Summary: Background: The case involves a dispute between two companies engaged in oil and gas exploration over the enforcement of arbitration agreements and the recognition of foreign arbitral awards under the Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act, 2011 (“2011 Act”). One party sought to enforce arbitration clauses requiring disputes to be settled through foreign-seated arbitration (London), governed by English law, following alleged breaches in agreements related to petroleum concession interests. -----Issues: 1- Whether the foreign-seated arbitration clause is enforceable for two domestic parties under the 2011 Act. ----2- Whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction over the dispute, given the arbitration agreements specifying arbitration at the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA). ----3- Validity of the interim orders and enforcement petitions filed for the arbitral awards in Pakistan. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court upheld the arbitration agreement, emphasizing that party autonomy allows domestic parties to opt for a foreign seat of arbitration if agreed upon voluntarily. The court reaffirmed that Pakistani law does not bar domestic entities from resolving disputes in a foreign forum. The High Court, rather than the Civil Court, was deemed the proper forum under the 2011 Act, given that only the High Court holds exclusive jurisdiction over matters arising from foreign arbitration agreements. The court dismissed objections to the arbitral awards' enforceability, recognizing the awards and rejecting the claim that enforcement would contravene public policy or Pakistani law. -----Citations/Precedents: Global Quality Foods (Pvt.) Ltd. vs. Hardee’s Food Systems, Inc. (PLD 2016 Sindh 169) CGM (COMPAGNIE GENERAL MARITIME) vs. Hussain Akbar (2002 CLD 1528) Jes & Ben Groupo (Pvt.) Limited vs. Hell Energy (2019 SCC Online Delhi 10225) Bremem vs. Zapata Off–Shore Co. (407 U.S. 1 (1972)) Atlas Export Industries vs. Kotak & Company (AIR 1999 SC 3286)

Summary: Background: This case concerns a civil revision filed by the petitioners challenging the concurrent judgments of the trial and appellate courts that upheld the arbitration award made in favor of respondent No. 1. The dispute began with an agreement where respondent No. 2 agreed to sell a property to respondent No. 1, but they failed to settle the property price. Subsequently, they appointed arbitrators, who could not resolve the dispute, leading to the court appointing an umpire to make an award. The trial court eventually ruled in favor of making the umpire's award the rule of the court, subject to a condition that respondent No. 1 deposit a higher amount within a specified time. -----Issues: 1- Whether the arbitration award was validly made in accordance with the Arbitration Act, 1940. -----2- Whether the umpire’s alleged misconduct or partiality affected the award. -----3- Whether the award was barred by the limitation period as stipulated in the Arbitration Act. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome --Validity of Award: The court held that the award was made in compliance with the Arbitration Act, 1940, as the umpire followed proper procedures, heard evidence from both parties, and made his decision based on the assessed market value at the time earnest money was paid. --Misconduct of the Umpire: The court found no evidence of misconduct or partiality by the umpire, as both parties had agreed to his appointment and actively participated in the proceedings without raising objections during the arbitration. --Limitation Period: The court determined that the award was submitted within the prescribed four-month period, thus, the award was not time-barred. The revision petition was dismissed, with the court affirming the findings of the lower courts and concluding that the petitioners failed to demonstrate any legal grounds for setting aside the award. -----Citations/Precedents M/s Joint Venture KG/RIST v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1996 SC 108) Federation of Pakistan v. Messrs Joint Venture Kocks KG/RIST (PLD 2011 SC 506) Premier Insurance Company v. Attock Textile Mills Ltd. (PLD 2006 Lahore 534) Sh. Saleem Ali v. Sh. Akhtar Ali and others (PLD 2004 Lahore 404) Khalid Abbas v. Hafiz Muhammad Farooq (2004 YLR 274)

