Summary: Arbitration Law (Arbitration Act 2011)--In the light of above facts and circumstances of the case, theinstant petition is disposed of along with pending application(s) inthe terms whereby, we hold that the proceedings of DPC dated13.11.2013 to the extent of promotion of Respondents No.3 and 4in BPS-19 in Law Department of KMC is without any justification,thus, declared nullity in the eyes of law. The Respondent No.1/Competent Authority is directed to consider the case of thePetitioners for promotion in BPS-19 in accordance with law, if thePetitioners fulfill the criteria for the post of Director BPS-19 inKMC and decision shall be taken within a period of one monthfrom the date of receipt of this judgment.

Summary: (a) Arbitration Act, 1940: ----Section 39---Appeal against order making arbitration award rule of Court---Reasoned order---Non-application of mind. The Court, while making an arbitration award a rule of Court, is bound to apply its mind and record sufficient reasons for satisfaction that the award does not suffer from any patent illegality, invalidity, or misconduct on the part of the arbitrator. An unreasoned and perfunctory order is not sustainable under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. (b) Right of Appeal---Remand of Case: ----Scope of appellate jurisdiction---Order under Section 39---Arbitration proceedings. An appellate court cannot assume the role of the trial court to examine the arbitration award afresh under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, as it would deprive the parties of their right of appeal. The proper course in such cases is to remand the matter to the trial court for decision afresh while ensuring compliance with the provisions of the Act. -----Cited Case: Oil and Gas Development Corporation Limited v. Clough Engineering Limited (1999 MLD 254). (c) Condonation of Delay: ----Delay in filing objections to arbitration award---Lack of reasoning---Effect. Where objections to an arbitration award are filed with unexplained delay, and no plausible reason is given for condonation, the objections are liable to be dismissed. Courts must strictly enforce timelines to ensure the expeditious resolution of arbitration disputes. (d) Remand Order---Direction to Civil Court: ----Expeditious disposal---No adjournments. Upon remand of a case relating to arbitration proceedings, the trial court must decide the matter within a specific timeframe. The parties are precluded from seeking adjournments to avoid unnecessary delays. Result: Appeal allowed.

Summary: The petitioner in this case challenged the order issued by the High Court, which accepted a civil miscellaneous filed by the respondent and restored the original PAO by condoning a delay of more than six months. The hon'ble court found that the application for restoration of the appeal was filed beyond the prescribed time and lacked sufficient cause for the delay. The respondent's counsel's affidavit did not provide supporting evidence for their claimed illness on the day of non-appearance. The respondent's counsel was aware of the dismissal of the appeal but failed to adequately explain their subsequent actions. Limitation cannot be disregarded, as it protects the rights of the opposing party. Petition was converted into an appeal and allowed, setting aside the order of the High Court dated 2.02.2017.

Summary: ----Legal Issue: The case involves the interpretation and application of various provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940, as well as considerations regarding the winding up of a company under the Companies Ordinance, 1984.----Facts:The respondent, an inte

Summary: Background: An appeal under Section 39(1)(vi) read with Section 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, was filed challenging an order dated June 4, 2014, passed by the Civil Court. The Civil Court had allowed the respondent's application under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, making an arbitration award dated May 22, 2007, a rule of the court. The arbitration arose from disputes under an agreement dated January 14, 2002, which contained an arbitration clause designating the Managing Director of the respondent entity or their nominee as the arbitrator. Following the arbitration proceedings, the respondent filed a claim of Rs. 15,443,853, resulting in the award in their favor. -----Issues: 1- Whether the appellant's failure to file objections under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act within the stipulated time rendered the appeal non-maintainable. -----2- Whether a reply to an application under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act can be considered as valid objections under Section 30 of the Act. -----3- Whether the Civil Court adequately examined the validity of the arbitration award before making it a rule of the court. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The appeal was dismissed due to the appellant's failure to file objections to the arbitration award within the limitation period mandated by Article 158 of the Limitation Act, 1908. The reply to the respondent's application under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act was deemed insufficient to qualify as valid objections. The court reiterated that while a Civil Court must examine the validity of an arbitration award, it does not act as a court of appeal to reappraise the evidence. The Civil Court was found to have applied its mind adequately to the contents of the arbitration award. The Superior Courts have consistently favored upholding arbitration awards unless there is an error apparent on the face of the award. The appellant's failure to provide critical documents, such as the original agreement or arbitration award, further weakened their case. -----Citations/Precedents: Rashid Begum Vs. Muhammad Anwar (PLD 2003 Lahore 522): A reply to an application under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act cannot be treated as objections under Section 30. Ashfaq Ali Quraishi Vs. Municipal Corporation, Multan (1985 SCMR 597): Courts lean towards upholding arbitration awards unless significant errors are evident. Province of Punjab Vs. Sh. Fazalul Hussain (2003 CLC 1780): Established principles favor the validity of arbitration awards. Khalid Abbas Vs. Hafiz Muhammad Farooq (2004 YLR 274): Judicial restraint in interfering with arbitration awards. Chand Bagh Foundation Vs. Messrs Rehman Brothers (Pvt.) Limited (2007 CLC 751): Courts should uphold arbitration awards unless clear and apparent errors are present.

