Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2016MLD Arbitration
2016MLD Arbitration
Case Description ×
Caselaw Search
arbitration frustrated Search
Statutes Search
Bookmark this Case
Courtwise Search
Citation
2016 MSearch
L D 897
Advance
[Sindh] Search
Enter Court
Versus
Last 5 Year
Messrs GENERAL INDUSTRIAL MACHINES---Respondent
Search
High Court Appeal No.15 of 1979, decided on 22nd December, 2015.
----Ss.3, 16, 26-A & 30 [as inserted by Arbitration (Amendment) Ordinance (XV of 1981)]---Law
Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S. 3---Arbitration---Intra-court appeal---Objection to award---
Your Search returned
Remission total 14 records
of case---Reasons from 0 - 20
not stated---Parties referred their dispute to arbitrator who unanimously
appointed
Citation umpire
Name: and 897
2016 MLD a unanimous award was given---Arbitrators filed the award
KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH in this
Bookmark court and
Case
despite objections filed by appellant, single Judge of High Court made it rule of the Court---
TRADING CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN LTD. VS GENERAL INDUSTRIAL MACHINES
Appellant sought dismissal of award on the plea that arbitrators did not give reasons of award and
1984 MLD 147, 1987 CLC 383, 1999 CLC 2047, 2001 SCMR 750, 2005 MLD 667, 2006 SCMR 1657,
Arbitration Act 1940--16 , Arbitration Act 1940--26-A , Arbitration Act 1940--3 , Arbitration Act 1940--30 , Arbitration--
TERM , Intra-Court Appeal--TERM , Law Reforms Ordinance 1972--3 ,
https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/login/check 1/14
9/8/23, 1:08 PM pakistanlawsite.com/Login/ReferenceCaseLawSearch?CaseName=2006S28&&court= &&Row=0 &&bookName=undefined
Ss.3, 16, 26-A & 30 [as inserted by arbitration (Amendment) Ordinance (XV of 1981)]---Law Reforms Ordinance
(XII of 1972), S. 3---arbitration---Intra-court appeal---Objection to award---Remission of case---Reasons not stated--
Case Description
-Parties referred their dispute to arbitrator who unanimously appointed umpire and a unanimous award was given---
Arbitrators filed the award in court and despite objections filed by appellant, single Judge of High Court made it rule
of the Court---Appellant sought dismissal of award on the plea that arbitrators did not give reasons of award and
after their death parties were not willing to appoint new arbitrator---Validity---Case fell Bookmark
under S. this (1)(c)of
16 Case
arbitration Act, 1940, as objection raised by appellant to legality of award that it lacked reasons was apparent on
the face of it---Such objection was also accepted by High Court when the matter was remitted to surviving arbitrator
for reasons in sufficient details which order was upheld by Supreme Court---Surviving arbitrator failed to reconsider
2016
the M and
award L Dto897submit his decision and reasons in sufficient details within the stipulated period---Such award had
become void under S. 16(3) of arbitration Act, 1940---arbitration agreement between parties ceased to have effect
with respect to dispute referred thereunder and such reference was liable to be superseded under S. 19 of
[Sindh]
arbitration Act, 1940---Parties were unwilling to appoint new arbitrators and the award could not be remitted to any
other arbitrator---Award had become void and arbitration agreement between parties could not be given effect to and
Before Nadeem Akhtar and Muhammad Iqbal Kalhoro, JJ
the same had become frustrated---Reference was superseded under S. 19 of arbitration Act, 1940 and the
arbitration agreement ceased to have effect with respect to differences/dispute referred in pursuance thereof to
Messrs TRADING
arbitrators CORPORATION
and umpire---Division Bench of HighOFCourt
PAKISTAN
set asideLTD.---Appellant
judgment and decree passed by single Judge of
High Court resultantly award was set aside---Appeal was allowed accordingly.
Versus
Head Notes Case Description
Messrs GENERAL INDUSTRIAL MACHINES---Respondent
Citation Name: 2016 CLC 1772 ISLAMABAD Bookmark this Case
High Court Appeal No.15 of 1979, decided on 22nd December, 2015.
BNP (PVT.) LIMITED VS COLLIER INTERNATIONAL PAKISTAN (PVT.) LIMITED
Arbitration Act (X of 1940)---
1990 CLC 47, 2012 CLC 12, PLD 1958 Kar. 224, PLD 1959 Kar. 750, PLD 1990 SC 48,
Arbitration--TERM , Termination
----Ss.3, 16, 26-A & 30 [asofinserted
contract--Term ,
by Arbitration (Amendment) Ordinance (XV of 1981)]---Law
Reforms of
Termination Ordinance (XII of 1972), S.clause
contract---Effect---arbitration 3---Arbitration---Intra-court
in contract continues to existappeal---Objection
even after termination toofaward---
contract---
Remission of case---Reasons not stated---Parties referred their dispute to arbitrator who unanimously
If main contract is repudiated or frustrated or cancelled or expired, the arbitration clause survives---Mere
appointedfrustration,
repudiation, umpire and a unanimous
cancellation awardof was
or expiration given---Arbitrators
the contract filedto the
does not give rise award
putting in court
an end and
to arbitration
despite objections filed by appellant, single Judge of High Court made it rule of the Court---
clause.