Summary: Background: The appellant challenged an arbitration award rendered on 03.06.2020, which the learned civil Court upheld in its order dated 22.09.2021, dismissing the appellant's objections and confirming the award as the rule of the Court. The dispute concerned payment obligations under a contract for architectural and design consultancy services for a 5-star hotel project in Islamabad. The appellant, identified as the "Employer," terminated the contract on 15.06.2017. The respondent, referred to as the "Consultant," claimed unpaid dues and initiated arbitration. The arbitrator awarded the Consultant $358,815 and PKR 3.5 million for reimbursable expenses. ----Issues: 1- Whether the termination notice indicated a default or was for convenience, impacting the Consultant's claim for unpaid dues. -----2- Whether the Consultant, a foreign entity, was legally authorized to initiate proceedings in Pakistan. -----3- Validity of the Employer’s counterclaim regarding payments made to rectify alleged deficiencies. -----4- Justification for the award of reimbursable expenses despite insufficient evidence. -----5- Sufficiency of reasons provided by the arbitrator for awarding phase (d)(iii) fees without Employer approval of final drawings. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Termination for Convenience: The arbitrator found the termination was explicitly for convenience as per the contract. The Employer could not later assert termination due to default. --Company Law Compliance: The civil Court found that the Consultant was not barred from proceeding, as they had not established a business presence in Pakistan, negating the need for local registration. --Counterclaim: The counterclaim was dismissed. The Court noted that a termination for convenience precluded any compensation for alleged deficiencies. --Reimbursable Expenses: The civil Court upheld the arbitrator’s award of PKR 3.5 million, deeming it reasonable based on partial evidence of travel and visa costs. Sufficiency of Reasons for Phase (d)(iii): The Court partially upheld the appeal, finding that the arbitrator did not adequately justify the decision to award phase (d)(iii) fees without evidence of the Employer's final approval. This aspect of the award was remitted to the arbitrator for further clarification within 30 days. ----Citations/Precedents: Gerry’s International (Private) Limited vs Aeroflot Russian International Airlines - 2018 SCMR 662 Hodgkinson v. Fernie - [(1857) 3 C.B. (N.S.) 189] Bhagawati Oxygen Ltd. v. Hindustan Copper Ltd - [2005 (6) SCC 462] Abdul Ghani and Inayat Karim - PLD 1960 Supreme Court (Pak) 98 A. Qutubuddin Khan v. CHEC Mill Wala Dredging Co. Pvt. Ltd. - 2014 SCMR 1268 National Highway Authority vs Sambu Construction Co. Ltd - 2023 SCMR 1103 Injum Aqeel vs Latif Muhammad Chaudhry - 2023 SCMR 1361 Shahin Shah vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa - 2022 SCMR 1810 Rashida Begum vs Ch. Muhammad Anwar - PLD 2003 Lahore 522

Summary: Background The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging an order from the Arbitration Council, which refused to issue a divorce certificate, arguing that both parties, residing in the U.S., were outside the Council’s jurisdiction. The petitioner argued that the marriage was solemnized and registered in Islamabad, and thus, only the Arbitration Council that registered the marriage had the authority to issue the divorce certificate under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 (MFL Ordinance). During the petition, the petitioner presented documentation from a California court dissolving the marriage, and sought recognition of this divorce in Pakistan. -----Issues: 1- Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction: Does the Arbitration Council established under the MFL Ordinance possess extra-territorial