2016MLD Arbitration

9/8/23, 1:08 PM pakistanlawsite.com/Login/ReferenceCaseLawSearch?
CaseName=2006S28&&court= &&Row=0 &&bookName=undefined
Case Description ×
Caselaw Search
arbitration frustrated Search
Statutes Search
Bookmark this Case 
Courtwise Search
Citation
2016 MSearch
L D 897
Advance
[Sindh] Search
Before Nadeem Akhtar and Muhammad Iqbal Kalhoro, JJ

Case Law Search 
Messrs TRADING
arbitration CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN LTD.---Appellant
frustrated
Enter Court
Versus
Last 5 Year
Messrs GENERAL INDUSTRIAL MACHINES---Respondent
Search
High Court Appeal No.15 of 1979, decided on 22nd December, 2015.
Arbitration Act (X of 1940)---
----Ss.3, 16, 26-A & 30 [as inserted by Arbitration (Amendment) Ordinance (XV of 1981)]---Law
Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S. 3---Arbitration---Intra-court appeal---Objection to award---
Your Search returned
Remission total 14 records
of case---Reasons from 0 - 20
not stated---Parties referred their dispute to arbitrator who unanimously
appointed
Citation umpire
Name: and 897
2016 MLD a unanimous award was given---Arbitrators filed the award
KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH in this
Bookmark court and
Case 
despite objections filed by appellant, single Judge of High Court made it rule of the Court---
TRADING CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN LTD. VS GENERAL INDUSTRIAL MACHINES
Appellant sought dismissal of award on the plea that arbitrators did not give reasons of award and
1984 MLD 147, 1987 CLC 383, 1999 CLC 2047, 2001 SCMR 750, 2005 MLD 667, 2006 SCMR 1657,
Arbitration Act 1940--16 , Arbitration Act 1940--26-A , Arbitration Act 1940--3 , Arbitration Act 1940--30 , Arbitration--
TERM , Intra-Court Appeal--TERM , Law Reforms Ordinance 1972--3 ,
https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/login/check 1/14
9/8/23, 1:08 PM pakistanlawsite.com/Login/ReferenceCaseLawSearch?CaseName=2006S28&&court= &&Row=0 &&bookName=undefined
Ss.3, 16, 26-A & 30 [as inserted by arbitration (Amendment) Ordinance (XV of 1981)]---Law Reforms Ordinance
(XII of 1972), S. 3---arbitration---Intra-court appeal---Objection to award---Remission of case---Reasons not stated--
Case Description
-Parties referred their dispute to arbitrator who unanimously appointed umpire and a unanimous award was given---
Arbitrators filed the award in court and despite objections filed by appellant, single Judge of High Court made it rule
of the Court---Appellant sought dismissal of award on the plea that arbitrators did not give reasons of award and
after their death parties were not willing to appoint new arbitrator---Validity---Case fell Bookmark
under S. this (1)(c)of
16 Case
arbitration Act, 1940, as objection raised by appellant to legality of award that it lacked reasons was apparent on
the face of it---Such objection was also accepted by High Court when the matter was remitted to surviving arbitrator
for reasons in sufficient details which order was upheld by Supreme Court---Surviving arbitrator failed to reconsider
2016
the M and
award L Dto897submit his decision and reasons in sufficient details within the stipulated period---Such award had
become void under S. 16(3) of arbitration Act, 1940---arbitration agreement between parties ceased to have effect
with respect to dispute referred thereunder and such reference was liable to be superseded under S. 19 of
[Sindh]
arbitration Act, 1940---Parties were unwilling to appoint new arbitrators and the award could not be remitted to any
other arbitrator---Award had become void and arbitration agreement between parties could not be given effect to and
the same had become frustrated---Reference was superseded under S. 19 of arbitration Act, 1940 and the
arbitration agreement ceased to have effect with respect to differences/dispute referred in pursuance thereof to
Messrs TRADING
arbitrators CORPORATION
and umpire---Division Bench of HighOFCourt
PAKISTAN
set asideLTD.---Appellant
judgment and decree passed by single Judge of
High Court resultantly award was set aside---Appeal was allowed accordingly.
