Chec Millwala Dredging Co. Pvt. Limited (2014 SCMR 1268)Allah Din & Company v. Trading Corporation of Pakistan and Others (2006 SCMR 615)House Building Finance Corporation v. Shahinshah Humayun Cooperative House Building Society and Others (1992 SCMR 19)Order: The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the modified award made by the learned Single Judge, which limited the respondent's liability to the theft detected on 20.04.2011 only.

Summary: O.II, R.2---Plea of bar under O.II, R.2(3), C.P.C., when attracted.To attract the plea of bar under Order II, Rule 2(3), C.P.C., it must be made out.i. That the second suit was in respect of same cause of action as that on which formersuit was based.ii. That in respect of that cause of action the plaintiff was entitled to more than onerelief.iii. That plaintiff in former suit was entitled to more than one relief in respect of samecause of action, but without leave of the Court omitted to sue for the relief for whichthe second suit had been filed.iv. That plaintiff was entitled to such relief at the time of former suit.v. Suit be between the same parties and should arise out of same cause of action-----(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------O.VII, R.11; O.II, R.2; Ss.11 & 12(1)---Arbitration Act (X of 1940), S. 32---SpecificRelief Act (I of 1877), S.42---Suit for declaration and possession though partition---Earliersuit was dismissed---Constructive res judicata, principle of---Applicability---Second suit onsame cause of action---Plaint, rejection of---Trial Court dismissed the suit under S.11 andO.II, R.2 of C.P.C.---Validity---Earlier suit for partition filed by the plaintiff against thedefendants had been dismissed---Arbitration proceedings initiated for making the award arule of Court with regard to decision of arbitrator pertaining to the partition of suit propertyhad also been dismissed---Nobody should be vexed twice for the same cause of action andthere should be an end of litigation---Plaintiff was precluded to file present suit incircumstances---If plaintiff had not taken a particular ground of defence or attack in theearlier suit then principle of constructive res judicata would be applicable---Plaintiff couldnot split the cause of action by filing subsequent suit with regard to same subject matter---Order II, R. 2 of C.P.C. barred a plaintiff, who had earlier claimed certain relief, from filingsecond suit with regard to other relief based on same cause of action---Second suit could befiled on different cause of action---Constructive res judicata was applicable in the case asearlier suit filed by the plaintiff on same cause of action for partition of suit property hadbeen dismissed---Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.2000 CLC 1107 and 1989 CLC 1718 ref.Khushi Muhammad and 2 others v. The Province of the Punjab Through Secretary toGovernment of the Punjab and 2 others 1999 SCMR 1633; Amanullah Malik v. MianGhafoor-ur-Rehman and others 1997 SCMR 1796; PLD 2004 SC 178; PLD 1974 SC 80;2006 SCMR 1262; PLD 2005 SC 430; State Bank of Pakistan through Governor and anotherv. Imtiaz Ali Khan and others 2012 SCMR 280; Greenhalgh v. Mallard 1947 (2) All ER 257;Abdul Hakim and 2 others v. Saadullah Khan and 2 others PLD 1970 SC 63; Trustees of thePort of Karachi v. Organization of Karachi Port Trust Workers and others 2013 SCMR 238;and Ali Muhammad and another v. Muhammad Bashir and another 2012 SCMR 930 rel.

Summary: -----Writ Petition for issuance of direction to National Highway Authority (a) Contract Law – Dispute Resolution Mechanism – Maintainability of Writ Petition: ----Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199 – Arbitration Act, 1940 – Contractual Obligations – Dispute Resolution Clause The petitioner, an operator of a toll plaza under contract with the National Highway Authority (NHA), challenged a show cause notice demanding penalty payments and outstanding dues due to reduced toll collections caused by external factors, including disruptions by transporters and law enforcement interventions. The court observed that the contract explicitly contained a dispute resolution clause (Clause 9.4) that provided a detailed mechanism for arbitration under the Arbitration Act, 1940. It was held that where a contract contains a valid arbitration clause, parties must exhaust the contractual remedy before invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. ----Cited Cases: Mumtaz Ahmad v. Zila Council, Sahiwal (1999 SCMR 117) Abdul Qayyum Khan v. District Officer, Passenger and Freight (2003 MLD 670) Messrs Frontier Construction Company v. Bahauddin Zakariya University (2006 MLD 978) Signage Security System v. CDA (2010 CLC 567) ----Disposition: The petition was dismissed as not maintainable, with directions for the petitioner to pursue the arbitration and dispute resolution mechanism as specified in Clause 9.4 of the contract.