Appellant sought dismissal of award on the plea that arbitrators did not give reasons of award and
Head Notes Case Description
----S.7---Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.56---Enforcement of foreign award---Foreign award which is sought to be made
rule of the Court is subject to the provisions of arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act, 1937 and excludes
application of Pakistan law as the terms of the contract are subject to the rules of Liverpool Cotton Association
Limited---Contention that arbitration Tribunal having conducted proceedings under the laws of England, therefore,
invocation of doctrine of frustration in terms of S.56, Contract Act, 1872 was available, was misconceived as the
contract in the present case was not frustrated.
----Ss. 30 & 33---Setting aside of award---Jurisdiction of Court--Taking of other view of material available on record---
Validity---Where the various findings recorded by the sole Arbitrator on all the issues framed Bookmark
by him in respect of the
this Case
controversy between the parties were well-reasoned, based on material available on record and no error of law and
facts appeared in the findings, High Court declined to differ with the findings or to take another view of the matter,
which even otherwise was not permissible under the law---Other view could not be taken as High Court was not
hearing
2016 M appeal
L D against
897 the award--- If award was to be scrutinized while applying the yardstick of appeal, the very
purpose of referring the matter for arbitration would be frustrated---Some technical defects or infirmity in an award
did not make the same inadmissible--Award in the present case, which was based on appreciation of law and facts
[Sindh]
did not suffer from any illegality or infirmity calling for any interference by High Court and the same was made Rule
of the Court in circumstances.
Before Nadeem Akhtar and Muhammad Iqbal Kalhoro, JJ
Head Notes Case Description
Messrs TRADING CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN LTD.---Appellant
High Court
arbitration ActAppeal No.15
1940 ----Ss. 30 of 1979, decided
& 33---Setting onof22nd
aside December, 2015.
award---Jurisdiction of Court--Taking of other view of material
available on record---Validity---Where the various findings recorded by the sole Arbitrator on all the issues framed by
him in respect ofAct
Arbitration the (X
controversy between the parties were well-reasoned, based on material available on record and
of 1940)---
no error of law and facts appeared in the findings, High Court declined to differ with the findings or to take another
view of the matter, which even otherwise was not permissible under the law---Other view could not be taken as High
----Ss.3, 16, 26-A & 30 [as inserted by Arbitration (Amendment) Ordinance (XV of 1981)]---Law
Court was not hearing appeal against the award--- If award was to be scrutinized while applying the yardstick of
Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S. 3---Arbitration---Intra-court appeal---Objection to award---
appeal, the very purpose of referring the matter for arbitration would be frustrated---Some technical defects or
Remission
infirmity in anofaward
case---Reasons
did not make not the
stated---Parties referred theirindispute
same inadmissible--Award to arbitrator
the present who unanimously
case, which was based on
appreciation of law and facts did not suffer from any illegality or infirmity calling for any interference bycourt
appointed umpire and a unanimous award was given---Arbitrators filed the award in High and
Court
despite
and objections
the same was madefiled
Rule by appellant,
of the single Judge of High Court made it rule of the Court---
Court in circumstances.
Appellant sought dismissal of award on the plea that arbitrators did not give reasons of award and
Head Notes Case Description
https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/login/check 3/14
9/8/23, 1:08 PM pakistanlawsite.com/Login/ReferenceCaseLawSearch?CaseName=2006S28&&court= &&Row=0 &&bookName=undefined
arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act 1937 Ss. 5, 6 & 7---Liverpool Cotton Association Rules, Rr.140 & 141--
arbitration Act (X of 1940), S.17---Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.23---Foreign arbitration Award---Enforcement---
Case Description
Principles---Making award rule of Court--Parties, which were members of Liverpool Cotton Association, entered into
contract of sale of cotton subject to Liverpool Cotton Association Rules, whereby defendant/exporter agreed to
supply 1050 bales of cotton to plaintiffs/importers---Defendant according to the agreement shipped 582 bales and
Bookmark
parties agreed to the supply balance quantity up to specified date on condition that if defendant would this Case
fail to
supply
balance quantity in time, contract between parties would be closed on that day on basis of market difference---
Defendant/exporter failed to make shipment of balance quantity of cotton up to specified date for reasons that
Government of Pakistan had temporarily suspended export of cotton on account of poor crop of cotton--Plaintiffs
2016 M
refused L D 897
to accept excuse of defendant, served formal notice on defendant of their intention to proceed to arbitration
to close out unfulfilled part of contract as per Rules of Liverpool Cotton Association and appointed their arbitrator---
Arbitrator
[Sindh]appointed on behalf of defendant fully participated in arbitration proceedings and arbitrators gave their
award whereby defendant was directed to pay difference of amount---Appeal of defendant against award of
Arbitrators was dismissed for non-payment of requisite fee for filing appeal within time---Plaintiff filed award in Court
Before Nadeem Akhtar and Muhammad Iqbal Kalhoro, JJ
to make it rule of Court ---Validity--Award was objected to by defendant contending that due to suspension of export
of cotton by Pakistan Government, it had no liability for non-delivery of balance quantity of cotton and that due to
Messrs
such TRADING
prevention, CORPORATION
force majeure OF PAKISTAN
clause in contract of sale had LTD.---Appellant
come into effect which had rendered contractual
clause invalid including arbitration clauses---Legality---Suspension of export of cotton being temporary, it could not
beVersus
said that contract between parties had become impossible for performance or it had become frustrated at
relevant time---Public Notice whereby export of cotton was temporarily suspended, by no stretch of imagination
could be GENERAL
Messrs construed as INDUSTRIAL
a declaration toMACHINES---Respondent
the effect that export of cotton had become illegal---Reliance of
defendant/exporter on S.23 of Contract Act, 1872, was misconceived---Objections raised by defendant/exporter to
award being baseless, same was ordered to be made rule of Court---Courts ought not to entertain objections to
High Court Appeal No.15 of 1979, decided on 22nd December, 2015.