Versus
Head Notes Case Description
Citation Name: 2016 CLC 1772 ISLAMABAD Bookmark this Case 
BNP (PVT.) LIMITED VS COLLIER INTERNATIONAL PAKISTAN (PVT.) LIMITED
1990 CLC 47, 2012 CLC 12, PLD 1958 Kar. 224, PLD 1959 Kar. 750, PLD 1990 SC 48,
Arbitration--TERM , Termination
----Ss.3, 16, 26-A & 30 [asofinserted
contract--Term ,
by Arbitration (Amendment) Ordinance (XV of 1981)]---Law
Reforms of
Termination Ordinance (XII of 1972), S.clause
contract---Effect---arbitration 3---Arbitration---Intra-court
in contract continues to existappeal---Objection
even after termination toofaward---
contract---
Remission of case---Reasons not stated---Parties referred their dispute to arbitrator who unanimously
If main contract is repudiated or frustrated or cancelled or expired, the arbitration clause survives---Mere
appointedfrustration,
repudiation, umpire and a unanimous
cancellation awardof was
or expiration given---Arbitrators
the contract filedto the
does not give rise award
putting in court
an end and
to arbitration
clause.
Citation Name: 2004 CLD 1040 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case 
QUINN CORPORATION VS COTTON EXPORT CORPORATION
Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act 1937--7 , Contract Act 1872--56 ,
----S.7---Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.56---Enforcement of foreign award---Foreign award which is sought to be made
rule of the Court is subject to the provisions of arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act, 1937 and excludes
application of Pakistan law as the terms of the contract are subject to the rules of Liverpool Cotton Association
Limited---Contention that arbitration Tribunal having conducted proceedings under the laws of England, therefore,
invocation of doctrine of frustration in terms of S.56, Contract Act, 1872 was available, was misconceived as the
contract in the present case was not frustrated.
Citation Name: 2002 CLC 353 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case 

S.G. RAYON MILLS (PVT.) LIMITED VS FIDA HUSSAIN & ASSOCIATES

Case Description
Arbitration Act 1940--33 ,
----Ss. 30 & 33---Setting aside of award---Jurisdiction of Court--Taking of other view of material available on record---
Validity---Where the various findings recorded by the sole Arbitrator on all the issues framed Bookmark
by him in respect of the
this Case 
controversy between the parties were well-reasoned, based on material available on record and no error of law and
facts appeared in the findings, High Court declined to differ with the findings or to take another view of the matter,
which even otherwise was not permissible under the law---Other view could not be taken as High Court was not
hearing
2016 M appeal
L D against
897 the award--- If award was to be scrutinized while applying the yardstick of appeal, the very
purpose of referring the matter for arbitration would be frustrated---Some technical defects or infirmity in an award
did not make the same inadmissible--Award in the present case, which was based on appreciation of law and facts
[Sindh]
did not suffer from any illegality or infirmity calling for any interference by High Court and the same was made Rule
of the Court in circumstances.
Messrs TRADING CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN LTD.---Appellant

Versus
S.G. RAYON MILLS (PVT.) LIMITED VS FIDA HUSSAIN & ASSOCIATES
High Court
arbitration ActAppeal No.15
1940 ----Ss. 30 of 1979, decided
& 33---Setting onof22nd
aside December, 2015.
