| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLG 175 2026 SLD 175 = 2026 LHC 79 |
C.M. NO.01 of 2026 IN C.O. No.48681 of 2023
PRESENT; (Muhammad Sajid Mehmood Sethi) Judge
Date of Hearing 22.01.2026 Applicants /
Respondents No.1 to 3 M/s. Iftikhar-ud-Din Riaz and Ahmad Abdul Rehman, Advocates.
Respondents / Petitioners M/s. Arshad Nazir Mirza and Kumail Ali Qurshi, Advocates.
Qatar Lubricants Company W.L.L. (“QALCO”) & another
VERSUS
Atif Naeem Rana & others
Law: Companies Act, 2017
Section: 6(15)
Law: Arbitration Act, 1940
Section: 151
Law: Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Section:
 Summary
The High Court disposed of an application seeking interim restraint against disclosure and publication of an arbitral award dated 19.01.2026, holding that confidentiality in arbitration is not absolute and cannot override statutory requirements or judicial proceedings. While acknowledging the existence of a confidentiality clause in the parties’ agreement, the Court held that the arbitral award must necessarily be placed before the Company Bench in compliance with the Supreme Court’s directions and for proceedings under the Arbitration Act, 1940 read with the Companies Act, 2017. Alleged reputational harm and speculative commercial consequences were held insufficient to justify a blanket gag order. The parties were permitted to rely upon the award in judicial proceedings, subject to observing confidentiality to the extent permissible under law.
Tag LineÂ
Confidentiality of arbitral proceedings is qualified, not absolute; an arbitral award must be disclosed where required for statutory proceedings and judicial scrutiny.
ORDER;