Summary: Background: The Defence Housing Authority (DHA) filed an appeal against an order dated 14.06.2017, passed by the Civil Judge, Islamabad, dismissing DHA's application under Order XXXIX, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The application sought to vacate a status quo injunctive order dated 01.09.2014, restraining DHA from taking possession of the "Shop A Shop" project site. The matter arose out of a dispute over a joint agreement between DHA and Multi National Venture Development (Pvt.) Ltd., concerning the development and sale of a commercial shopping project. -----Issues: 1- Whether the status quo injunctive order dated 01.09.2014 should be vacated due to delays in arbitration proceedings. ----2- Whether there was a material change in circumstances justifying the recall of the injunctive order under Order XXXIX, Rule 4 CPC. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Injunctive Order and Arbitration: The court reaffirmed that the status quo injunctive order was validly issued under Section 41(b) of the Arbitration Act, 1940, and was intended to operate until the conclusion of arbitration proceedings. The court emphasized that such injunctions are permissible during arbitration for the purpose of maintaining the status quo and ensuring no irreparable loss occurs to the parties. --Change in Circumstances: The appellant (DHA) argued that the delay in arbitration proceedings was causing harm to shop purchasers and project completion. The court found no significant change in circumstances, apart from the delay in arbitration, to justify vacating the injunctive order. The court noted that the delays could have been avoided with greater cooperation between the parties in the arbitration process. --Third-Party Impact: The court acknowledged the suffering of shop allottees due to delays in project completion. However, it held that expeditious arbitration proceedings, rather than vacating the injunction, were the appropriate remedy. --Responsibility to Expedite Arbitration: The court observed that the arbitration proceedings were within the control of the contesting parties and could be expedited with mutual cooperation. It encouraged the parties to resolve the matter swiftly to mitigate third-party harm. The appeal was dismissed. The injunctive order dated 01.09.2014 was upheld, and the court reiterated that it would remain in effect until the arbitration proceedings were concluded. No costs were imposed. -----Citations/Precedents: Section 41(b), Arbitration Act, 1940: Allows courts to issue interim injunctions during arbitration for purposes related to the arbitration process. Order XXXIX, Rule 4, CPC: Provides for the variation, discharge, or setting aside of injunctive orders upon justification, including a change in circumstances.

Summary: [Arbitration Law (Arbitration Act,1940)] Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act (XXXV of 1973)------Preamble---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 10-A---Non-appearing of counsel---Code of Conduct, violation of---Scope---Responsibility of Institutions/departments engaging counsel---Scope---Non-attending the court by the counsel amounted to breach of the Code of Conduct of Counsel towards client---Court issued notices to non-appearing counsel through Provincial Bar Council purpose, being to ensure that Bar Council be aware of the conduct of its members---High Court observed that in number of cases, despite orders of the Court no action had been taken by the institutions like City Development Authority and Municipal Corporation against delinquent counsel---Such conduct of the counsel in most of the cases could not be considered as an oversight or mistake rather, to say the least, their wilful absence facilitated the Court in passing adverse order against their clients---When huge public money was involved, court, in absence of counsel was to be more careful---Different counsel, in the present case, had filed power of attorney on behalf of the institution but they have appeared hardly on five dates out of more than twenty dates of hearing---Not only in the present case, but in many other cases, High Court had reported the matter of such conduct of counsel to the Provincial Bar Council for action---Such absence of counsel was not only violation of conduct of lawyers provided under the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973 but it was also against the constitutional guarantee for fair trial envisaged under Art.10-A of the Constitution---High Court further observed that court alone could not guarantee "fair trial" and for quality judgment from the court, the litigant and counsel both had to honestly contribute---High Court issued notice to the Principal Law Officer of the Institution for next date of hearing with complete report of cases decided for or against the Institution since 1-1-2017 till date along with reports from the audit and accounts department that how much public money had been utilized by the Institution in litigation in the name of professional fee of counsel and other miscellaneous expenses---All that was necessary to check the possibility of collusion of legal department of the Institution and the counsel and the litigants who sue the Institution or other semi government institutions for recovery of money---Copy of the present order was directed by High Court to be sent to Head of the Institution so that any remedial measures could be taken by them---Case was adjourned accordingly.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan-------Art. 18---Sale purchase agreements---Creation of vested rights---"Freedom of trade"---Scope---Plaintiff sought to establish a vested right to be the sole supplier of LPG manufactured by defendants and sought to restrain the defendants from allowing any third-party to make such supply---Contention of plaintiff, inter alia, was that it had made a huge investment to enable such supply which had created a vested right in its favour---Validity----Investment of plaintiff had not created any vested right in its favour as the LPG itself belonged to the defendants prior to sale purchase contract between the parties and also upon termination of said contract---Huge investment in the business by a trader could not be considered as an investment to acquire any rights whatsoever in the product/property which was owned by the other contracting party beyond the limited extent incorporated in the written sale / purchase agreement---Plaintiff could also not interfere in the defendants' freedom of trade guaranteed by Article 18 of the Constitution---Suit was dismissed, in circumstances. 1994 CLC 728; Chitty on Contract (13th edition) page 56-57 from Volume.1 General Principles; AIR 1978 SC 798; AIR 2006 SC 40; Bank Alfalah Ltd. v. NEU Multiplex and Entertainment Square Company (Pvt.) Ltd. 2015 YLR 2141; Royal Foreign Company v. The Civil Aviation Authority and another 1998 CLC 374; Messrs World Wide Trading Co. v. Sanyo Electric Trading Co. Ltd. and another PLD 1986 Kar. 234 and Messrs Universal Business Equipment (Pvt.) Ltd., v. Messrs Kokusai Commerce Inc. and others 1995 MLD 384 ref.(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------O. VI, Rr. 2 & 4---Pleadings generally---Practice of counsel/lawyers placing on record several documents which such counsel/lawyer did not even refer to during course of arguments or otherwise and such documents were not part of their own record needed in support of their pleadings---High Court observed that such practice was due to the reason that counsel/lawyer/ wanted to give an impression to the court that the case filed by them was an important one requiring immediate attention; which practice was against the basic principles of pleadings to be filed in court under O.VI, C.P.C. wherein emphasis of law makers/legislature was on "material facts" and "effect of material documents" in pleadings.

