Law: Arbitration Act, 1940

Section: 41,20

Law: Arbitration Act, 1940

Section: 41,20

(a) Arbitration Act (X of 1940)-------S. 20---Application for filing of ,arbitration agreement in Court---Dispute already referred by applicant in terms of contract to Engineer for his decision---Filing of such application by applicant without awaiting decision of Engineer---Maintainability---Arbitration proceedings in terms of contract could not be commenced, unless Engineer gave his decision or failed to give his decision---Parties had agreed to a mechanism of resolution of their dispute, which they could not bypass by initiating legal proceedings---Applicant could not take advantage of his own wrong and avoid proceedings in terms of contract---Applicant, after decision of Engineer, might avail remedy available to him under contract---Present application being premature was not maintainable. (b) Contract Act (IX of 1872)--- ----Ss. 126 & 17---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2-Bank guarantee, encashment of---Injunction, grant of---Scope---Mere irretrievable injustice without a prima facie case of established fraud would be of no consequence in restraining encashment of bank guarantee. Shipyard K. Damen International v. Karachi Shipyard and Engineering Works Ltd. PLD 2003 SC 191 fol. (c) Contract Act (IX of 1872)--- ----S. 126---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2---Mobilization advance guarantee, encashment of---Injunction, grant of---Scope---Courts would be reluctant to grant an interim injunction restraining Bank from honouring its contractual obligations under unconditional guarantees. (d) Contract Act (IX of 1872)--- ----S. 126---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2---Performance bank guarantee, encashment of---Injunction, grant of---Scope---Court might grant stay order, where refusal to grant same would perpetuate fraud, which should be apparent from material on record---Other reason for stay of bank guarantee in exceptional cases would be "injustice"---Encashment of such guarantee by employer without payment of pending bills of contractor would amount to double jeopardy as same would cause him injustice also. Shipyard K. Damen International v. Karachi Shipyard and Engineering Works Ltd. PLD…

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