foreign award, executable in Pakistan unless those strictly lay within four corners of S.7 of arbitration (Protocol
Convention) Act, 1937.
Arbitration Act (X of 1940)---
Head Notes Case Description
----Ss.3, 16, 26-A & 30 [as inserted by Arbitration (Amendment) Ordinance (XV of 1981)]---Law
Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S. 3---Arbitration---Intra-court appeal---Objection to award---
Citation Name: 1999 CLC 1018 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case
Remission of case---Reasons not stated---Parties referred their dispute to arbitrator who unanimously
appointed umpire
CONTICOTTON andVSa FAROOQ
S.A. CO. unanimous award was given---Arbitrators filed the award in court and
CORPORATION
despite objections filed by appellant, single Judge of High Court made it rule of the Court---
Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act 1937--6 , Arbitration Act 1940--17 , Contract Act 1872--23 , Liverpool
Appellant sought dismissal of award on the plea that arbitrators did not give reasons of award and
Cotton Association Rules--RULE , Punjab Custom (Power to Contest) Act 1920--- ,
https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/login/check 4/14
9/8/23, 1:08 PM pakistanlawsite.com/Login/ReferenceCaseLawSearch?CaseName=2006S28&&court= &&Row=0 &&bookName=undefined
Ss. 5, 6 & 7---Liverpool Cotton Association Rules, Rr.140 & 141--arbitration Act (X of 1940), S.17---Contract Act (IX
of 1872), S.23---Foreign arbitration Award---Enforcement---Principles---Making award rule of Court--Parties, which
Case Description
were members of Liverpool Cotton Association, entered into contract of sale of cotton subject to Liverpool Cotton
Association Rules, whereby defendant/exporter agreed to supply 1050 bales of cotton to plaintiffs/importers---
Defendant according to the agreement shipped 582 bales and parties agreed to the supply balance quantity up to
Bookmark
specified date on condition that if defendant would fail to supply balance quantity in time, contract this Case
between
parties
would be closed on that day on basis of market difference---Defendant/exporter failed to make shipment of balance
quantity of cotton up to specified date for reasons that Government of Pakistan had temporarily suspended export of
cotton on account of poor crop of cotton--Plaintiffs refused to accept excuse of defendant, served formal notice on
2016 M ofL their
defendant D 897intention to proceed to arbitration to close out unfulfilled part of contract as per Rules of Liverpool
Cotton Association and appointed their arbitrator---Arbitrator appointed on behalf of defendant fully participated in
arbitration
[Sindh] proceedings and arbitrators gave their award whereby defendant was directed to pay difference of
amount---Appeal of defendant against award of Arbitrators was dismissed for non-payment of requisite fee for filing
appeal within time---Plaintiff filed award in Court to make it rule of Court ---Validity--Award was objected to by
Before Nadeem Akhtar and Muhammad Iqbal Kalhoro, JJ
defendant contending that due to suspension of export of cotton by Pakistan Government, it had no liability for non-
delivery of balance quantity of cotton and that due to such prevention, force majeure clause in contract of sale had
Messrs
come into TRADING CORPORATION
effect which had OFclause
rendered contractual PAKISTAN LTD.---Appellant
invalid including arbitration clauses---Legality---Suspension
of export of cotton being temporary, it could not be said that contract between parties had become impossible for
Versus or it had become frustrated at relevant time---Public Notice whereby export of cotton was temporarily
performance
suspended, by no stretch of imagination could be construed as a declaration to the effect that export of cotton had
become
Messrsillegal---Reliance of defendant/exporter
GENERAL INDUSTRIAL on S.23 of Contract Act, 1872, was misconceived---Objections
MACHINES---Respondent
raised by defendant/exporter to award being baseless, same was ordered to be made rule of Court---Courts ought
not to entertain objections to foreign award, executable in Pakistan unless those strictly lay within four corners of S.7
High Court Appeal No.15 of 1979, decided on 22nd December, 2015.
of arbitration (Protocol Convention) Act, 1937.
