Summary: Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act (XVII of 2011)--- ----Ss.6, 7& 8---Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 1958, ("the New York Convention") Article-V---Recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards---Limited grounds for refusal---Scope and limitations explained---Overriding effect of New York Convention stated in case of inconsistency between the Act, 2011 and New York Convention---The issue for determination before the High Court in the present intra-court appeal was as to "whether a foreign arbitral award rendered by the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) could be recognized and enforced in Pakistan under the Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act, 2011?"---The appellant challenged the enforcement of arbitral award on grounds that the underlying contract between the parties was signed by unauthorized person on its behalf and that the arbitral award suffered from legal and factual errors---Held: Plea of the appellant company that contract was signed by unauthorized person was misconceived because the contract was signed by agent of the appellant company who acted upon appellant company's behalf with its permission and consent and no action against him was stated to have been taken by the appellant company; moreover, the address of the appellant company and that of the agent/signatory was also the same which further supported that the agent was acting on behalf of the appellant company---With respect to the alleged legal factual errors averred by the appellant company High Court emphasized upon and took note of the fact that the appellant company had replied to a legal notice but not opted to appear and join the arbitration proceedings which showed that the appellant company intentionally avoided the proceedings of arbitration---Refusing to accept the arbitrator's authority and not taking part in the arbitration proceedings did not release the appellant from the duties and responsibilities under the sales contract---Even if there were any mistakes or illegalities in the decision of arbitrator, same did not fall under Article-V of the New York Convention---Under S. 7 of the Act, 2011, only the reasons listed in Article-V of the New York Convention could be used to refuse enforcement of a foreign award---Section 6 of the Act, 2011 also confirmed that only those reasons mentioned in S. 7 of the Act, 2011, which was Article-V of the New York Convention, were valid grounds for refusal for recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award---This showed that the law allowed very limited scope for rejecting a foreign arbitration award---The argument of the appellant company that the arbitrator while giving its award made legal or factual errors was not a valid reason under Article-V of the New York Convention, so this defense was not available to the appellant---Recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award could only be refused by a Pakistani Court if the award seriously violated the basic notions of morality and justice prevailing in Pakistan which was not the case of the appellant---Pakistan had been a signatory to the New York Convention and the country had promulgated the Act, 2011 to implement it---Section 8 of the Act, 2011 provided that in the event of any inconsistency between this Act and the convention (New York Convention), the convention was to prevail to the extent of the inconsistency---Appellant-company failed to point out any jurisdictional error in the judgment of the Single Judge in Chamber or in the award in the light of the Act, 2011 and New York Convention---For the foregoing reasons, no ground was made out for interference in the judgment impugned---Therefore, the present intra-court appeal being without substance was dismissed, in circumstances. Taisei Corporation and another v. A.M. Construction Company (Pvt.) Ltd. and another 2024 SCMR 640 rel. Shah Zaib Masood and Jawad Jameel Malik for Appellant. Shah Bakhat Pirzada, Ahmed Nisar Khan and Mahaar Mustafa Kazmi for Respondent. Date of hearing: 3rd June, 2025.

