| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2015 SLG 751 2015 SLD 751 2015 YLR 1027 |
Sindh High Court
Suit Nos. 568, 670, 708 and 1260 of 2013, decided on 17thJanuary, 2014. DATE of hearing: 12th December, 2013
NAZAR AKBAR, J
Khalid Anwar for Plaintiff (in Suit No. 568 of 2013 and for Defendant No. 1 in Suit No. 670 of 2013). Abdul Hafeez Pirzada for Plaintiff (in Suit Nos.670 of 2013 and 708 of 2013 and for Defendant No. 1 (in Suit No. 568 of 2013) and for sole Defendant (in
Suit Nos. 568, 670, 708 and 1260 of 2013, decided on 17thJanuary, 2014. DATE of hearing: 12th December, 2013
NAZAR AKBAR, J
Khalid Anwar for Plaintiff (in Suit No. 568 of 2013 and for Defendant No. 1 in Suit No. 670 of 2013). Abdul Hafeez Pirzada for Plaintiff (in Suit Nos.670 of 2013 and 708 of 2013 and for Defendant No. 1 (in Suit No. 568 of 2013) and for sole Defendant (in
PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL BULK TERMINAL LTD. through Chief Finance OfficervsMAQBOOL ASSOCIATES (PVT.) LTD., through Managing Director and 4 others
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: O.XXIII,R.3
Law: Arbitration Act, 1940
Section: 20
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O.XXIII, R.3---Contract---Compromise between parties---Scope---Lawfully entered contracts by and between parties are binding upon them irrespective of placing such contracts before Court of law by means of joint applications under O. XXIII, R. 3 C.P.C. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O.XXIII, R.3---Arbitration Act (X of 1940), S. 20--- Arbitration--- Dispute resolution---Role of Court---Compromise between parties---During pendency of proceedings under S. 20 of Arbitration Act, 1940, parties entered in compromise and sought disposal of suit under O.XXIII, R.3, C.P.C.---Validity---Court was only gateway to adjudication of dispute between parties and not adjudicator in its own right---Present was not a regular suit under common law and dispute resolution was not possible by Court of law under S.20 of Arbitration Act, 1940---Court was not empowered to examine and even comment on "dispute/issues" between parties, lest it could prejudice case of either party---Provisions of O. XXIII, R.3, C.P.C. were not applicable to arbitration suit under S. 20 of Arbitration Act, 1940---Court appointed sole arbitrator for resolution of dispute between parties in terms of arbitration agreement---Suit was disposed of accordingly. Mohamed Abdul Latif Faruqi v. Nisar Ahmed and another PLD 1959 (W.P.) Kar. 465; Jamia Industries Ltd. v. Pakistan Refinery Ltd. PLD 1976 Kar. 644; China Harbour Engineering Co. v. Water and Power Development Authority and others 2001 YLR 1781; Manzoor Construction Co. Ltd., v. University of Engineering and Technology, Texila 1984 CLC 3347 and Messrs Time N Vision International (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Dubai Islamic Bank PLD 2007 Kar. 278 rel. JUDGMENT NAZAR AKBAR, J.---By this order I intend to dispose of an application under Order XXIII Rules 1 and 3, C.P.C. bearing C.M.A. No.11110/2013 jointly filed by plaintiff and defendant No.1 in Suit No.670 of 2013, as well as four suits bearing Suit No.568/2013, Suit No.670/2013, Suit No.708/2013 and Suit No.1260/2013. These are Arbitration Suits under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1940"). 1. The precise facts of these…