jurisdiction to issue a divorce certificate for Pakistani citizens residing abroad when the marriage was registered in Pakistan? ----2- Recognition of Foreign Divorce: Should the Arbitration Council in Pakistan issue a divorce certificate based on a foreign court's divorce decree? -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction: The Court held that the Arbitration Council has extra-territorial jurisdiction over Pakistani citizens and citizens of Azad Jammu & Kashmir (AJK) based on Section 1(3) of the MFL Ordinance, as long as the marriage was registered within Pakistan. As the marriage was registered in Islamabad, the Arbitration Council in Islamabad retained jurisdiction, and its refusal to issue the divorce certificate due to the parties’ residence abroad was unsupported by law. --Recognition of Foreign Divorce: The Court concluded that foreign judgments, including divorce decrees, are recognized in Pakistan under Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) when specific criteria are met, such as jurisdiction and procedural fairness. Since both parties acknowledged the California court’s authority, and neither contested the judgment, the Arbitration Council was instructed to issue a divorce certificate in compliance with Pakistani law, affirming the dissolution of marriage. -----Citations/Precedents: Mst. Asma Bibi v. Chairman Reconciliation Committee and others (PLD 2020 Lahore 679) – Addressed jurisdiction for marriages registered in Pakistan. Muhammad Akram Nadeem v. Chairman, Arbitration Council/ADLG, Islamabad and others (2021 CLC 1947) – Confirmed extra-territorial jurisdiction of Arbitration Councils under the MFL Ordinance for Pakistani citizens abroad. Mst. Sadia Malik v. Chairman, Arbitration Council and another (2017 CLC Note 166) – Clarified jurisdictional authority of Pakistani Arbitration Councils. Dr. Masood Khan v. Chairman, Arbitration Council, Wah and others (PLD 1982 Lahore 532) – Addressed residency-based jurisdiction in divorce matters.

Summary: Background Hajvairy Associates (Pvt.) Ltd. (appellant) and Power Construction Corporation of China Ltd. (respondent) formed a joint venture (Hajvairy-Sinohydro JV) to bid on the Keyal Khwar Hydropower Project contract with WAPDA. After winning the contract, disputes arose regarding delays and responsibilities, leading the respondent to sue the appellant for recovery and injunction. The appellant requested a stay of the proceedings under the Arbitration Act, citing an arbitration clause in their joint venture agreement (JVA). The Civil Court dismissed this request, leading to the appellant’s appeal. -----Issues: 1- Whether the appellant had taken a "step in the proceedings," barring them from invoking the arbitration clause under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. ----2- Whether the appellant’s application for arbitration stay should have been granted, given the existing arbitration clause in the JVA. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Step in Proceedings: The Court held that merely raising jurisdictional objections did not constitute a "step in the proceedings." The appellant’s objection to the Civil Court’s jurisdiction was not a submission to the court’s authority over the dispute’s merits and did not amount to a waiver of arbitration rights. --Stay of Proceedings: Citing precedent, the Court emphasized the importance of respecting arbitration agreements. It found the appellant filed its arbitration stay request promptly upon becoming aware of the suit, demonstrating its intent to arbitrate. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the Civil Court’s order. The case was stayed in favor of arbitration per the JVA clause. The respondent retains the right to revive the suit if the appellant fails to participate in arbitration. -----Citations/Precedents: Arbitration Act, 1940 (Section 34) - Governing the stay of proceedings in favor of arbitration. General Electric Company Vs. Renusagar Power Company (1987) - Establishing that jurisdictional objections are not steps in the proceedings barring arbitration.

