Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan—Art. 184(3); West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964), S. 17-A; Alternative Dispute Resolution Act, 2017— Family dispute—Maintenance of children—Enhancement of maintenance—Mediation as an alternative to prolonged litigation—Scope and importance—Judicial endorsement of ADR—Effect. Petitioner/father challenged enhancement of monthly maintenance for his daughters from Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 150,000/- each, along with educational expenses, as decreed by the appellate court—Family Court had earlier passed decree under S. 17-A of the Family Courts Act, 1964 due to petitioner’s failure to comply with interim maintenance order—Supreme Court, after prolonged litigation spanning over seven years, referred the matter to mediation under the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act, 2017—Mediation was successfully concluded within five weeks, and parties submitted a settlement agreement—Court highlighted the effectiveness of mediation in resolving disputes swiftly and amicably, as opposed to traditional adversarial proceedings—Judgment underscored that mediation promotes party autonomy, reduces costs, safeguards privacy, and fosters creative and interest-based resolutions not possible under rigid judicial remedies—Held, courts should proactively refer cases suitable for mediation at early stages to reduce backlog and improve dispute resolution efficiency—Court acknowledged the legal framework supporting mediation, including ADR Act, 2017, ADR Mediation Accreditation (Eligibility) Rules, 2023, and Mediation Practice Direction (Civil) Rules, 2023—Court appreciated the mediator for her diligence and effectiveness in resolving the familial dispute—Petition was disposed of in terms of the mediated settlement agreement. Disposition: Petition disposed of in terms of settlement agreement dated 05.05.2025.

Summary: (The scope of interference in the Award of an Arbitrator. The imposition of costs for frivolous and vexatious litigation) The case involves a dispute between the National Highway Authority (petitioner) and M/s Sambu Construction Co. Ltd. (respondent) regarding additional work performed by the respondent for the rehabilitation of a national highway. The main contention in the Supreme Court was whether the arbitrators had conducted themselves improperly under Section 30(a) of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The petitioner argued that the minutes of the pre-bid meeting should not be considered part of the contract and that the arbitrators wrongly relied on them. However, the respondent contended that the pre-bid meeting minutes formed an integral part of the contract, as reflected in the signed contract documents. After examining the record and considering the arguments, the Supreme Court concluded that the minutes of the pre-bid meeting were indeed part of the contract document. The court highlighted that the scope of judicial review of an arbitration award is limited and should not involve a re-assessment of evidence. The court found no jurisdictional, procedural, or substantive error in the award that warranted interference. Furthermore, the court addressed the issue of alleged misconduct by the arbitrators. It stated that misconduct refers to a failure to perform essential duties or conduct inconsistent with those duties, resulting in a substantial miscarriage of justice. However, the petitioner's objections were deemed to pertain more to the merits of the case rather than misconduct, and no specific grounds for misconduct were presented. The court dismissed the petitioner's claims of misconduct. Lastly, the court expressed concern over the petitioner's prolonged litigation, spanning more than ten years, which it deemed vexatious. It emphasized the importance of alternate dispute resolution (ADR) and discouraged parties from challenging arbitration awards in court, as it defeats the purpose of ADR. The court imposed costs of Rs. 300,000 on the petitioner and emphasized the need to discourage frivolous litigation.

Summary: Background: Muhammad Afsar and others are appealing against the Collector Acquisition, Islamabad, concerning a property acquisition dispute. This appeal (RFA No. 82/2010) is connected with another appeal (RFA No. 83/2010). The court is exploring the possibility of resolving the dispute through mediation as per the Alternate Dispute Resolution Act, 2017. ----Issues: Whether the parties are willing to engage in mediation under Section 3 of the Alternate Dispute Resolution Act, 2017. If so, the process and conditions for mediation need to be established. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court directed the parties to consider mediation and to inform the court at the next hearing if they agree to this alternative dispute resolution method. The key points for mediation include: The case was scheduled to be re-listed on 07.12.2022 for further proceedings. ----Citations/Precedents Alternate Dispute Resolution Act, 2017

Summary: Compromise is the best solution for removal of differences and it is always appreciated by the Courts of law, for which, certain specific provisions were also inserted in the CPC, such as, Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR), conferencing and reconciliation and this was the reason when the provisions of Order XII Rule 6 was made part of the Statute.