Summary: (Against the order of Islamabad High Court, Islamabad dated 19.05.2025, passed in Diary No. 9715 of 2025). (a) Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act (XVII of 2011)--- ----S. 6---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)---Foreign arbitral award---Sanctity and enforcement---Granting of interim relief by the High Court in aid of enforcement of arbitral award---Contentions raised by counsel for petitioners were that courts were empowered to pass interim measures in order to protect the integrity and efficacy of the enforcement process; that dispute between the parties was referred to arbitration under the auspices of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) London; that partial foreign arbitral award was rendered followed by a separate award on costs; that awards were filed before the High Court for enforcement under the Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act, 2011; that during the pendency of enforcement proceedings of the same, Single Judge granted interim relief restraining the respondents from assigning, transferring, or encumbering their interest in the 'Badin fields' which interim order was challenged through Intra Court Appeal, whereby, Division Bench of High Court suspended the interim relief, which order was then challenged before the Supreme Court; that Courts have been empowered to pass interim measures to protect the integrity and efficacy of the enforcement process; that denial of such protection would defeat the very purpose of the Act, 2011 and the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 1958 (the "Convention"); that Courts must maintain a pro-enforcement bias while dealing with foreign arbitral awards; that such premature judicial intervention would send adverse signal to the international community, undermine arbitral sanctity, erode investor confidence and would undermine the country's international obligations; that a stable and enforcement-friendly legal environment is vital for encouraging foreign direct investment; that foreign arbitral awards should not be treated as ordinary civil decrees, rather, they possess a binding character under international law, to which Pakistan has expressly committed itself---Supreme Court granted leave to consider the contentions raised by the Counsel for Petitioners---Supreme Court suspended the operation of the impugned order of Division Bench of the High Court in order to be consistent with the pro-enforcement bias maintained by the Supreme Court as well as the mandate of the Act 2011, the Convention and the settled jurisprudence of the Supreme Court. Taisei Corporation and another v. A.M. Construction Company (Pvt.) Ltd. 2024 SCMR 640; Orient Power Company (Pvt.) Ltd, Lahore v. Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Ltd. 2021 SCMR 1728; Government of India v. Vedanta Limited and others AIR 2020 SC 4550 and Zeiler v. Deitsch 500 F.3d 157 (2007) rel. (b) Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972)--- ----S. 3(2)---Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act (XVII of 2011), S. 6---Intra Court Appeal (ICA)---Maintainability---Enforcing of foreign arbitral award---Grant of interim relief by the High Court, challenge to---Interim relief order passed by the High Court in proceedings for enforcement of arbitral award are not amenable to Intra Court Appeal---Intra Court Appeals do not lie from orders passed under special laws that contain a self-contained appellate mechanism and do not expressly provide for such appeals. Karim Bibi and others v. Hussain Bakhsh and another PLD 1984 SC 344; Muhammad Abdullah v. Deputy Settlement Commissioner Lahore PLD 1985 SC 107 and International Islamic University, Islamabad v. Syed Naveed Altaf 2024 SCMR 472 rel. (c) Supreme Court Rules, 1980--- ----O.XI, O.XX & O.XXXII---Powers of the Supreme Court to grant leave and suspend the order of the Division Bench of the High Court---Scope---The Supreme Court while entertaining a petition arising out of an order of a Division Bench of a High Court, is competent to grant leave and suspend the impugned order. Sheri-CBE and others v. Lahore Development Authority 2006 SCMR 1202; Municipal Committee v. Province of Punjab 2001 SCMR 745 and ICI Pakistan Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan 2007 PTD 2306 rel. Ms. Zainab Janjua, Advocate High Court for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 29th May, 2025.