Arbitration
Head Notes Act Case
(X ofDescription
1940)---
----Ss.3, 16, 26-A & 30 [as inserted by Arbitration (Amendment) Ordinance (XV of 1981)]---Law
Citation
Reforms Name: 1999 CLC
Ordinance 1018ofKARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
(XII 1972), S. 3---Arbitration---Intra-court appeal---Objection
Bookmarktothis Case
award---
Remission of case---Reasons not stated---Parties referred their dispute to arbitrator who unanimously
CONTICOTTON S.A. CO. VS FAROOQ CORPORATION
appointed umpire and a unanimous award was given---Arbitrators filed the award in court and
Arbitration
despite (Protocol andfiled
objections Convention) Act 1937--6
by appellant, , Arbitration
single Judge Actof 1940--17 , Contract
High Court made Actit1872--23
rule of, Liverpool
the Court---
Cotton Association Rules--RULE , Punjab Custom (Power to Contest) Act 1920--- ,
Appellant sought dismissal of award on the plea that arbitrators did not give reasons of award and
https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/login/check 5/14
9/8/23, 1:08 PM pakistanlawsite.com/Login/ReferenceCaseLawSearch?CaseName=2006S28&&court= &&Row=0 &&bookName=undefined
Ss. 5, 6 & 7---Liverpool Cotton Association Rules, Rr.140 & 141--arbitration Act (X of 1940), S.17---Contract Act (IX
of 1872), S.23---Foreign arbitration Award---Enforcement---Principles---Making award rule of Court--Parties, which
Case Description
were members of Liverpool Cotton Association, entered into contract of sale of cotton subject to Liverpool Cotton
Association Rules, whereby defendant/exporter agreed to supply 1050 bales of cotton to plaintiffs/importers---
Defendant according to the agreement shipped 582 bales and parties agreed to the supply balance quantity up to
Bookmark
specified date on condition that if defendant would fail to supply balance quantity in time, contract this Case
between
parties
would be closed on that day on basis of market difference---Defendant/exporter failed to make shipment of balance
quantity of cotton up to specified date for reasons that Government of Pakistan had temporarily suspended export of
cotton on account of poor crop of cotton--Plaintiffs refused to accept excuse of defendant, served formal notice on
2016 M ofL their
defendant D 897intention to proceed to arbitration to close out unfulfilled part of contract as per Rules of Liverpool
Cotton Association and appointed their arbitrator---Arbitrator appointed on behalf of defendant fully participated in
arbitration
[Sindh] proceedings and arbitrators gave their award whereby defendant was directed to pay difference of
amount---Appeal of defendant against award of Arbitrators was dismissed for non-payment of requisite fee for filing
appeal within time---Plaintiff filed award in Court to make it rule of Court ---Validity--Award was objected to by
Before Nadeem Akhtar and Muhammad Iqbal Kalhoro, JJ
defendant contending that due to suspension of export of cotton by Pakistan Government, it had no liability for non-
delivery of balance quantity of cotton and that due to such prevention, force majeure clause in contract of sale had
Messrs
come into TRADING CORPORATION
effect which had OFclause
rendered contractual PAKISTAN LTD.---Appellant
invalid including arbitration clauses---Legality---Suspension
of export of cotton being temporary, it could not be said that contract between parties had become impossible for
Versus or it had become frustrated at relevant time---Public Notice whereby export of cotton was temporarily
performance
suspended, by no stretch of imagination could be construed as a declaration to the effect that export of cotton had
become
Messrsillegal---Reliance of defendant/exporter
GENERAL INDUSTRIAL on S.23 of Contract Act, 1872, was misconceived---Objections
MACHINES---Respondent
raised by defendant/exporter to award being baseless, same was ordered to be made rule of Court---Courts ought
not to entertain objections to foreign award, executable in Pakistan unless those strictly lay within four corners of S.7
High Court Appeal No.15 of 1979, decided on 22nd December, 2015.
of arbitration (Protocol Convention) Act, 1937.
Arbitration
Head Notes Act Case
(X ofDescription
1940)---
----Ss.3, 16, 26-A & 30 [as inserted by Arbitration (Amendment) Ordinance (XV of 1981)]---Law
Citation
Reforms Name: 1999 CLC
Ordinance 1018ofKARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
(XII 1972), S. 3---Arbitration---Intra-court appeal---Objection
Bookmarktothis Case
award---
Remission of case---Reasons not stated---Parties referred their dispute to arbitrator who unanimously
CONTICOTTON S.A. CO. VS FAROOQ CORPORATION
appointed umpire and a unanimous award was given---Arbitrators filed the award in court and
Arbitration
despite (Protocol andfiled
objections Convention) Act 1937--6
by appellant, , Arbitration
single Judge Actof 1940--17 , Contract
High Court made Actit1872--23
rule of, Liverpool
the Court---
Cotton Association Rules--RULE , Punjab Custom (Power to Contest) Act 1920--- ,
Appellant sought dismissal of award on the plea that arbitrators did not give reasons of award and
https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/login/check 6/14
9/8/23, 1:08 PM pakistanlawsite.com/Login/ReferenceCaseLawSearch?CaseName=2006S28&&court= &&Row=0 &&bookName=undefined
Ss. 5, 6 & 7---Liverpool Cotton Association Rules, Rr.140 & 141--arbitration Act (X of 1940), S.17---Contract Act (IX
of 1872), S.23---Foreign arbitration Award---Enforcement---Principles---Making award rule of Court--Parties, which
Case Description
were members of Liverpool Cotton Association, entered into contract of sale of cotton subject to Liverpool Cotton
Association Rules, whereby defendant/exporter agreed to supply 1050 bales of cotton to plaintiffs/importers---
Defendant according to the agreement shipped 582 bales and parties agreed to the supply balance quantity up to
Bookmark
specified date on condition that if defendant would fail to supply balance quantity in time, contract this Case
between
parties
would be closed on that day on basis of market difference---Defendant/exporter failed to make shipment of balance
quantity of cotton up to specified date for reasons that Government of Pakistan had temporarily suspended export of
