Case Details

Citation(s)
2007 SLG 1289 2007 SLD 1289 2007 MLD 1520
Sindh High Court
C. M. As. Nos. 5274 and 5533 of 2003 in Suit No. 1033 of 2003, decision Dated: 27-04-2004.
ATTA-UR-REHMAN, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Qazi Faez Isa
Respondent(s) by: Mahmood Mandviwala

ACB (PVT.) LTD.

VS

UPS WORLDWIDE FORWARDING INC.

Law: Arbitration Act, 1940

Section: 20,32,34

Arbitration Act (X of 1940)--- ---Ss. 20 & 34---Application to file arbitration .agreement in Court---Stay of legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement---Scope---Sections 20 and 34, Arbitration Act, 1940 are independent of each other; findings on section 20 of the Act, will not bar the application under S.34, Arbitration Act, 1940---Application under S.34 of the Act is not subject to the findings, if any, on S.20 of the Act---All the facts and circumstances of each case have to be examined---Parties should not lightly be released from their bargain that follows from the sanctity which the Court affixes to the contracts---Court before refusing to stay the proceedings should conclude that enforcement of such arbitration clause would amount to forcing the plaintiff to honour a different contract---If the plaintiff' appears to have been seeking procedural advantages and avoiding a trial as per agreement, a judicious and reasonable exercise of jurisdiction would be to allow the application of defendant and stay such proceedings---Principles. Manzoor Textile v. Nichimen Corporation 2000 MLD 641; Eckhardt & Co. v. Muhammad Hanif PLD 1993 SC 42 and Messrs Dhanrajamal Gobindram v. Messrs Shamji Kalidas and Co. AIR .1961 SC 1285; 1293 and 1294 distinguished. Uzin Export Foreign Trade Co. v. Mcdonald Layton & Co. 1996 SCMR 690; The Echhardt (1969) 2 All E.R. 641; Michael Golodetz v. Serjauddin & Co. AIR 1963 SC 1044-1046; Aratra Potato Co. Ltd. and another v. Egyptian Navigation Co. (EL Amria) Lloyd's Law Reports 1981 Vol. 2 at page 119 and The Fehmarn Ali England Law Reports (1958) 1 at Page 333 ref. THIS ORDER PASSED BY: ATTA-UR-REHMAN, J.--- C.M.As. Nos.5274 and 5533 of 2003. This order will dispose of two applications. One under Order XXXIX, Rules I and 2, C.P.C. moved by the plaintiff for an order restraining the defendant from disputing the existing relationship between the parties and terminating the agreement dated 9-7-1989 (the agreement) and / of appointing any other persons) to carry out any of the functions carried out by the plaintiff under the agreement. The other under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (1940 Act) moved…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492