Summary: (a) Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act, 2011—S. 6 & Schedule—New York Convention, 1958—Enforcement of foreign arbitral award—Interim relief—Scope and object—Interference by Division Bench at interlocutory stage—Pro-enforcement mandate—Validity—Petitioners sought enforcement of partial and costs award rendered under ICC arbitration seated in London—Single Judge of High Court granted interim injunction restraining respondent from transferring or encumbering working interest in Badin Fields—Division Bench, in intra-court appeal (ICA), suspended said interim relief—Held, foreign arbitral awards are not to be treated as ordinary civil decrees; they are binding under international law and the Convention—Interim measures passed in aid of enforcement are within court’s jurisdiction and necessary to protect efficacy of the enforcement process—Interference by appellate court at interim stage, without considering grounds of refusal under Article V of the Convention, is premature and contrary to settled jurisprudence—Supreme Court suspended impugned ICA order and reinstated interim relief. The Court reaffirmed the principle that courts must maintain a pro-enforcement bias in matters concerning foreign arbitral awards—Such awards enjoy presumptive validity and should be enforced unless one of the narrow grounds in Article V of the Convention is clearly established—Suspension of interim protection at an early stage without evaluating those grounds undermines Pakistan’s international obligations and discourages foreign investment. Cited Cases: Taisei Corporation v. A.M. Construction Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. (2024 SCMR 640) Orient Power Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. v. SNGPL (2021 SCMR 1728) Government of India v. Vedanta Ltd. (AIR 2020 SC 4550) Zeiler v. Deitsch (500 F.3d 157 (2007)) (b) Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972—S. 3(2)—Maintainability of intra-court appeal (ICA)—Order passed in enforcement proceedings under special law—Scope—Held, enforcement petition under 2011 Act is a special law proceeding with a self-contained appellate mechanism—Order of Single Judge not amenable to ICA under S.3(2) of Ordinance, 1972—Division Bench’s jurisdiction was barred. The Supreme Court reiterated that ICAs are not maintainable from orders passed under special statutes that provide no express appeal provision—Enforcement of foreign awards under the 2011 Act falls within such category—Reference made to precedents holding that Law Reforms Ordinance does not apply where special legislation governs appellate procedure. Cited Cases: Karim Bibi v. Hussain Bakhsh (PLD 1984 SC 344) Muhammad Abdullah v. Deputy Settlement Commissioner (PLD 1985 SC 107) International Islamic University v. Syed Naveed Altaf (2024 SCMR 472) (c) Supreme Court Rules, 1980—Orders XI, XX & XXXIII—Leave to appeal—Power to suspend High Court orders—Scope—Held, Supreme Court is competent to grant interim relief and suspend impugned orders of High Court Division Bench while granting leave—Suspension of ICA order and continuation of Single Judge’s interim relief were within judicial discretion—Pro-enforcement orientation and settled case law supported such intervention. Cited Cases: Sheri-CBE v. LDA (2006 SCMR 1202) Municipal Committee v. Province of Punjab (2001 SCMR 745) ICI Pakistan Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan (2007 PTD 2306) (d) Practice and Procedure—Appearance by Advocate not enrolled with Supreme Court—Permission—Learned counsel who had represented petitioners before High Court sought special permission to argue urgent matter—Held, limited permission granted for current stage; petitioners directed to engage Advocate of Supreme Court for further proceedings—Pending applications disposed of accordingly. Disposition: Leave to appeal granted—Impugned order of Division Bench dated 19.05.2025 suspended—Interim injunction passed by Single Judge restored and shall remain operative—Petitions to be listed before three-member bench after a fortnight.

Summary: (a) Arbitration Act (X of 1940)--- ----Ss. 15, 16 & 17---Powers of Court---Making award Rule of Court---Scope---While making award Rule of the Court, the Court is not supposed to act in a mechanical manner, like a post office and put its seal on it---Court has to look into the award and if it finds patent illegality on the face of the award, it can remit the award or any of the matters to arbitrator for reconsideration or set aside the same. (b) Arbitration Act (X of 1940)--- ----S. 17---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Arbitration---Rule of Court, assailing of---Extraneous remarks by Arbitrators in Award---Petitioner was aggrieved of not including in Rule of the Court, the escalation amount calculated by Arbitrators---Validity---Erroneous interpretation of law and/or clauses of contract made by Arbitrators could be set aside by Referee Court---Referee Court had rightly concluded that escalation