Summary: (a) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order (10 of 1984) –----Art. 126---Ownership and possession---Burden of proof---Petitioners claimed ownership of unsettled land through an unregistered contract of sale dated 02 April 2011, while respondents asserted possession under an earlier contract dated 08 September 2003---Neither party had a registered deed or revenue entry establishing ownership---Petitioners failed to plead or prove their possession, while respondents established long-standing possession as hereditary tenants and later as purchasers---Article 126 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, places the burden on the petitioners to disprove the respondents' ownership claim, which they failed to do---Possession serves as prima facie evidence of ownership---Petitioners’ failure to prove possessory title rendered their claim untenable.Cited Case: Ameena v. Kulsoom Begum PLD 1983 Karachi 200(b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) –----Ss. 42 & 54---Equitable relief---Clean hands doctrine---Petitioners sought declaratory and injunctive relief against the respondents despite failing to disclose material facts, including the respondents’ possession of the subject land and an earlier arbitration decision against them---Petitioners, by concealing these facts, failed to meet the standard of coming to the court with clean hands, a prerequisite for equitable relief under Sections 42 and 54 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877---Discretionary relief was rightly denied by the courts below.Cited Case: Atta Muhammad v. Maula Bakhsh 2007 SCMR 1446(c) Arbitration Act (X of 1940) –----S. 32---Bar on suits regarding arbitrated matters---Petitioners had previously submitted to arbitration before a religious scholar, Mufti Gul Hassan, who ruled against them---Despite participating in the arbitration process and accepting its jurisdiction, petitioners failed to disclose the arbitral decision in their plaint---Suit was barred under Section 32 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, as disputes resolved through arbitration cannot be re-litigated---Petitioners' attempt to bypass the arbitral decision was an abuse of process.(d) Civil Procedure-------Court fees---Deficiency in payment---Petitioners did not seek possession or cancellation of respondents’ sale contract in their plaint and failed to meet the court fee requirement despite adverse findings from the lower courts---Deficiency in court fee remained uncured before both the Trial and Appellate Courts, further weakening the maintainability of the suit.----Disposition: Civil revision petition dismissed; concurrent findings of subordinate courts upheld.

Summary: Arbitration Act (X of 1940)--- ----Ss. 5, 11, 14, 17, 33 & 41(a)---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115, O.II, R.6-A & O.XVI, R.5---Consolidation of petitions and issues by the Arbitrator---Application of provisions of Civil Procedure Code in arbitration proceedings---Petitioner filed a petition under S.14 read with S.17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (Act), which was resisted by way of filing a counter petition under Ss.5 & 11 of the Act---Issue involved in both the petitions emanated out of the same cause, so order of consolidation of petitions was passed and consolidated issues were framed---Contentions of the petitioner were that provisions of C.P.C. were not stricto sensu applicable to the Act and in terms of S. 33 of the Act the civil court was obliged to decide the dispute on the basis of affidavit---Validity---Proviso to S.33 of the Act ordains that where the court deems it just and expedient, it may set down the application for hearing and other evidence also, and it may pass such order for discovery and particulars as it may do in a suit---Section 41 of the Act provides procedure and powers of the court and in terms of S.41(a) of the Act, the provisions of "C.P.C." are applicable to all the proceedings before the court under the Act---Applicability of the provisions of "C.P.C." are not meant to hamper the arbitration proceedings but for ensuring the advancement of ends of justice---In view of joint reading of above two provisions the contention of the petitioner that under the Act, framing of issues was not permissible was highly ill-founded and misconceived---Petitioner itself moved an application under O. XIV, R. 5 of "C.P.C." for framing of additional issue as such it was estopped by words and its conduct---Since there was no specific impediment in the way of the court proceeding under the Act, so consolidation of the petitions and framing of consolidated issues, did not warrant invoking revisional jurisdiction---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances. Qausain Faisal Mufti and Muhammad Saifullah Khan for Petitioner. Muhammad Habib-ullah Khan and Faisal Shakrani for Respondent No.1. Sardar Muhammad Obaid Khan for Respondent No.2. Date of hearing: 12th September, 2024.

