| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2016 SLG 1881 2016 SLD 1881 2016 IHC |
Islamabad High Court
Arbitration Petition No. 24 of 2016, 16/06/2016
MIANGUL HASSAN AURANGZEB, J
Arbitration Petition No. 24 of 2016, 16/06/2016
MIANGUL HASSAN AURANGZEB, J
Pak. U.K. Association (Pvt.) Ltd.VSThe Hashemite Kingdom Of Jordan
Law:
Section:
Keywords: Result: Respondent's application is allowed MIANGUL HASSAN AURANGZEB, J:- On 16.03.2016, M/s Pakistan U.K. Associate Private Limited ("applicant") filed an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 ("the 1940 Act") praying for the arbitration agreement between the applicant and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan ("respondent"), to be filed in the court and the matters in dispute between the said parties referred to arbitration. 2. On 24.03.2016, this Court issued a notice in terms of Section 20(4) of the 1940 Act, to the respondent to show cause as to why the arbitration agreement between the said parties should not be filed in the court, and the dispute between the parties not referred to arbitration. The respondent, instead of filing a reply to the said notice, filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("C.P.C.") praying for the applicant's application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act to be rejected on the ground that the applicant had not exhausted the precondition of referring the contractual disputes to the Engineer in terms of clause 67.1 of the contract between the parties, before filing the application under Section 20 of the 1940 Act. 3. Through this common judgment, I propose to dispose of the applicant's application under Section 20 of the 1940 Act, and the respondent's application under Order VII, Rule 11 C.P.C. 4. The record shows that on 16.06.2010, a contract was entered into between the applicant and the respondent for certain works to be executed by the applicant at Jordanian Embassy and the Jordanian Ambassador's residence in the Diplomatic Enclave, Islamabad. The applicant was awarded this contract as a consequence of a tender bidding process. 5. The respondent appointed M/s Design Advisor as the "Engineer" for the project. Clause 2.6 of the Instruction to Tenderers and Conditions of Contract €“ Part-I (General Conditions) requires the Engineer to act impartially in the exercise of his discretion in giving his decisions, opinions or consents, or expressing his satisfaction or approval, or in determining value. On 24.06.2010, the Engineer issued a 'notice to commence'…