was part of contract and provisions of Pakistan Engineering Council guidelines had been wrongly applied to the contract, therefore Arbitrators' interpretation in such regard was validly set aside---Regardless of correct interpretation of relevant clause of contract and legal position in that regard orders passed by Referee Court had never been challenged and was duly implemented---Such orders attained finality and were binding on Arbitrators who were bound to follow the same---Arbitrators went way beyond the terms of reference as well as their powers and jurisdiction by sitting as a Court of Appeal on Referee Court's orders and any such remarks given by them were extraneous to the Terms of Reference and should have been discarded by Referee Court---Calculations finally made by Arbitrators had to have been made Rule of the Court---Order of Referee Court as well as Lower Appellate Court to the extent of issue pertaining to escalation cost were not sustainable in the eye of law and the same were set aside to that extent---High Court discarded remarks made by Arbitrators regarding non-admissibility of escalation---High Court made calculations with respect to escalation cost as Rule of the Court---Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly. Sh. Muhammad Saleem v. Saadat Enterprises 2009 CLD 390; Messrs Jaffar Bros. Ltd. v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan and others PLD 1978 Kar. 585; Pakistan v. Ms. Rajastan Alloy and Steel (Pvt.) Ltd. 2002 CLD 61; Syed Tariq Farooq v. Nasruddin and another PLD 1980 Quetta 1; Gerry's International (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Aerofloat Russian International Airlines 2018 SCMR 662; Karachi Dock Labour Board v. Ms. Quality Builders Ltd. PLD 2016 SC 121; Pakistan v. Ms. QMR Expert Consultants PLD 1980 SC 800; State Bank of Pakistan v. Khyber Zaman and others 2004 SCMR 1426; Societe Generale De Surveillance S.A. v. Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance Revenue Division, Islamabad 2002 SCMR 1694 and Director Housing, A.G's Branch, Rawalpindi v. M/s. Makhdum Consultants Engineers and Architects 1997 SCMR 988 ref. Zahid Idrees Mufti for Petitioner. Wajahat Hussain Shah, Assistant Advocate General for Respondents. Date of hearing: 16th April, 2025.

Summary: (a) Arbitration Act, 1940 – S. 30, 14(2), 26-A – Challenge to arbitral award – Validity of award – Scope of Court’s interference The appellant, National Highway Authority (NHA), assailed the trial court’s decree making the arbitral award dated 18.09.2014 a Rule of Court. The Arbitrator had previously announced an award in 2010 which was remanded by the Islamabad High Court on 28.03.2014 for fresh adjudication after recording further oral and documentary evidence. The Arbitrator, after fulfilling the requisite procedural directions, issued a supplementary award. The appellant challenged the award on grounds of misconduct, insufficiency of reasoning, and procedural irregularity. Held, the award was passed in compliance with the remand order; no jurisdictional error or misconduct was evident; the Arbitrator acted within scope and applied mind to the matter; objections raised under S. 30 did not demonstrate any grounds for setting aside the award; courts are not to reappraise evidence or act as appellate forums in arbitral matters; court interference is limited to the statutory framework. The findings of the Arbitrator were clear, concise, and based on a previously agreed settlement with NHA's Executive Board. Once parties opt for arbitration, court interference is to be minimized. The trial court had rightly made the award Rule of Court. Cited Cases: Shahin Shah v. Govt. of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, 2022 SCMR 1810 Gerry’s International v. Aeroflot Airlines, 2018 SCMR 662 Federation of Pakistan v. Joint Venture K.G/RIST, PLD 2011 SC 506 Lahore Development Authority v. Khalid Javed Company, 1983 SCMR 718 Mian Corporation v. Lever Brothers of Pakistan, PLD 2006 SC 169 Muhammad Farooq Shah v. Shakirullah, 2006 SCMR 1657 (b) Arbitration Act, 1940 – Ss. 15, 16 – Modification, correction or remission of award – Conditions precedent – Jurisdiction of Court Held, the court’s power under Ss. 15 and 16 is confined to specific grounds such as clerical errors, matters outside reference, or legal objections apparent on the face of the award. No such infirmity or error was visible on the face of the supplementary award; hence, the trial court rightly refused to remit or modify it. (c) Civil Procedure – Judicial review of arbitral award – Standard of scrutiny – Bias or procedural error – Requirement of specific and proven allegations The mere allegation of bias or vague claims of procedural irregularity are insufficient. The appellant failed to plead and prove specific acts of misconduct or bias as per established precedent. The arbitrator’s role as a final judge of facts and law cannot be disturbed unless misconduct or fraud is proven. Disposition: Appeal dismissed; decree and award affirmed.