cotton on account of poor crop of cotton--Plaintiffs refused to accept excuse of defendant, served formal notice on
2016 M ofL their
defendant D 897intention to proceed to arbitration to close out unfulfilled part of contract as per Rules of Liverpool
Cotton Association and appointed their arbitrator---Arbitrator appointed on behalf of defendant fully participated in
arbitration
[Sindh] proceedings and arbitrators gave their award whereby defendant was directed to pay difference of
amount---Appeal of defendant against award of Arbitrators was dismissed for non-payment of requisite fee for filing
appeal within time---Plaintiff filed award in Court to make it rule of Court ---Validity--Award was objected to by
Before Nadeem Akhtar and Muhammad Iqbal Kalhoro, JJ
defendant contending that due to suspension of export of cotton by Pakistan Government, it had no liability for non-
delivery of balance quantity of cotton and that due to such prevention, force majeure clause in contract of sale had
Messrs
come into TRADING CORPORATION
effect which had OFclause
rendered contractual PAKISTAN LTD.---Appellant
invalid including arbitration clauses---Legality---Suspension
of export of cotton being temporary, it could not be said that contract between parties had become impossible for
Versus or it had become frustrated at relevant time---Public Notice whereby export of cotton was temporarily
performance
suspended, by no stretch of imagination could be construed as a declaration to the effect that export of cotton had
become
Messrsillegal---Reliance of defendant/exporter
GENERAL INDUSTRIAL on S.23 of Contract Act, 1872, was misconceived---Objections
MACHINES---Respondent
raised by defendant/exporter to award being baseless, same was ordered to be made rule of Court---Courts ought
not to entertain objections to foreign award, executable in Pakistan unless those strictly lay within four corners of S.7
High Court Appeal No.15 of 1979, decided on 22nd December, 2015.
of arbitration (Protocol Convention) Act, 1937.
Arbitration
Head Notes Act Case
(X ofDescription
1940)---
----Ss.3, 16, 26-A & 30 [as inserted by Arbitration (Amendment) Ordinance (XV of 1981)]---Law
Citation
Reforms Name: 1999 CLC
Ordinance 1018ofKARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
(XII 1972), S. 3---Arbitration---Intra-court appeal---Objection
Bookmarktothis Case
award---
Remission of case---Reasons not stated---Parties referred their dispute to arbitrator who unanimously
CONTICOTTON S.A. CO. VS FAROOQ CORPORATION
appointed umpire and a unanimous award was given---Arbitrators filed the award in court and
Arbitration
despite (Protocol andfiled
objections Convention) Act 1937--6
by appellant, , Arbitration
single Judge Actof 1940--17 , Contract
High Court made Actit1872--23
rule of, Liverpool
the Court---
Cotton Association Rules--RULE , Punjab Custom (Power to Contest) Act 1920--- ,
Appellant sought dismissal of award on the plea that arbitrators did not give reasons of award and
https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/login/check 7/14
9/8/23, 1:08 PM pakistanlawsite.com/Login/ReferenceCaseLawSearch?CaseName=2006S28&&court= &&Row=0 &&bookName=undefined
Ss. 5, 6 & 7---Liverpool Cotton Association Rules, Rr.140 & 141--arbitration Act (X of 1940), S.17---Contract Act (IX
of 1872), S.23---Foreign arbitration Award---Enforcement---Principles---Making award rule of Court--Parties, which
Case Description
were members of Liverpool Cotton Association, entered into contract of sale of cotton subject to Liverpool Cotton
Association Rules, whereby defendant/exporter agreed to supply 1050 bales of cotton to plaintiffs/importers---
Defendant according to the agreement shipped 582 bales and parties agreed to the supply balance quantity up to
Bookmark
specified date on condition that if defendant would fail to supply balance quantity in time, contract this Case
between
parties
would be closed on that day on basis of market difference---Defendant/exporter failed to make shipment of balance
quantity of cotton up to specified date for reasons that Government of Pakistan had temporarily suspended export of
cotton on account of poor crop of cotton--Plaintiffs refused to accept excuse of defendant, served formal notice on
2016 M ofL their
defendant D 897intention to proceed to arbitration to close out unfulfilled part of contract as per Rules of Liverpool
Cotton Association and appointed their arbitrator---Arbitrator appointed on behalf of defendant fully participated in
arbitration
[Sindh] proceedings and arbitrators gave their award whereby defendant was directed to pay difference of
amount---Appeal of defendant against award of Arbitrators was dismissed for non-payment of requisite fee for filing
appeal within time---Plaintiff filed award in Court to make it rule of Court ---Validity--Award was objected to by
Before Nadeem Akhtar and Muhammad Iqbal Kalhoro, JJ
defendant contending that due to suspension of export of cotton by Pakistan Government, it had no liability for non-
delivery of balance quantity of cotton and that due to such prevention, force majeure clause in contract of sale had
Messrs
come into TRADING CORPORATION
effect which had OFclause
rendered contractual PAKISTAN LTD.---Appellant
invalid including arbitration clauses---Legality---Suspension
of export of cotton being temporary, it could not be said that contract between parties had become impossible for
Versus or it had become frustrated at relevant time---Public Notice whereby export of cotton was temporarily
performance
suspended, by no stretch of imagination could be construed as a declaration to the effect that export of cotton had
become
Messrsillegal---Reliance of defendant/exporter
GENERAL INDUSTRIAL on S.23 of Contract Act, 1872, was misconceived---Objections
MACHINES---Respondent
raised by defendant/exporter to award being baseless, same was ordered to be made rule of Court---Courts ought
not to entertain objections to foreign award, executable in Pakistan unless those strictly lay within four corners of S.7
High Court Appeal No.15 of 1979, decided on 22nd December, 2015.
of arbitration (Protocol Convention) Act, 1937.