Summary: (a) Arbitration Act, 1940 (Sections 30, 33, and 39(vi)) – Arbitrator Misconduct – Personal Involvement in Dispute Arbitrator’s Role and Conduct: An arbitrator is expected to act impartially, judiciously, and within the scope of the arbitration agreement. Personal involvement in the dispute, such as attempting to purchase assets subject to arbitration or proposing financial settlements between the parties, constitutes misconduct under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. Scope of Judicial Review: The court is obligated to scrutinize the arbitration award, even if no objections are filed, to ensure no misconduct occurred, and the award aligns with the terms of reference. Courts must not lightly interfere with arbitration awards unless clear misconduct or jurisdictional overreach is established. Legal Precedent: Arbitrators, while serving as final judges on matters of law and fact, must not engage in activities beyond their mandate, as such acts vitiate the award. (b) Arbitration Act, 1940 (Section 39(vi)) – Powers of Appellate Court Remand for Fresh Adjudication: Where misconduct by the arbitrator is apparent, the appellate court is empowered under Section 39(vi) to set aside the arbitration award and remand the case back to the trial court for a fresh decision on objections under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. Ex-Parte Proceedings: When respondents fail to appear despite sufficient notice and publication, the appellate court can proceed ex-parte and decide the matter based on the evidence and arguments presented. (c) Arbitration Agreement – Non-Compliance with Timelines Effect of Delay in Award: If an arbitration award is delivered beyond the stipulated timeline (e.g., 40 days in this case), and the objecting party continued to participate without raising objections during the arbitration proceedings, the party is considered to have acquiesced to the delay. Exception for Misconduct: Acquiescence to procedural delays does not absolve an arbitrator of misconduct if personal involvement or overreach of authority is evident in the award. Disposition: The arbitration award is set aside due to misconduct by the arbitrator, who acted beyond his mandate by engaging personally in the financial settlement between the parties. The matter is remanded to the learned Civil Court to re-examine the objections under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, after affording the appellant and respondent No.1 an opportunity of hearing.

Summary: Arbitration award set aside ---- The said cheque was accepted and encashedby the Plaintiff on 24.6.1997 without any obstacle and or delay bythe Bank, therefore in view of the above discussion and precedentsof various Courts, the date of payment will be deemed to be20.6.1997 on which date the cheque was issued and wassubsequently encashed. Therefore, there was no default on the partof Defendant in payment of IPC-5, and plaintiff had no cause ofaction to invoke or exercise the option of termination of Contract interms of clause 60 and 69 of COC. Since I have come to a definiteconclusion that payment made was within the period specified inthe contract, therefore, there is no need to give any finding withregard to the issue that whether the notice issued by the plaintiffduly fulfilled the conditions of the contract or not. Accordingly theentire claim lodged on the basis of such alleged default falls onground as the contract could not have been terminated for suchalleged default; consequently no damages as claimed could havebeen granted or even considered. This conclusion responds toIssue Nos. III & IV, whereas, in view of this conclusion no furtherdiscussion is required in respect of remaining Issues. Accordingly the objections raised by the defendant under Sections 30 & 33 ofthe Arbitration Act, 1940, are sustained and the impugned Award is hereby set aside.