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Art. 199 Maintainability of constitutional petition—Alternative remedy—Petitioners sought enforcement of alleged contractual rights based on allotment letters issued in lieu of ancestral land transferred to a cooperative housing society—Claimed relief for issuance of possession and prevention of third-party encroachment—Held, petitioners became members of the society and their claims were governed by contract and the provisions of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925—Dispute regarding possession of plots and performance of agreement was contractual in nature and required adjudication through arbitration mechanism under S.54 of the Cooperative Societies Act—Writ jurisdiction under Art.199 not maintainable where adequate statutory remedy exists—Petition dismissed as misconceived. Disposition: Writ Petition dismissed. Cited Provision: Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199(1)(a)(i) (b) Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 ----S. 54 Arbitration—Dispute between members and society—Scope—Petitioners, as members of Jinnah Gardens Phase-II, alleged breach of agreement by respondent cooperative housing society for failure to deliver possession of plots despite issuance of allotment letters—Held, under S.54 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, disputes between society and its members must be referred to arbitration—Failure to exhaust statutory remedy barred recourse to constitutional petition—High Court declined to interfere. Cited Provision: Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, S. 54 (c) Specific Relief & Contractual Enforcement ----Enforcement of agreement—Civil suit vs writ petition—Scope—Petitioners sought enforcement of land-for-plot exchange agreement via constitutional petition—Held, enforcement of specific performance of contract governed by Specific Relief Act—Disputes of contractual nature, especially requiring factual inquiry, not amenable to writ jurisdiction—Civil courts are proper forum to determine such claims—Constitutional petition not maintainable.

Summary: (a) Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 ----S. 54---- Jurisdiction of Registrar—Scope and limits—Dispute regarding title to immovable property—Maintainability before Registrar under Section 54 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925—Phrase “touching the business of the society”—Interpretation—Principle— Held, the expression “touching the business of the society” under S.54 of the Act is a jurisdictional prerequisite that determines the Registrar’s authority to entertain a dispute—The term "business" must be narrowly construed to refer only to commercial or operational activities of the society, and not matters extraneous to its authorized functions—Registrar is not empowered to adjudicate on questions of ownership or title to immovable property once such matters are the subject of civil litigation—Arbitration award rendered by Registrar, purporting to decide a title dispute without impleading affected parties and while civil court decree was in existence, held to be void and of no legal effect—Civil courts alone possess jurisdiction over matters of title, ownership, and possession of immovable property—Citing Defence Housing Authority Lahore v. Builders & Developers (Pvt.) Ltd. 2015 SCMR 1799 and Syed Ghulam Moin-ul-Haq Gillani v. Province of Punjab 2021 CLC 1286, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that cooperative disputes falling outside the internal affairs and core business of the society do not fall under S.54—Invocation of arbitration mechanism by petitioner was declared to be mala fide, conducted behind the back of lawful title holders, and contrary to natural justice. Cited Cases: • Defence Housing Authority Lahore v. Builders and Developers (Pvt.) Ltd. 2015 SCMR 1799 • Syed Ghulam Moin-ul-Haq Gillani v. Province of Punjab 2021 CLC 1286 • Deccan Merchants Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Dalichand Jugraj Jain & Ors. [1969] (1) SCR 887 (India) • The National Co-Operative Consumers' Federation Ltd. v. Delhi Administration AIR 1971 Delhi 141 (b) Constitution of Pakistan ----Art. 10A---- Due process of law—Natural justice—Non-impleadment of necessary parties in arbitration proceedings—Effect— Held, arbitration proceedings initiated under the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 by the petitioner were violative of due process as neither the respondent nor his predecessor-in-interest (lawful transferees under registered instruments) were impleaded—The ex parte award adversely affected their vested property rights without affording opportunity of hearing—Violation of Art. 10A of the Constitution—Such omission was indicative of mala fides—Arbitration award and subsequent execution proceedings, including lease deed executed by Nazir, were rightly set aside by the High Court. Cited Cases: • Syed Ghulam Moin-ul-Haq Gillani