Arbitration
Head Notes Act Case
(X ofDescription
1940)---
----Ss.3, 16, 26-A & 30 [as inserted by Arbitration (Amendment) Ordinance (XV of 1981)]---Law
Citation
Reforms Name: 1999 CLC
Ordinance 1018ofKARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
(XII 1972), S. 3---Arbitration---Intra-court appeal---Objection
Bookmarktothis Case
award---
Remission of case---Reasons not stated---Parties referred their dispute to arbitrator who unanimously
CONTICOTTON S.A. CO. VS FAROOQ CORPORATION
appointed umpire and a unanimous award was given---Arbitrators filed the award in court and
Arbitration
despite (Protocol andfiled
objections Convention) Act 1937--6
by appellant, , Arbitration
single Judge Actof 1940--17 , Contract
High Court made Actit1872--23
rule of, Liverpool
the Court---
Cotton Association Rules--RULE , Punjab Custom (Power to Contest) Act 1920--- ,
Appellant sought dismissal of award on the plea that arbitrators did not give reasons of award and
https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/login/check 8/14
9/8/23, 1:08 PM pakistanlawsite.com/Login/ReferenceCaseLawSearch?CaseName=2006S28&&court= &&Row=0 &&bookName=undefined
Ss. 5, 6 & 7---Liverpool Cotton Association Rules, Rr.140 & 141--arbitration Act (X of 1940), S.17---Contract Act (IX
of 1872), S.23---Foreign arbitration Award---Enforcement---Principles---Making award rule of Court--Parties, which
Case Description
were members of Liverpool Cotton Association, entered into contract of sale of cotton subject to Liverpool Cotton
Association Rules, whereby defendant/exporter agreed to supply 1050 bales of cotton to plaintiffs/importers---
Defendant according to the agreement shipped 582 bales and parties agreed to the supply balance quantity up to
Bookmark
specified date on condition that if defendant would fail to supply balance quantity in time, contract this Case
between
parties
would be closed on that day on basis of market difference---Defendant/exporter failed to make shipment of balance
quantity of cotton up to specified date for reasons that Government of Pakistan had temporarily suspended export of
cotton on account of poor crop of cotton--Plaintiffs refused to accept excuse of defendant, served formal notice on
2016 M ofL their
defendant D 897intention to proceed to arbitration to close out unfulfilled part of contract as per Rules of Liverpool
Cotton Association and appointed their arbitrator---Arbitrator appointed on behalf of defendant fully participated in
arbitration
[Sindh] proceedings and arbitrators gave their award whereby defendant was directed to pay difference of
amount---Appeal of defendant against award of Arbitrators was dismissed for non-payment of requisite fee for filing
appeal within time---Plaintiff filed award in Court to make it rule of Court ---Validity--Award was objected to by
Before Nadeem Akhtar and Muhammad Iqbal Kalhoro, JJ
defendant contending that due to suspension of export of cotton by Pakistan Government, it had no liability for non-
delivery of balance quantity of cotton and that due to such prevention, force majeure clause in contract of sale had
Messrs
come into TRADING CORPORATION
effect which had OFclause
rendered contractual PAKISTAN LTD.---Appellant
invalid including arbitration clauses---Legality---Suspension
of export of cotton being temporary, it could not be said that contract between parties had become impossible for
Versus or it had become frustrated at relevant time---Public Notice whereby export of cotton was temporarily
performance
suspended, by no stretch of imagination could be construed as a declaration to the effect that export of cotton had
become
Messrsillegal---Reliance of defendant/exporter
GENERAL INDUSTRIAL on S.23 of Contract Act, 1872, was misconceived---Objections
MACHINES---Respondent
raised by defendant/exporter to award being baseless, same was ordered to be made rule of Court---Courts ought
not to entertain objections to foreign award, executable in Pakistan unless those strictly lay within four corners of S.7
High Court Appeal No.15 of 1979, decided on 22nd December, 2015.
of arbitration (Protocol Convention) Act, 1937.