award---Jurisdiction of Court--Taking of other view of material
available on record---Validity---Where the various findings recorded by the sole Arbitrator on all the issues framed by
him in respect ofAct
Arbitration the (X
controversy between the parties were well-reasoned, based on material available on record and
of 1940)---
no error of law and facts appeared in the findings, High Court declined to differ with the findings or to take another
view of the matter, which even otherwise was not permissible under the law---Other view could not be taken as High
Court was not hearing appeal against the award--- If award was to be scrutinized while applying the yardstick of
appeal, the very purpose of referring the matter for arbitration would be frustrated---Some technical defects or
Remission
infirmity in anofaward
case---Reasons
did not make not the
stated---Parties referred theirindispute
same inadmissible--Award to arbitrator
the present who unanimously
case, which was based on
appreciation of law and facts did not suffer from any illegality or infirmity calling for any interference bycourt
appointed umpire and a unanimous award was given---Arbitrators filed the award in High and
Court
despite
and objections
the same was madefiled
Rule by appellant,
of the single Judge of High Court made it rule of the Court---
Court in circumstances.
CONTICOTTON S.A. CO. VS FAROOQ CORPORATION
Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act 1937--5 ,
arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act 1937 Ss. 5, 6 & 7---Liverpool Cotton Association Rules, Rr.140 & 141--
arbitration Act (X of 1940), S.17---Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.23---Foreign arbitration Award---Enforcement---
Case Description
Principles---Making award rule of Court--Parties, which were members of Liverpool Cotton Association, entered into
contract of sale of cotton subject to Liverpool Cotton Association Rules, whereby defendant/exporter agreed to
supply 1050 bales of cotton to plaintiffs/importers---Defendant according to the agreement shipped 582 bales and
Bookmark
parties agreed to the supply balance quantity up to specified date on condition that if defendant would this Case
fail to 
supply
balance quantity in time, contract between parties would be closed on that day on basis of market difference---
Defendant/exporter failed to make shipment of balance quantity of cotton up to specified date for reasons that
Government of Pakistan had temporarily suspended export of cotton on account of poor crop of cotton--Plaintiffs
2016 M
refused L D 897
to accept excuse of defendant, served formal notice on defendant of their intention to proceed to arbitration
to close out unfulfilled part of contract as per Rules of Liverpool Cotton Association and appointed their arbitrator---
Arbitrator
[Sindh]appointed on behalf of defendant fully participated in arbitration proceedings and arbitrators gave their
award whereby defendant was directed to pay difference of amount---Appeal of defendant against award of
Arbitrators was dismissed for non-payment of requisite fee for filing appeal within time---Plaintiff filed award in Court
to make it rule of Court ---Validity--Award was objected to by defendant contending that due to suspension of export
of cotton by Pakistan Government, it had no liability for non-delivery of balance quantity of cotton and that due to
Messrs
such TRADING
prevention, CORPORATION
force majeure OF PAKISTAN
clause in contract of sale had LTD.---Appellant
come into effect which had rendered contractual
clause invalid including arbitration clauses---Legality---Suspension of export of cotton being temporary, it could not
beVersus
said that contract between parties had become impossible for performance or it had become frustrated at
relevant time---Public Notice whereby export of cotton was temporarily suspended, by no stretch of imagination
could be GENERAL
Messrs construed as INDUSTRIAL
a declaration toMACHINES---Respondent
the effect that export of cotton had become illegal---Reliance of
defendant/exporter on S.23 of Contract Act, 1872, was misconceived---Objections raised by defendant/exporter to
award being baseless, same was ordered to be made rule of Court---Courts ought not to entertain objections to
foreign award, executable in Pakistan unless those strictly lay within four corners of S.7 of arbitration (Protocol
Convention) Act, 1937.