v. Province of Punjab 2021 CLC 1286 • Deccan Merchants Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Dalichand Jugraj Jain [1969] (1) SCR 887 (c) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 ----S. 12(2)---- Fraudulent concealment—Effect of failing to disclose prior litigation in arbitration proceedings—Non-speaking award—Legal consequences— Held, petitioner failed to disclose existence of earlier civil litigation which culminated in a final decree against him—Award was non-speaking, made without reference to validly registered instruments or decrees passed in favor of respondent’s predecessor—Registrar exceeded jurisdiction in issuing such award—It is settled that a civil court decree cannot be nullified by parallel proceedings under a special statute—Petitioner’s conduct in securing such award without disclosing material facts or impleading lawful owners amounted to abuse of legal process—Subsequent lease deed dated 20.04.2019 executed on basis of arbitration award was declared to be of no legal effect. Cited Cases: • Syed Ghulam Moin-ul-Haq Gillani v. Province of Punjab 2021 CLC 1286 • Defence Housing Authority Lahore v. Builders & Developers (Pvt.) Ltd. 2015 SCMR 1799 Disposition: Petition dismissed—Leave to appeal refused—Impugned judgment of the High Court affirmed as well-reasoned and legally sound.

Summary: (a) Arbitration Act, 1940 (X of 1940): ----Ss. 16, 30 & 33---Code of Civil Procedure (V of 1908), S. 151---Remission and setting aside of arbitration award---Scope---Variation in contract invoking additional compensation---Appellant [National Highway Authority] awarded construction contract to Respondent No.1 [M/s Husnain Cotex Limited] and later required early completion of part of the project, resulting in increased cost and revised work methodology---Sole Arbitrator held such instructions amounted to a variation under Sub-clause 51.1(f) of the Conditions of Contract, entitling the contractor to compensation under Cl. 52.1---Trial Court dismissed application filed under Ss. 16 & 151, C.P.C., seeking remission or setting aside of award---Contention that Arbitrator failed to distribute burden of proof or decided issues extraneously, found unsubstantiated---Award was based on mutual consent regarding evidence recording and relied on documents placed on record---High Court held that no error on the face of the Award or misconduct was established---Arbitrator is final authority on facts and law, and courts cannot function as appellate authority in arbitration matters unless the award is invalid under S. 30---Discretion exercised by Arbitrator cannot be interfered with merely due to difference in interpretation or reasoning. ----Cited Cases: • Shahin Shah v. Govt. of KPK, 2022 SCMR 1810 • Gerry’s Intl. v. Aeroflot, 2018 SCMR 662 • A. Qutubuddin Khan v. Chec Millwala Dredgging Co., 2014 SCMR 1268 • Federation v. JV Knocks K.G/RIST, PLD 2011 SC 506 • Mian Corporation v. Lever Brothers, PLD 2006 SC 169 • Pakistan Steel Mills v. Mustafa Sons, PLD 2003 SC 301 • JV K.G/RIST v. Federation, PLD 1996 SC 108 • NHA v. Lilley Intl., 2020 CLC 608 Islamabad • Sh. Muhammad Saleem v. Saadat Enterprises, 2009 CLD 390 LHR (b) Arbitration Act, 1940 (X of 1940): ----S. 30---Judicial interference in arbitration proceedings---Scope---Parties bound by selected forum---Where parties voluntarily incorporate arbitration clause, Court’s interference is limited to grounds provided in S.30---High Court emphasized that objections raised after consent to Arbitrator’s procedural decisions could not be termed misconduct---Courts not to disturb factual or legal findings of Arbitrator absent jurisdictional error or fraud---Objections based on non-reading, misreading or "perverse verdict" must reflect a manifest error on face of award to justify intervention---No such grounds established in present case. (c) Arbitration Act, 1940 (X of 1940): ----S. 16---Remission of award---Grounds---Award found to be neither indefinite nor incapable of execution---Objections were vague, not meeting threshold for remission under S.16---Court declined to remit matter for fresh arbitration as no error of jurisdiction or unresolved material issues were demonstrated. (d) Limitation Act (IX of 1908): ----Art. 158---Objections to arbitration award---Limitation period---Award dated 10.04.2010---No application filed within 30 days of notice of filing award in court---No application for condonation of delay filed---Objection held time-barred---Court relied on precedents to hold that condonation requires specific justification for each day of delay---Purpose of arbitration frustrated where party refuses to honor agreed dispute resolution mechanism. ----Cited Cases: • Airports Development Agency Ltd. v. M.Y Corporation, PLD 2001 Kar 158 • Shahin Shah v. Govt. of KPK, 2022 SCMR 1810 • LDA v. Khalid Javed Co., 1983 SCMR 718 ----Disposition: Appeal dismissed---Findings of Sole Arbitrator upheld---No illegality or jurisdictional error found in the impugned Order and Decree.

