Case Details

Citation(s)
2025 SLG 3785 2025 SLD 3785 = 2024 CLD 954
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision No.60145 of 2024, decided on 25th February, 2025.
Before Anwaar Hussain, J
Abid Minhas for Petitioner. Proceeded against ex-parte vide order, dated 16-12-2024. Syed Shahab Qutab, Amicus Curiae.

Messrs TAIGA APPAREL (PVT.) LTD.---Petitioner

VERSUS

Messrs INTERNATIONAL FABRICATION COMPANY---Respondent

Law: Arbitration Act (X of 1940)

Section: 8(1),8(2),9,20

(a)    Arbitration-------Procedure---Object, purpose and scope---Arbitration is fundamentally a contractual arrangement and the parties must be held to their bargain---Parties cannot be allowed to circumvent procedure for arbitration provided in arbitration clause---Procedure for appointment of arbitrator, as provided in arbitration agreement, must be given effect.(b)    Arbitration Act (X of 1940)-------S. 8(1) & (2)---Arbitrator, appointment of---Procedure---Provision of S. 8(1) of Arbitration Act, 1940 empowers a party to serve a notice on other party to concur in appointment of arbitrator etc., where arbitration agreement provides reference to one or more arbitrators appointed by consent of parties and parties do not, after differences have arisen, concur in appointment or appointments---If appointment is not made within fifteen clear days after service of such notice, then under S. 8(2) of Arbitration Act, 1940 Court may, on application of the party which had given notice and after giving the other parties an opportunity of being heard, appoint arbitrator or arbitrators or umpire, as the case may be.(c)    Arbitration Act (X of 1940)-------Ss. 8, 9 & 20---Arbitration---Procedure to be followed---Two arbitration agreements---Respondent invoked arbitration clause before Trial Court and sought appointment of arbitrator; the application was dismissed for parties to first proceed as per agreement---Lower Appellate Court set aside order of Trial Court and directed appointment of arbitrator---Validity---Both the agreements between parties required two arbitrators, followed by an umpire if needed---Correct legal provision to invoke was S. 9 and not S. 8 of Arbitration Act, 1940---Lower Appellate Court directed Trial Court to appoint arbitrator without first determining whether two steps procedures envisaged under arbitration clauses agreed between parties had been exhausted and it also failed to address issue of whether application under Ss. 8 and 20 of Arbitration Act 1940 was maintainable for two separate agreements, which was erroneous, making its decision legally unsustainable---Application of…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register