| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLG 3714 = 2026 SLD 3714 = 2026 PLD 217 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
C.P.L.A. No. 197 of 2025 and C.M.A. No. 237 of 2025, decided on 13th November, 2025. (Against judgment dated 20.12.2024, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in F.A.O. No. 20 of 2024).
Presented By: Shakeel Ahmad and Aamer Farooq, JJ
Qaiser Imam, Advocate Supreme Court along with Tariq Aziz, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Muhammad Ali Raza, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondent (via VL from Lahore).
C.P.L.A. No. 197 of 2025 and C.M.A. No. 237 of 2025, decided on 13th November, 2025. (Against judgment dated 20.12.2024, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in F.A.O. No. 20 of 2024).
Presented By: Shakeel Ahmad and Aamer Farooq, JJ
Qaiser Imam, Advocate Supreme Court along with Tariq Aziz, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Muhammad Ali Raza, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondent (via VL from Lahore).
Messrs ZHONGZING TELECOM PAKISTAN (PVT) LIMITED ---Petitioner
VERSUS
The IMPERIAL ELECTRIC COMPANY (PVT), LIMITED ---Respondent
Law: Arbitration Act (X of 1940)
Section: 14
Law: Limitation Act (IX of 1908)
Section: 178, 181
Arbitration Act (X of 1940) S.14---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), First Sched., Arts.178 & 181---Arbitral award---Filing before the court---Limitation---Filing of award by arbitrator himself---Effect---Objection that filing was barred by limitation---Legality---Distinction from party-initiated filing---Scope---Briefly, the petitioner and the respondent entered into a contract for supply and installation of DG sets at PTCL sites---Contract contained an arbitration clause nominating the CEO of PTCL as arbitrator---An arbitral award was made in favor of the respondent and was initially filed before the civil court but was returned for want of pecuniary jurisdiction, after which the arbitrator himself filed the award before the district court---Petitioner objected that the filing was barred by limitation under Article 178 of the Limitation Act, 1908---Objection was accepted by the district court but set aside by the High Court, leading to the present petition before the Supreme Court requiring determination of the issue as to whether Article 178 of the Limitation Act, 1908, applied where the award was filed by the arbitrator himself without a party applying to the court, or whether such filing was governed by the residuary Article 181 of the Limitation Act, 1908? ---Held: Article 178 of the Act of 1908 being the primary provision regulated the period within which proceedings could be instituted for making an Award Rule of the Court---It prescribed a period of ninety days, running from the date on which notice of the making of the Award was served---Where a party did not first request the arbitrator or umpire to file the Award in Court, it could directly approach the Court and seek an order directing the Arbitrator or umpire to file the Award or a signed copy thereof---An application of this nature fell within the ambit of Article 178 of the Act of 1908,provided that notice of the Award had been served in terms of Section 14(1) of the Act of 1940---A different legal regime applied where no notice of the Award had been served and the party merely requested the Arbitrator, under Section 14(2) of the Act of 1940, to file the Award in Court---In such a…