Summary: (a) Arbitration--- ----Procedure---Object, purpose and scope---Arbitration is fundamentally a contractual arrangement and the parties must be held to their bargain---Parties cannot be allowed to circumvent procedure for arbitration provided in arbitration clause---Procedure for appointment of arbitrator, as provided in arbitration agreement, must be given effect. (b) Arbitration Act (X of 1940)--- ----S. 8(1) & (2)---Arbitrator, appointment of---Procedure---Provision of S. 8(1) of Arbitration Act, 1940 empowers a party to serve a notice on other party to concur in appointment of arbitrator etc., where arbitration agreement provides reference to one or more arbitrators appointed by consent of parties and parties do not, after differences have arisen, concur in appointment or appointments---If appointment is not made within fifteen clear days after service of such notice, then under S. 8(2) of Arbitration Act, 1940 Court may, on application of the party which had given notice and after giving the other parties an opportunity of being heard, appoint arbitrator or arbitrators or umpire, as the case may be. (c) Arbitration Act (X of 1940)--- ----Ss. 8, 9 & 20---Arbitration---Procedure to be followed---Two arbitration agreements---Respondent invoked arbitration clause before Trial Court and sought appointment of arbitrator; the application was dismissed for parties to first proceed as per agreement---Lower Appellate Court set aside order of Trial Court and directed appointment of arbitrator---Validity---Both the agreements between parties required two arbitrators, followed by an umpire if needed---Correct legal provision to invoke was S. 9 and not S. 8 of Arbitration Act, 1940---Lower Appellate Court directed Trial Court to appoint arbitrator without first determining whether two steps procedures envisaged under arbitration clauses agreed between parties had been exhausted and it also failed to address issue of whether application under Ss. 8 and 20 of Arbitration Act 1940 was maintainable for two separate agreements, which was erroneous, making its decision legally unsustainable---Application of respondent under Ss. 8 and 20 of Arbitration Act, 1940 was not maintainable as it covered two separate agreements, and arbitration mechanism in both the agreements was not exhausted by respondent, rendering the application premature---High Court set aside judgment passed by Lower Appellate Court as disputes between the parties fell under S. 9, rather than S. 8 of Arbitration Act, 1940 and the parties were at liberty to invoke arbitration clauses in letter and spirit---Revision was allowed accordingly. Messrs Ganapati Technology Services (Pvt.) Ltd v. The State Fisheries Development AIRONLINE 2021 CAL 120; Orient Power Company (Private) Limited through Authorized Officer v. Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited through Managing Director 2021 SCMR 1728; Sezai Turkes Feyzi Akkaya Construction Company, Lahore through Project Director v. M/s. Crescent, Services, Lahore and another 1997 SCMR 1928; M/s. Duro Felguera, S.A v. M/s. Gangavaram Port Limited AIR 2017 SC 5070; Libra Automotives Private Limited v. BMW India Private Limited and another 2019 (176) DRJ 976; Olympus Superstructures (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Meena Vijay Khetan and others AIR 1999 SC 2102; DLF Home Developers Limited v. Rajapura Homes Private Limited and another AIRONLINE 2021 SC 759; Subal Chandra Bhur v. MD. Ibrahim and another AIR 1943 Cal. 484 and Better Engineered Solutions (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Balochistan Development Authority, Quetta through Chairman and another PLD 2023 Isl. 105 rel. Abid Minhas for Petitioner. Proceeded against ex-parte vide order, dated 16-12-2024. Syed Shahab Qutab, Amicus Curiae. Date of hearing: 25th February, 2025.

