| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1965 SLG 10 1965 SLD 10 = 1965 PLD 425 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. K-54 of 1963, decision dated: 10th March1965
A. R. CORNELIUS, C, J., S. A. RAHMAN, FAZLE-AKBAR AND HAMOODUR RAHMAN, JJ
Sharif-ud-Din Peerzada Senior Advocate Supreme Court (M. A. I. Lakhani Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by S. M. Hanif Attorney for Appellants. M. Sadiq Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ghulam Ali Memon Attorney for
Respondent No. 1. Respon
Civil Appeal No. K-54 of 1963, decision dated: 10th March1965
A. R. CORNELIUS, C, J., S. A. RAHMAN, FAZLE-AKBAR AND HAMOODUR RAHMAN, JJ
Sharif-ud-Din Peerzada Senior Advocate Supreme Court (M. A. I. Lakhani Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by S. M. Hanif Attorney for Appellants. M. Sadiq Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ghulam Ali Memon Attorney for
Respondent No. 1. Respon
(1) MANZOOR HUSSAIN, (2) MUHAMMAD AKHTAR, (3) MUZAFFAR HUSSAIN AND (4) MUHAMMAD ASGHARvs(1) WALI MUHAMMAD AND (2) ABDUL SHAKUR
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1962
Section: 58
Law: Contract Act, 1872
Section: 23,4(2),5(1)(a),(c)
Law: Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947
Section: 21 (1), (2), (3)
(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 58 Leave to appeal to Supreme Court-Granted to consider whether arbitration clause in contract is enforceable at law if contract itself was found to be void on ,account of its being opposed to public policy. (b) Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 23-Contract having unlawful object - Alleged contravention of Ss. 4 (2) & 5 (1) (a), (c), Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (VII of 1947)---Nothing ill partnership contract itself (export-import business) to show that contract had of necessity to be performed in an illegal manner or in manner which offended provisions of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, but in performing same, parties adopting method which was not according to provisions of that Act-Such method, held will not determine validity or invalidity of contract� Arbitration clause in such contract held to be operative� Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (VII of 1947), S. 21 (1), (2), (3)�Contract violating any term of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 not ex facie or ab initio void or violative of S. 23, Contract Act, 1872-Section 23, Contract Act, 1872 to be construed strictly-New categories or new heads of public policy not to be invented-Arbitration Act (X of 1940), S.20-Party attacking contract on ground of illegality himself implicated in illegality--�Not entitled to Court's assistance.After examining the provisions of sections 4 (2), 5 (1) (a), (c) and 21, Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, and considering them as a whole:Held, that the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act does not forbid the making of a contract which may contemplate doing a thing which is contrary to the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, for, that thing can still be done by ex post facto permission of the State Bank of Pakistan. The scheme of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, therefore, is not to forbid the making of a contract but merely to insist that the contract shall be performed in a particular manner, namely, by taking the necessary permission of the competent authority. It cannot, therefore, in the circumstances, be said that a contract which violates any of the terms of the Foreign Exchange…