Arbitration
Head Notes Act Case
(X ofDescription
1940)---
----Ss.3, 16, 26-A & 30 [as inserted by Arbitration (Amendment) Ordinance (XV of 1981)]---Law
Citation
Reforms Name: 1997 PLD
Ordinance 636 of
(XII KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
1972), S. 3---Arbitration---Intra-court appeal---Objection
Bookmarktothis Case
award---
Remission of case---Reasons not stated---Parties referred their dispute to arbitrator who unanimously
PORT QASIM AUTHORITY VS AL-GHURAIR GROUP OF CO.
appointed umpire and a unanimous award was given---Arbitrators filed the award in court and
Arbitration
despite Act 1940--2 , filed by appellant, single Judge of High Court made it rule of the Court---
objections
Appellant sought dismissal of award on the plea that arbitrators did not give reasons of award and
https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/login/check 9/14
9/8/23, 1:08 PM pakistanlawsite.com/Login/ReferenceCaseLawSearch?CaseName=2006S28&&court= &&Row=0 &&bookName=undefined
----Ss. 34 & 2-A--- Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972). S.3--- Intra-Court Appeal--- Application for stay of suit and
reference of proceedings to arbitration was rejected by High Court (Single Judge) holding that "effective date" of
Case Description
contract never came into existence and, thus, arbitration clause could not be invoked ---Validity--- Defendant had
questioned the very existence of legally binding contract--- Signing of contract containing arbitration clause,
however, had been admitted and no illegality invalidating the same had been alleged--- Expression in arbitration
clause "arising out of or in connection, regardless of nature of dispute" appeared to convey Bookmark
broader this Case
amplitude ---
Definition of expression "effective date" in agreement neither proved its factual non-existence nor its legal validity-- -
Agreement in question had created certain obligations which were required to be performed for purpose of reaching
"effective date" in terms of arbitration clause in such agreement ---Distinction must be kept between formation of
2016 M
contract andLD 897
performance of covenants of parties created thereunder- --Fact that parties were not required to
perform obligation till -specific date even contingency would not mean that no contract existed-- Promisor might be
relieved
[Sindh] of obligation to perform on account of some supervening event not in contemplation of parties---Plaintiffs
could possibly urge that effective date not being arrived they were not required to perform their obligation under
contract in question; they, however, could not urge that contract never came into being ---Where contract was
Before Nadeem Akhtar and Muhammad Iqbal Kalhoro, JJ
frustrated, contract itself would not come to an end; only one party or both of them would stand absolved from
performing their obligation ---Finding of High Court (Single Judge) to the effect that matter could not be referred to
Messrs TRADING
arbitration was set aside CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN
and parties were directed to appoint LTD.---Appellant
their respective arbitrators, who would enter upon
reference within specified days from announcement of judgment and would make their award within four months of
Versus
having entered upon such reference---Where any party failed to appoint arbitrator, other party could move
application for appointment of arbitrator---Plaintiffs were directed not to encash performance bond till disposal of suit.
Messrs GENERAL INDUSTRIAL MACHINES---Respondent
Head Notes Case Description
https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/login/check 10/14
9/8/23, 1:08 PM pakistanlawsite.com/Login/ReferenceCaseLawSearch?CaseName=2006S28&&court= &&Row=0 &&bookName=undefined
S. 7---Constitution of Pakistan. (1973), Art.199---Nature of proceedings before arbitration Bookmark this Case
Council---Effect
of such
proceedings conducted after the death' of husband---Proceedings under provisions of S.7, Muslim Family Laws
Ordinance, 1961, were primarily designed towards bringing about reconciliation between spouses---Husband having
died, question of reconciliation did not arise and proceedings, even if pending, stood frustrated---No notice of Talaq
2016 M
having L Dserved
been 897 upon wife during lifetime of her husband, proceedings concluded by Chairman on the
application of brother of deceased husband were highly doubtful---Legality of Talaq and certificate of divorce issued
by[Sindh]
the Chairman, arbitration Council were declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
MessrsName:
Citation TRADING CORPORATION
1990 PLD OF PAKISTAN
48 SUPREME-COURT LTD.---Appellant Bookmark this Case
LAHORE
Versus STOCK EXCHANGE VS FREDRICK J.W. GROUP
Contract--TERM ,
Messrs GENERAL INDUSTRIAL MACHINES---Respondent
Repudiation of contract by one party or if contract is frustrated --- Effect on operation of arbitration clause. Waverly
Jute Mills Co. Ltd. and others v. Raymon and Co. (India) Pvt. Ltd. AIR 1963 SC 90 and Halsbury's Laws of England,
High Court Appeal No.15 of 1979, decided on 22nd December, 2015.
4th Edn., para.553 ref.
Arbitration
Head Notes Act Case
(X ofDescription
1940)---
----Ss.3, 16, 26-A & 30 [as inserted by Arbitration (Amendment) Ordinance (XV of 1981)]---Law
Citation Name: 1985 SCMR 1918 SUPREME-COURT Bookmarktothis Case
Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S. 3---Arbitration---Intra-court appeal---Objection award---
Remission SIDDIQUE
MUHAMMAD of case---Reasons
VS TALIBnot stated---Parties referred their dispute to arbitrator who unanimously
HUSSAIN
appointed umpire and a unanimous award was given---Arbitrators filed the award in court and
Civil Procedure Code --Order XXXIX of C.P.C. Temporary Injunctions and Interlocutory Orders--1 , Constitution of
despite objections filed by appellant, single Judge of High Court made it rule of the Court---
Pakistan 1973--185 , Grant of--TERM ,
Appellant sought dismissal of award on the plea that arbitrators did not give reasons of award and
---Art. 185(3)--Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXIX, r. 1-Tempocary injunction--Grant of--arbitration award
pending in Civil Court--Respondents instituting suit before Revenue Court for recovery of rent and ejectment of
petitioners--Petitioners' application for grant of temporary injunction there against rejected by Civil Court--Order
upheld in appeal and revision inter alia on ground that competently instituted proceedings before Revenue Court
could not be frustrated by issuance of restraining order--Supreme Court while maintaining impugned order, held,
injunction could not be granted by a Court to stay proceedings another Court which is not subordinate to Court from
which injunction is sought--Petition for leave to appeal dismissed.