Summary: (a) Arbitration Act (X of 1940)--- ----S.20(4)---Cantonments Act (II of 1924), S.84---Appointment of arbitrator---Dispute arose between the parties with regard to initial work order and subsequent changes/enhancement in the costs for the project---Appointment of arbitrator was to be made in such manner as may be agreed upon between the parties in terms of the contract---Contention of the appellant was that an independent arbitrator ought to have been appointed instead of appointment of the arbitrator in terms of the contract owing to his biasness and partiality being part of the respondent-department as its appellate authority---Validity---Whole object underlying the Arbitration Act, 1940 (Act) is to enforce the arbitration agreement whereby the parties bind themselves down to have their disputes, arising out of transaction to which such an agreement is applicable, adjudicated upon and decided by the domestic tribunal---Under clause (4) of S.20 of the Act, power of the Court to order reference to an arbitrator appointed by itself did not confer the authority on the Court to substitute the original agreement of the parties by an entirely new agreement of its own choice---If the parties out of their free-will and consent appointed a third person knowing fully well his relation with any one of the parties to dispute, such arbitration agreement shall not be invalided on the principle of bias and the arbitrator cannot be removed on this ground---Known interest of an arbitrator did not in any way invalidate his appointment, and it was only in a case where such an interest was concealed or came into existence after the appointment, that the appointment was rendered invalid or was liable to be revoked---Appellant was well aware of the authority and department of the arbitrator from the very first date and the Arbitrator was not the official of the respondent-department rather he was an Appellate Authority under S.84 of the Cantonments Act, 1924, who was appointed by the Government as defined under Pakistan Cantonment Service Rules, 1952---Arbitrator was not a participant in the meetings of Cantonment Board, therefore, any kind of allegation of biasness or partiality on his part was purely hypothetical and presumptuous, without any kind of evidence at all---Parties had already appointed the arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes arising out of the agreement and the appellant could not wriggle out from his commitment, and was precluded from approaching the court for appointing an arbitrator other than the arbitrator named in the agreement---Appellant could approach the already appointed arbitrator for redressal of his grievance and thereafter if there appeared any instance of biasness he could approach the Court for redressal of his grievance under relevant provisions of law---Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances. Messrs Commodities Trading International Corporation v. Trading Corporation of Pakistan Ltd. and another 1987 CLC 2063; Messrs Allied Engineering Consultants (Pvt.) Ltd., Lahore v. Messrs Sui Gas Transmission Company Ltd. 1989 CLC 1143; Director Housing, A.G'S Branch, Rawalpindi v. Messrs Makhdum Consultants Engineers and Architects 1997 SCMR 988; Engr. Inam Ahmad Osmani v. Federation of Pakistan and others 2013 MLD 1132 and University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore and another v. Messrs Upright Engineers (Pvt.) Ltd. 2021 CLC 596 distinguished. Messrs Hafiz Abdul Aziz Cotton Jinning Factory v. "Messrs Haji Ali Muhammad Abdullah & Co. and another PLD 1966 (W.P) Kar. 197; Saudi Pak Industrial and Agricultural Investment Company (Pvt.) Limited, Islamabad v. M/s Allied Bank of Pakistan and another PLD 2003 SC 215; Lahore Stock Exchange Limited v. Fredrick J. Whyte Group, Pakistan Ltd. and others PLD 1990 SC 48; M.A. Ghani Sufi & Sons v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1957 (W.P) Lahore 363 and Pakistan Medical Commission (PMC) through Secretary (Successor of Registrar, PMDC), Islamabad Capital Territory v. Construction Experts (Pvt.) Limited through Chief Executive/Director, Islamabad and another PLD 2023 Isl. 01 rel. (b) Interpretation of document--- ----Documents or statutes are to be interpreted in their entire context following a full consideration of all provisions of the documents or statute, as the case may be---Every attempt must be made to save the document and for this purpose a difference between general statements and particular statements of the document should be differentiated properly to save the document rather to nullify it---No provision of the document should be read in isolation or in bits or pieces, but the entire document is to be read as a whole to gather the intention of the parties---Court for this purpose can resort to the correspondence exchange between the parties---Court should lean towards an interpretation, which effectuates rather than one which invalidates an instrument. Saudi Pak Industrial and Agricultural Investment Company (Pvt.) Limited, Islamabad v. M/s Allied Bank of Pakistan and another" PLD 2003 SC 215 rel. Zahid Saleem for Appellant. Shahzada Muzaffar Ali with Sidra Azmat and Hanan Masood on behalf of LCB / Respondent. Date of hearing: 3rd September, 2024.