appointed umpire
CONTICOTTON andVSa FAROOQ
S.A. CO. unanimous award was given---Arbitrators filed the award in court and
CORPORATION
Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act 1937--6 , Arbitration Act 1940--17 , Contract Act 1872--23 , Liverpool
Cotton Association Rules--RULE , Punjab Custom (Power to Contest) Act 1920--- ,
Ss. 5, 6 & 7---Liverpool Cotton Association Rules, Rr.140 & 141--arbitration Act (X of 1940), S.17---Contract Act (IX
of 1872), S.23---Foreign arbitration Award---Enforcement---Principles---Making award rule of Court--Parties, which
Case Description
were members of Liverpool Cotton Association, entered into contract of sale of cotton subject to Liverpool Cotton
Association Rules, whereby defendant/exporter agreed to supply 1050 bales of cotton to plaintiffs/importers---
Defendant according to the agreement shipped 582 bales and parties agreed to the supply balance quantity up to
Bookmark
specified date on condition that if defendant would fail to supply balance quantity in time, contract this Case
between 
parties
would be closed on that day on basis of market difference---Defendant/exporter failed to make shipment of balance
quantity of cotton up to specified date for reasons that Government of Pakistan had temporarily suspended export of
cotton on account of poor crop of cotton--Plaintiffs refused to accept excuse of defendant, served formal notice on
2016 M ofL their
defendant D 897intention to proceed to arbitration to close out unfulfilled part of contract as per Rules of Liverpool
Cotton Association and appointed their arbitrator---Arbitrator appointed on behalf of defendant fully participated in
arbitration
[Sindh] proceedings and arbitrators gave their award whereby defendant was directed to pay difference of
amount---Appeal of defendant against award of Arbitrators was dismissed for non-payment of requisite fee for filing
appeal within time---Plaintiff filed award in Court to make it rule of Court ---Validity--Award was objected to by
defendant contending that due to suspension of export of cotton by Pakistan Government, it had no liability for non-
delivery of balance quantity of cotton and that due to such prevention, force majeure clause in contract of sale had
Messrs
come into TRADING CORPORATION
effect which had OFclause
rendered contractual PAKISTAN LTD.---Appellant
invalid including arbitration clauses---Legality---Suspension
of export of cotton being temporary, it could not be said that contract between parties had become impossible for
Versus or it had become frustrated at relevant time---Public Notice whereby export of cotton was temporarily
performance
suspended, by no stretch of imagination could be construed as a declaration to the effect that export of cotton had
become
Messrsillegal---Reliance of defendant/exporter
GENERAL INDUSTRIAL on S.23 of Contract Act, 1872, was misconceived---Objections
MACHINES---Respondent
raised by defendant/exporter to award being baseless, same was ordered to be made rule of Court---Courts ought
not to entertain objections to foreign award, executable in Pakistan unless those strictly lay within four corners of S.7
of arbitration (Protocol Convention) Act, 1937.
Arbitration
Head Notes Act Case
(X ofDescription
1940)---
Citation
Reforms Name: 1999 CLC
Ordinance 1018ofKARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
(XII 1972), S. 3---Arbitration---Intra-court appeal---Objection
Bookmarktothis Case 
award---
appointed umpire and a unanimous award was given---Arbitrators filed the award in court and
Arbitration
despite (Protocol andfiled
objections Convention) Act 1937--6
by appellant, , Arbitration
single Judge Actof 1940--17 , Contract
High Court made Actit1872--23
rule of, Liverpool
the Court---
Case Description
Bookmark
between 
parties
2016 M ofL their
arbitration
Messrs
performance
become
Arbitration
Head Notes Act Case
(X ofDescription
1940)---
Citation
award---
Arbitration
rule of, Liverpool
the Court---
Case Description
Bookmark
between 
parties
2016 M ofL their
arbitration
Messrs
performance
become
Arbitration
Head Notes Act Case
(X ofDescription
1940)---
Citation
award---
Arbitration
rule of, Liverpool
the Court---
Case Description
Bookmark
between 
parties
2016 M ofL their
arbitration
Messrs
performance
become
Arbitration
Head Notes Act Case
(X ofDescription
1940)---
Citation
award---
Arbitration
rule of, Liverpool
the Court---
Case Description
Bookmark
between 
parties
2016 M ofL their
arbitration
Messrs
performance
become
Arbitration
Head Notes Act Case
(X ofDescription
1940)---
Citation
Reforms Name: 1997 PLD
Ordinance 636 of
(XII KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
1972), S. 3---Arbitration---Intra-court appeal---Objection
award---
PORT QASIM AUTHORITY VS AL-GHURAIR GROUP OF CO.