Summary: This writ petition addressed two main issues. Firstly, it questioned the authority of the President to review and decide on representations filed against the decisions of the Federal Tax Ombudsman as an appellate authority under the Freedom of Information Ordinance, 2002 (FOI Ordinance). Secondly, it examined whether the recommendations of the Alternate Dispute Resolution Committee (ADRC) are exempt from disclosure under section 8 of the FOI Ordinance. The petitioner initially requested information from the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) concerning recommendations made by the ADRC, which was formed under specific tax laws, as well as the actions taken by the Board based on these recommendations. The FBR filed a representation with the President, who partially accepted it, excluding the ADRC's recommendations from disclosure. The court's analysis found that the FOI Ordinance provides a clear and comprehensive framework for citizens' access to government records and information. It also emphasized the importance of interpreting the FOI Ordinance in a manner that promotes transparency and accountability in government operations. The court determined that the President did not have the authority to review and modify the Tax Ombudsman's decision as it went beyond the scope of section 32 of the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, declaring the President's decision unlawful and ordering the respondents to provide the requested information/documents to the petitioner. The court's decision favored transparency and access to information while clarifying the limitations on the President's role in such matters.

Summary: Alternate Dispute Resolution

Summary: (a) Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) – Encouragement of Mediation in Civil Litigation The Supreme Court emphasized the need for mediation as an effective alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanism, citing the overwhelming backlog of 2.22 million pending cases in Pakistan's courts. Mediation is seen as a preferred and efficient method to resolve disputes amicably, cost-effectively, and expeditiously, aligning with international legal standards and best practices. (b) Jurisdiction and Enforceability of Arbitral Awards The Court examined the arbitral process under the Arbitration Act, 1940, wherein a two-member tribunal's unanimous arbitral award was initially made the Rule of Court by the Civil Court but later set aside by the Lahore High Court. The Supreme Court, instead of directly adjudicating on the appeal, referred the matter for mediation, recognizing ADR as a more practical and timely solution to commercial disputes. (c) Mediation as a Fundamental Right of Litigants The Court ruled that mediation should be considered an integral right of the litigants, allowing them to resolve disputes efficiently, autonomously, and without unnecessary adversarial consequences. It held that access to justice is not limited to litigation but includes the right to seek resolution through ADR mechanisms, reinforcing the principle of procedural justice. (d) Constitutional and Legislative Framework for Mediation in Pakistan The Court referenced the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act, 2017, and provincial ADR laws, including the Punjab, Sindh, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, and Balochistan ADR Acts, which empower courts to refer disputes to mediation. Additionally, it highlighted the Mediation Accreditation (Eligibility) Rules, 2023 and the Mediation Practice Direction (Civil) Rules, 2023, which standardize mediation procedures in Pakistan’s judicial system. (e) Comparative and International Legal Standards on Mediation The Court acknowledged international instruments supporting mediation, particularly the Singapore Convention on Mediation (2018), which provides a global framework for enforcing mediated settlements akin to the New York Convention on Arbitration (1958). The Court recommended that Pakistan ratify the Singapore Convention, underscoring its benefits in reducing litigation backlog and promoting commercial dispute resolution. (f) Mediation Centers and Institutional Development The Court commended the establishment of court-annexed mediation centers, such as the Islamabad High Court Mediation Center, and private institutions like the Musaliha International Center for Arbitration and Dispute Resolution. It encouraged further expansion of mediation facilities across Pakistan, urging courts to adopt a pro-mediation bias to reduce litigation. (g) Economic and Social Benefits of Mediation The judgment outlined the economic and social advantages of mediation, including: Cost-effectiveness – Lower legal expenses and faster resolutions. Time efficiency – Avoidance of prolonged court proceedings. Confidentiality – Unlike public trials, mediation remains private. Preservation of relationships – Particularly in business and family disputes. Control over outcomes – Parties directly shape their settlements. (h) Referral of the Case for Mediation Considering the nature of the dispute between M/s Mughals Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. and EOBI/PRIMACO, the Court ordered the referral of the matter for mediation. However, it allowed the parties to re-approach the Court if mediation fails, ensuring that their right to judicial determination remains intact. (i) Disposition Appeals referred to mediation in line with the Supreme Court’s pro-mediation stance. If mediation fails, parties may request re-fixation of appeals before the Supreme Court. Attorney General for Pakistan directed to consider ratification of the Singapore Convention on Mediation.

