| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2025 SLG 4017 2025 SLD 4017 = 2025 CLC 605 |
Islamabad High Court
F.A.O. No. 108 of 2019, decided on 3rd February, 2025.
Before Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb and Saman Rafat Imtiaz, JJ
Barrister Farrukh Jawad Panni for Appellant (in F.A.O. No. 108 of 2019) and for
Respondent No. 1. Saeed Ahmed Zaidi for
Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 (in F.A.O. No. 108 of 2019) and for Petitioners (in C.R. No. 136 of 2019).
F.A.O. No. 108 of 2019, decided on 3rd February, 2025.
Before Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb and Saman Rafat Imtiaz, JJ
Barrister Farrukh Jawad Panni for Appellant (in F.A.O. No. 108 of 2019) and for
Respondent No. 1. Saeed Ahmed Zaidi for
Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 (in F.A.O. No. 108 of 2019) and for Petitioners (in C.R. No. 136 of 2019).
PEB STEEL ALLIANCE LIMITED ---Appellant
VERSUS
EARTHQUAKE RECONSTRUCTION AND REHABILITATION AUTHORITY (ERRA) through Chairman and 3 others ---Respondents
Law: Arbitration Act, 1940
Section: X,34
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: VII,11
(a) Arbitration Act (X of 1940)-------S. 34---Arbitration agreement---Expression "such authority may make an order staying the proceedings"---Stay of proceedings---Discretion of Court---Where parties to a contract have agreed to resolve their disputes through arbitration, ordinarily Court must hold the parties to their bargain---This is not an absolute rule---Power conferred upon Court to grant a stay under S. 34 of Arbitration Act, 1940 is entirely a matter of discretion of Court---Expression "such authority may make an order staying the proceedings" indicates that Court has discretion to stay suit or not.(b) Arbitration Act (X of 1940)-------S. 34---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, R. 11---Suit for recovery of money---Stay of proceedings---Plaint not rejected---Proceedings in suit filed by appellant/plaintiff company were stayed by Trial Court due to arbitration clause in contract between the parties---Application under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C. filed by respondents/defendants-Authorities for the plaint in the suit to be rejected on the ground that Court at place "I" did not have the territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the suit, was dismissed---Plea raised by respondents/defendants-Authorities was that works under contracts were executed at place "M" and that contracts were also executed at place "M"---Validity---One of the respondent/defendant authority did not have its offices at place "I"---Dispute as to whether the contracts were executed between respondent/defendant authority and JV at place "I" or place "M" was also to be determined by Trial Court after recording of evidence---Whether or not respondent/defendant authority's excuse for payment of amount into JV account instead of payment through Letter of Credit in accordance with the provisions of the contracts was plausible or sustainable was also to be determined in an adjudicatory process in Trial Court in the suit instituted by appellant/plaintiff company---Trial Court did not commit any jurisdictional irregularity by dismissing application under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C.---High Court set aside order of Trial Court staying proceedings,…