Arbitration
despite Act 1940--2 , filed by appellant, single Judge of High Court made it rule of the Court---
objections
----Ss. 34 & 2-A--- Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972). S.3--- Intra-Court Appeal--- Application for stay of suit and
reference of proceedings to arbitration was rejected by High Court (Single Judge) holding that "effective date" of
Case Description
contract never came into existence and, thus, arbitration clause could not be invoked ---Validity--- Defendant had
questioned the very existence of legally binding contract--- Signing of contract containing arbitration clause,
however, had been admitted and no illegality invalidating the same had been alleged--- Expression in arbitration
clause "arising out of or in connection, regardless of nature of dispute" appeared to convey Bookmark
broader this Case 
amplitude ---
Definition of expression "effective date" in agreement neither proved its factual non-existence nor its legal validity-- -
Agreement in question had created certain obligations which were required to be performed for purpose of reaching
"effective date" in terms of arbitration clause in such agreement ---Distinction must be kept between formation of
2016 M
contract andLD 897
performance of covenants of parties created thereunder- --Fact that parties were not required to
perform obligation till -specific date even contingency would not mean that no contract existed-- Promisor might be
relieved
[Sindh] of obligation to perform on account of some supervening event not in contemplation of parties---Plaintiffs
could possibly urge that effective date not being arrived they were not required to perform their obligation under
contract in question; they, however, could not urge that contract never came into being ---Where contract was
frustrated, contract itself would not come to an end; only one party or both of them would stand absolved from
performing their obligation ---Finding of High Court (Single Judge) to the effect that matter could not be referred to
Messrs TRADING
arbitration was set aside CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN
and parties were directed to appoint LTD.---Appellant
their respective arbitrators, who would enter upon
reference within specified days from announcement of judgment and would make their award within four months of
Versus
having entered upon such reference---Where any party failed to appoint arbitrator, other party could move
application for appointment of arbitrator---Plaintiffs were directed not to encash performance bond till disposal of suit.

Citation Name: 1997 PLD 636 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case 
PORT QASIM AUTHORITY VS AL-GHURAIR GROUP OF CO.
----Ss.3,Act
Arbitration 16,1940--34
26-A &, 30 [as inserted by Arbitration (Amendment) Ordinance (XV of 1981)]---Law
arbitration Act 1940 ----Ss. 34 & 2-A--- Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972). S.3--- Intra-Court Appeal---
Application for stay of suit and reference of proceedings to arbitration was rejected by High Court (Single Judge)
holding that "effective date" of contract never came into existence and, thus, arbitration clause could not be invoked -
despite objections
--Validity--- filed
Defendant had by appellant,
questioned the verysingle Judge
existence of High
of legally Court
binding madeSigning
contract--- it ruleof of the Court---
contract containing
Appellant sought dismissal of award on the plea that arbitrators did not give reasons of
arbitration clause, however, had been admitted and no illegality invalidating the same had been alleged--- award and
Expression in arbitration clause "arising out of or in connection, regardless of nature of dispute" appeared to convey
broader amplitude ---Definition of expression "effective date" in agreement neither proved its factual non-existence
nor its legal validity-- -Agreement in question had created certain obligations which were required to be performed
for purpose of reaching "effective date" in terms of arbitration clause in such agreement ---Distinction must be kept
between formation of contract and performance of covenants of parties created thereunder- --Fact that parties were
not required to perform obligation till -specific date even contingency would not mean that no contract existed--
Promisor might be relieved of obligation to perform on account of some supervening event not in contemplation of
parties---Plaintiffs could possibly urge that effective date not being arrived they were not required to perform their
obligation under contract in question; they, however, could not urge that contract never came into being ---Where
contract was frustrated, contract itself would not come to an end; only one party or both of them would stand
absolved from performing their obligation ---Finding of High Court (Single Judge) to the effect that matter could not
be referred to arbitration was set aside and parties were directed to appoint their respective arbitrators, who would
enter upon reference within specified days from announcement of judgment and would make their award within four
months of having entered upon such reference---Where any party failed to appoint arbitrator, other party could move
application for appointment of arbitrator---Plaintiffs were directed not to encash performance bond till disposal of suit.