Summary: Alternate Dispute Resolution in Tax matters; Section 134A of the Income Tax Ordinance mandatory for State Owned Enterprise after Tax amendment Laws Act, 2024

Summary: Background: The petitioners, Strategic Plans Division (SPD) and National Command Authority (NCA), filed a writ petition challenging show cause notices issued by the Punjab Revenue Authority (PRA). The notices imposed a levy of provincial sales tax on services under the Punjab Sales Tax on Services Act, 2012. The petitioners argued that the PRA lacked jurisdiction to impose such taxes on them, as the SPD functions as the Secretariat of the NCA under the National Command Authority Act, 2010, which pertains to federal matters. ---Issues: Maintainability of Writ Petition Against Show Cause Notices: Whether a writ petition is maintainable against show cause notices. Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice: Whether the show cause notices adhere to the principles of natural justice. Referral of Show Cause Notice Matters for Mediation: Whether the matters regarding the issuance of show cause notices can be referred for mediation. ------Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: ---Maintainability of Writ Petition Against Show Cause Notices: The court held that a writ petition is generally not maintainable against a show cause notice as it is not an adverse order. However, exceptions exist if the notice is issued without jurisdiction or is malafide. This principle is supported by precedents such as Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax and others (2004 PTD 1901) and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Eli Lilly Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. (2009 SCMR 1279). The court found that the PRA's show cause notices were issued within their jurisdiction and did not suffer from any malafide intent. Thus, the writ petition challenging the notices was not maintainable. ---Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice: The court emphasized that show cause notices must be precise and provide the recipient with adequate details to respond effectively. This requirement is rooted in Articles 4 and 10-A of the Constitution, ensuring the right to a fair trial and due process. The court noted that the PRA's notices adhered to these principles, giving the petitioners a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations. ---Referral of Show Cause Notice Matters for Mediation: The court highlighted the importance of Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms, as endorsed by the Supreme Court in cases like Federation of Pakistan and others v. Attock Petroleum Ltd. Islamabad (2007 SCMR 1095) and Commissioner Inland Revenue v. Messrs RYK Mills (2023 SCMR 1856). The court found that mediation could be an effective method to resolve the dispute. Both parties agreed to this approach. ----Conclusion: The court concluded that the writ petition against the show cause notices was not maintainable due to the jurisdiction of the PRA and the adherence to natural justice principles. However, considering the mutual consent of the parties, the court referred the matter for mediation under Section 69 of the Punjab Sales Tax on Services Act, 2012, in line with the ADR mechanism. The petitions were disposed of with the direction that representatives of the petitioners appear before the PRA on 10.06.2024 to proceed with mediation. No coercive measures would be adopted against the petitioners until the mediation process is finalized. ----Citations/Precedents: Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax and others (2004 PTD 1901) Commissioner of Income Tax v. Eli Lilly Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. (2009 SCMR 1279) Federation of Pakistan and others v. Attock Petroleum Ltd. Islamabad (2007 SCMR 1095) Commissioner Inland Revenue v. Messrs RYK Mills (2023 SCMR 1856) Province of Punjab through Secretary C&W, Lahore, etc v. M/s Haroon Construction Company, Government Contractor, etc. (2024 SCMR 947) RELIANCE COMMODITIES (PRIVATE) LTD. v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others (PLD 2020 Lahore 632)

Summary: Art. 199--Dismissed, referred to arbitration, 199 not maintainable when arbitration clause form part of the contract---The petitioner, a retired teacher from a Federal Government Institution, sought a declaration that she was entitled to an allotment of a plot in Category-III, Phase-IV of a housing scheme launched by the respondent. The petitioner and her husband, both retired government employees, had applied for plot allotment and fulfilled all requirements. The petitioner applied in Category-III by paying a seed money of Rs. 65,000. However, her application was rejected on the grounds that her husband had been provisionally allotted a plot in Category-II of the same scheme. The petitioner argued that this decision was unconstitutional and violated her fundamental right to property.The court highlighted that the brochure formed a contractual agreement between the parties, and the petitioner had signed an undertaking agreeing to its terms. Furthermore, the court pointed out an arbitration clause in the brochure that allowed for dispute resolution through arbitration. The court opined that since an alternate and efficacious remedy (arbitration) was available to the petitioner, her petition under Article 199 was not maintainable.The court referenced various legal cases to support its conclusion that the petitioner should pursue the alternate remedy provided by the arbitration clause. These cases established that when an alternate remedy is available, writ jurisdiction should not be invoked. Consequently, the court dismissed the petitioner's constitutional petition, stating that the remedy through arbitration was more appropriate in this case.The judgment emphasized the importance of upholding contractual agreements and utilizing alternate dispute resolution mechanisms provided within those agreements.