Summary: (a) Arbitration Act (X of 1940)--- ----S.20(4)---Cantonments Act (II of 1924), S.84---Appointment of arbitrator---Dispute arose between the parties with regard to initial work order and subsequent changes/enhancement in the costs for the project---Appointment of arbitrator was to be made in such manner as may be agreed upon between the parties in terms of the contract---Contention of the appellant was that an independent arbitrator ought to have been appointed instead of appointment of the arbitrator in terms of the contract owing to his biasness and partiality being part of the respondent-department as its appellate authority---Validity---Whole object underlying the Arbitration Act, 1940 (Act) is to enforce the arbitration agreement whereby the parties bind themselves down to have their disputes, arising out of transaction to which such an agreement is applicable, adjudicated upon and decided by the domestic tribunal---Under clause 4 of S.20 of the Act, power of the Court to order reference to an arbitrator appointed by itself did not confer the authority on the Court to substitute the original agreement of the parties by an entirely new agreement of its own choice---If the parties out of their free-will and consent appointed a third person knowing fully well his relation with any one of the parties to dispute, such arbitration agreement shall not be invalided on the principle of bias and the arbitrator cannot be removed on this ground---Known interest of an arbitrator did not in any way invalidate his appointment, and it was only in a case where such an interest was concealed or came into existence after the appointment, that the appointment was rendered invalid or was liable to be revoked---Appellant was well aware of the authority and department of the arbitrator from the very first date and the Arbitrator was not the official of the respondent-department rather he was an Appellate Authority under S.84 of the Cantonments Act, 1924, who was appointed by the Government as defined under Pakistan Cantonment Service Rules, 1952---Arbitrator was not a participant in the meetings of Cantonment Board, therefore, any kind of allegation of biasness or partiality on his part was purely hypothetical and presumptuous, without any kind of evidence at all---Parties had already appointed the arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes arising out of the agreement and the appellant could not wriggle out from his commitment, and was precluded from approaching the court for appointing an arbitrator other than the arbitrator named in the agreement---Appellant could approach the already appointed arbitrator for redressal of his grievance and thereafter if there appeared any instance of biasness he could approach the Court for redressal of his grievance under relevant provisions of law---Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances. Messrs Commodities Trading International Corporation v. Trading Corporation of Pakistan Ltd. and another 1987 CLC 2063; Messrs Allied Engineering Consultants (Pvt.) Ltd., Lahore v. Messrs Sui Gas Transmission Company Ltd. 1989 CLC 1143; Director Housing, A.G'S Branch, Rawalpindi v. Messrs Makhdum Consultants Engineers and Architects 1997 SCMR 988; Engr. Inam Ahmad Osmani v. Federation of Pakistan and others 2013 MLD 1132 and University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore and another v. Messrs Upright Engineers (Pvt.) Ltd. 2021 CLC 596 distinguished. Messrs Hafiz Abdul Aziz Cotton Jinning Factory v. "Messrs Haji Ali Muhammad Abdullah & Co. and another PLD 1966 (W.P) Kar. 197; Saudi Pak Industrial and Agricultural Investment Company (Pvt.) Limited, Islamabad v. M/s Allied Bank of Pakistan and another PLD 2003 SC 215; Lahore Stock Exchange Limited v. Fredrick J. Whyte Group, Pakistan Ltd. and others PLD 1990 SC 48; M.A. Ghani Sufi & Sons v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1957 (W.P) Lahore 363 and Pakistan Medical Commission (PMC) through Secretary (Successor of Registrar, PMDC), Islamabad Capital Territory v. Construction Experts (Pvt.) Limited through Chief Executive/Director, Islamabad and another PLD 2023 Isl. 01 rel. (b) Interpretation of document--- ----Documents or statutes are to be interpreted in their entire context following a full consideration of all provisions of the documents or statute, as the case may be---Every attempt must be made to save the document and for this purpose a difference between general statements and particular statements of the document should be differentiated properly to save the document rather to nullify it---No provision of the document should be read in isolation or in bits or pieces, but the entire document is to be read as a whole to gather the intention of the parties---Court for this purpose can resort to the correspondence exchange between the parties---Court should lean towards an interpretation, which effectuates rather than one which invalidates an instrument. Saudi Pak Industrial and Agricultural Investment Company (Pvt.) Limited, Islamabad v. M/s Allied Bank of Pakistan and another" PLD 2003 SC 215 rel. Zahid Saleem for Appellant. Shahzada Muzaffar Ali with Sidra Azmat and Hanan Masood on behalf of LCB / Respondent. Date of hearing: 3rd September, 2024.