Summary: (a) Limitation Act, 1908 (IX of 1908): ----Ss. 5, 14---Condonation of delay---Appeal filed before the wrong forum---Good faith and due diligence---Scope. Petitioners challenged an arbitration award, but their appeal was filed before the wrong forum. The appellate court dismissed the appeal as time-barred, and the High Court upheld this decision. The petitioners sought condonation of delay under S. 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908, arguing that they pursued the appeal in good faith. The Supreme Court held that condonation under S. 14 requires proof of due diligence and good faith, which were absent in this case. Petitioners failed to justify the delay of nearly two years and did not provide a reasonable explanation. The Court emphasized that government departments are treated like ordinary litigants and cannot claim special treatment regarding limitation laws. Ignorance, negligence, or mistake do not excuse non-compliance with statutory time limits. ----Cited Cases: Messrs SKB-SNK Joint Venture Contractors v. WAPDA (2022 SCMR 1615) East Pakistan v. Abdul Hamid Darfi (1970 SCMR 558) Commissioner of Income Tax v. Rais Pir Ahmad Khan (1981 SCMR 37) Federation of Pakistan v. Niaz Ahmad (1997 SCMR 959) Mst. Khadija Begum v. Mst. Yasmeen (PLD 2001 SC 355) (b) Arbitration Act, 1940 (X of 1940): ----S. 14(2)---Arbitration award---Objections dismissed by trial court---Confirmation of award as rule of court---Finality of arbitral proceedings---Scope. Respondents filed an application under S. 14(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940, and the matter was referred to arbitrators. The award was made a rule of the court, and objections raised by the petitioners were dismissed. The appellate court and the High Court affirmed the award, rejecting the appeal as time-barred. The Supreme Court upheld the finality of arbitration awards, emphasizing that once an award is confirmed by a trial court and upheld on appeal, further challenges must strictly comply with procedural limitations. (c) Civil Courts Jurisdiction---Pecuniary Limits---Determination of Appellate Forum: ----West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962 (W.P. Ordinance II of 1962), S. 18---Jurisdictional value for appeals---Forum determination---Scope. The High Court correctly transferred the appeal to the District Judge as the claim amount was below Rs. 50 million, falling under the pecuniary jurisdiction of civil courts under S. 18 of the West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962. The Supreme Court held that there was no ambiguity in the law regarding forum determination, and filing an appeal before the wrong forum due to negligence does not warrant condonation of delay. ----Cited Cases: Ghulam Ali v. Akbar alias Akoor (PLD 1991 SC 957) Abdul Ghani v. Mst. Mussarat Rehana (1985 CLC 2529) (d) Legal Principle---Law of Limitation and Judicial Precedents: ----Statute of repose---Equity does not override limitation laws---Duty of litigants to act diligently. The Supreme Court reaffirmed that limitation laws must be strictly adhered to, and litigants must act with due diligence. The principle of repose ensures that litigation is brought to a final conclusion within prescribed time limits. ----Cited Cases: Akhtar Nasir Ahmed v. Province of Punjab (PLD 2024 SC 1268) Khushi Muhammad v. Mst. Fazal Bibi (PLD 2016 SC 872) Kiramat Khan v. IG, Frontier Corps (2023 SCMR 866) Imtiaz Ali v. Atta Muhammad (PLD 2008 SC 462) ----Disposition: Petition dismissed, as no reasonable justification for condonation of delay was presented. Leave to appeal refused.