| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2023 SLG 1944 2023 PLD 621 2023 SLD 1944 |
Lahore High Court
Civil Original Suit No. 80492 of 2017, decided on 28thApril, 2023.Date of hearing: 22nd February, 2023.
Before Jawad Hassan, J
Barrister Iftikhar ud Din Riaz, Advocate Supreme Court with Ahmad Abdul Rehman, Smam Mir and Mehrunisa Virk for Applicant.Deeba Tasneem Anwar, Mirza Nasar Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court, Jam Waseem Haider, Haseeb Ahsan Javed, Ch. Nabeel Rafaqat and Jawad
Civil Original Suit No. 80492 of 2017, decided on 28thApril, 2023.Date of hearing: 22nd February, 2023.
Before Jawad Hassan, J
Barrister Iftikhar ud Din Riaz, Advocate Supreme Court with Ahmad Abdul Rehman, Smam Mir and Mehrunisa Virk for Applicant.Deeba Tasneem Anwar, Mirza Nasar Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court, Jam Waseem Haider, Haseeb Ahsan Javed, Ch. Nabeel Rafaqat and Jawad
Messrs TRADHOL INTERNATIONAL SA SOCIEDAD UNIPERSONAL-- ApplicantVersusMessrs SHAKARGANJ LIMITED---Respondent
Law: Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Ordinance, 2011
Section: 5,7
(a) Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act (XVII of 2011)--- ----S. 5---New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 1958, Art. IV---Documents, reliance on---Scope---Court has to only examine documents filed, in order to enforce such award under the doctrine of pro-enforcement bias. (b) Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act (XVII of 2011)--- ----S. 7---New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 1958, Art. II, cl. 2 Art. V (1) (a)---Invalidity of agreement---Electronic communication---Plea raised by objector to award was that agreement between the parties was invalid---Validity---Communications were exchanged between the parties and were sent through automated information system--- Such communication squarely came within the meaning of terms defined in Electronic Transactions Ordinance, 2002, as well as within the meaning of agreement in writing defined in Art. II, cl. 2 of the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 1958. Louis Dreyfus Commodities Suisse S.A. v. Acro Textile Mills Ltd. PLD 2018 Lah. 597; Hitachi Limited v. Rupali Polyester 1998 SCMR 1618; Enka Insaat Ve Sanayi AS v. Insurance Company Chubb [2020] UKSC 38 and Kabab-Ji SAL v. Kout Food Group [2021] UKSC 48 rel. (c) Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act (XVII of 2011)--- ----S. 7---New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 1958, Art. V(2)(b)---Final award---Unenforceability---Public policy, contrary to---Plea raised by objector to award was that the award was contrary to public policy in Pakistan---Validity---Recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award under S. 7 of Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards Act, 2011 and New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 1958, could be refused if competent authority in Pakistan would find that recognition or enforcement of the award was contrary to public policy of Pakistan---To avail benefit of Art. V(2)(b) of New…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492