Summary: Arbitration Act (X of 1940)--- ----Ss.14, 18 & 33---Arbitration--- Arbitral award made rule of the Court--- Condemned unheard---Necessary party, impleading of---Petitioners / companies were awarded contract by respondent / Pakistan Tobacco Board (PTB) for collection of Federal Tobacco Cess (FTC) on surplus tobacco stock etc.---Dispute between the parties arose with regard to charging for transportation of tobacco over and above the allotted quota---On direction of Court arbitration proceedings were initiated and award given by arbitrator was made rule of the Court---Validity---Trial Court directed impleading petitioners as necessary party to arbitration application---When petitioners were necessary parties to such application, they were also necessary party to arbitration proceedings and without impleading them no effective award, to the extent of liability of petitioners, could be announced---Such award could not be made rule of Court for the purpose of execution against the interest of petitioners---Necessary questions pertaining to quota of tobacco and its transportation were not answered---High Court set aside the award to the extent of findings of such issues and judgements and decrees were set aside to such extent as petitioners were necessary party to arbitration proceeding--- High Court remanded the matter to Trial Court for settlement of additional issues where petitionerswere to be made party to the application submitted by respondent / Pakistan Tobacco Board whereafter petitioners / companies would file their reply--- Revision was disposed of accordingly. Shahin Shah v. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Irrigation Department, Peshawar and others 2022 SCMR 1810; Messrs Shahzad Ali Usmani Chohan v. Managing Director, Sindh Small Industries Corporation 1989 CLC 540; National Highway Authority through Chairman, Islamabad v. Messrs Sambu Construction Co. Ltd. Islamabad and others 2023 SCMR 1103; Injum Aqeel v. Latif Muhammad Chaudhry and others 2023 SCMR 1361; Muhammad Farooq Shah v. Shakirullah 2006 SCMR 1657 and Allah Din and Company v. Trading Corporation of Pakistan and others 2006 SCMR 614 ref. Muhammad Rashid and others v. Abdul Rashid through Mst. Sharifan Begum and others 2004 SCMR 76; Juggilal v. General Fibre Dealers Ltd. AIR 1955 Cal. 354; Wazir Khan and 8 others v. Sardar Ali and 25 others 2001 SCMR 750; Design Group of Pakistan v. Clifton Cantonment Board 1990 MLD 2010; Muhammad Unis Elahi Sethi and another v. Federation of Pakistan, Chambers of Commerce And Industries 1996 CLC 1226; Turner Morrison Garahams Group of Companies, London v. Rice Export Corporation Pakistan Ltd. PLD 1998 Karachi 79; Punjab Province through Secretarg to Government of the Punjab; Irrigation and Power Department, Lahore and another v. Messrs Chauhan and Company through Managing Partner PLD 2000 Lahore 314; University of Engineering and Technology through Vice-Chancellor, Lahore v. Messrs Moderate Builders through A. Qutabuddin 2001 MLD 233; Faisalabad Development Authority v. R.C.C. Limited through Managing Director 2003 YLR 2377; Umar Din through L.Rs. v. Mst. Shakeela Bibi and others 2009 SCMR 29 and Messrs Trading Corporation of Pakistan Ltd. v. Messrs General Industrial Machines 2016 MLD 897 rel. Alam Zeb Khan for Petitioner. Farman Ullah Khattak, Mir Wali and Asad Jan for Respondents. Date of hearing: 24th July, 2024.