Civil Procedure Code --Order XXXIX of C.P.C. Temporary Injunctions and Interlocutory Orders--1 , Constitution of
Pakistan 1973--185 , Grant of--TERM ,
https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/login/check 11/14
9/8/23, 1:08 PM pakistanlawsite.com/Login/ReferenceCaseLawSearch?CaseName=2006S28&&court= &&Row=0 &&bookName=undefined
---Art. 185(3)--Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXIX, r. 1-Tempocary injunction--Grant of--arbitration award
pending in Civil Court--Respondents instituting suit before Revenue Court for recovery of rent and ejectment of
Case Description
petitioners--Petitioners' application for grant of temporary injunction there against rejected by Civil Court--Order
upheld in appeal and revision inter alia on ground that competently instituted proceedings before Revenue Court
could not be frustrated by issuance of restraining order--Supreme Court while maintaining impugned order, held,
Bookmark to
injunction could not be granted by a Court to stay proceedings another Court which is not subordinate this
Casefrom
Court
which injunction is sought--Petition for leave to appeal dismissed.
Arbitration
Head Notes Act Case
(X ofDescription
1940)---
----Ss.3, 16, 26-A & 30 [as inserted by Arbitration (Amendment) Ordinance (XV of 1981)]---Law
Citation Name: 1967 PLD 698 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmarktothis Case
Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S. 3---Arbitration---Intra-court appeal---Objection award---
Remission
MESSRS of ABDUL
HAFIZ case---Reasons not stated---Parties
AZIZ YOUSUFANI referredHAJI
& CO. VS MESSRS theirALI
dispute to arbitrator
MUHAMMAD who unanimously
ABDULLAH & CO.
appointed umpire and a unanimous award was given---Arbitrators filed the award in court and
Discretion of Court--TERM ,
despite objections filed by appellant, single Judge of High Court made it rule of the Court---
Appellant
----- sought
S. 34-Slay dismissal of
of suit-Discretion ofCourt-Forum
award on the plea that
mentioned arbitratorsclause
in arbitration did not give to
ceasing reasons of awardclause,
exist-Arbitration and
held, frustrated-Applicant unable to show that "at time when the proceedings commenced" he was "willing to do all
things necessary to the proper conduct of the arbitration"-Order staring suit, in circumstances, held, rot justified.
MESSRS HAFIZ ABDUL AZIZ YOUSUFANI & CO. VS MESSRS HAJI ALI MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH & CO.
arbitration Act 1940 ----- S. 34-Slay of suit-Discretion of Court-Forum mentioned in arbitration clause ceasing to
exist-arbitration clause, held, frustrated-Applicant unable to show that "at time when the proceedings commenced"
he was "willing to do all things necessary to the proper conduct of the arbitration"-Order staring suit, in
circumstances, held, rot justified.
https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/login/check 12/14
9/8/23, 1:08 PM pakistanlawsite.com/Login/ReferenceCaseLawSearch?CaseName=2006S28&&court= &&Row=0 &&bookName=undefined
Read More
Case Description
Notes on Cases
August
Bookmark this Case
CLC Notes
YLR Notes
[Sindh]
Journals
Before Nadeem Akhtar and Muhammad Iqbal Kalhoro, JJ
August
PCrLJ GBLR
High Court Appeal No.15 of 1979, decided on 22nd December, 2015.
----Ss.3, 16, 26-A & 30 [as inserted by Arbitration (Amendment) Ordinance (XV of 1981)]---Law
Circulars
Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S. 3---Arbitration---Intra-court appeal---Objection to award---
Remission of case---Reasons not stated---Parties referred their dispute to arbitrator who unanimously
General Orders
appointed umpire and a unanimous award was given---Arbitrators filed the award in court and
despite objections filed by appellant, single Judge of High Court made it rule of the Court---
Notifications
Appellant sought dismissal of award on the plea that arbitrators did not give reasons of award and
New Statutes
Federal
Punjab
KPK
Balochistan
Sindh
https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/login/check 13/14
9/8/23, 1:08 PM pakistanlawsite.com/Login/ReferenceCaseLawSearch?CaseName=2006S28&&court= &&Row=0 &&bookName=undefined
2016 M L D 897
[Sindh]
Versus
----Ss.3, 16, 26-A & 30 [as inserted by Arbitration (Amendment) Ordinance (XV of 1981)]---Law
Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S. 3---Arbitration---Intra-court appeal---Objection to award---
Remission of case---Reasons not stated---Parties referred their dispute to arbitrator who unanimously
appointed umpire and a unanimous award was given---Arbitrators filed the award in court and
despite objections filed by appellant, single Judge of High Court made it rule of the Court---
Appellant sought dismissal of award on the plea that arbitrators did not give reasons of award and
https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/login/check 14/14