Citation Name: 1991 CLC 1720 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case 

Case Description
ZAKIA FAROOQ VS CHARIMAN, UNION COUNCIL
Constitution of Pakistan 1973--199 ,
S. 7---Constitution of Pakistan. (1973), Art.199---Nature of proceedings before arbitration Bookmark this Case
Council---Effect 
of such
proceedings conducted after the death' of husband---Proceedings under provisions of S.7, Muslim Family Laws
Ordinance, 1961, were primarily designed towards bringing about reconciliation between spouses---Husband having
died, question of reconciliation did not arise and proceedings, even if pending, stood frustrated---No notice of Talaq
2016 M
having L Dserved
been 897 upon wife during lifetime of her husband, proceedings concluded by Chairman on the
application of brother of deceased husband were highly doubtful---Legality of Talaq and certificate of divorce issued
by[Sindh]
the Chairman, arbitration Council were declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

MessrsName:
Citation TRADING CORPORATION
1990 PLD OF PAKISTAN
48 SUPREME-COURT LTD.---Appellant Bookmark this Case 
LAHORE
Versus STOCK EXCHANGE VS FREDRICK J.W. GROUP
Contract--TERM ,
Repudiation of contract by one party or if contract is frustrated --- Effect on operation of arbitration clause. Waverly
Jute Mills Co. Ltd. and others v. Raymon and Co. (India) Pvt. Ltd. AIR 1963 SC 90 and Halsbury's Laws of England,
4th Edn., para.553 ref.
Arbitration
Head Notes Act Case
(X ofDescription
1940)---
Citation Name: 1985 SCMR 1918 SUPREME-COURT Bookmarktothis Case 
Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S. 3---Arbitration---Intra-court appeal---Objection award---
Remission SIDDIQUE
MUHAMMAD of case---Reasons
VS TALIBnot stated---Parties referred their dispute to arbitrator who unanimously
HUSSAIN
Civil Procedure Code --Order XXXIX of C.P.C. Temporary Injunctions and Interlocutory Orders--1 , Constitution of
Pakistan 1973--185 , Grant of--TERM ,
---Art. 185(3)--Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXIX, r. 1-Tempocary injunction--Grant of--arbitration award
pending in Civil Court--Respondents instituting suit before Revenue Court for recovery of rent and ejectment of
petitioners--Petitioners' application for grant of temporary injunction there against rejected by Civil Court--Order
upheld in appeal and revision inter alia on ground that competently instituted proceedings before Revenue Court
could not be frustrated by issuance of restraining order--Supreme Court while maintaining impugned order, held,
injunction could not be granted by a Court to stay proceedings another Court which is not subordinate to Court from
which injunction is sought--Petition for leave to appeal dismissed.
Citation Name: 1985 SCMR 1918 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case 
MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE VS TALIB HUSSAIN
pending in Civil Court--Respondents instituting suit before Revenue Court for recovery of rent and ejectment of
Case Description
Bookmark to
injunction could not be granted by a Court to stay proceedings another Court which is not subordinate this 
Casefrom
Court
which injunction is sought--Petition for leave to appeal dismissed.

2016 M L D 897
Citation Name: 1985 SCMR 1918 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case 

[Sindh]
MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE VS TALIB HUSSAIN
pending
Versusin Civil Court--Respondents instituting suit before Revenue Court for recovery of rent and ejectment of
injunction could not be granted by a Court to stay proceedings another Court which is not subordinate to Court from
Highinjunction
which Court Appeal No.15 of 1979,
is sought--Petition decided
for leave on 22nd
to appeal December, 2015.
dismissed.
Arbitration
Head Notes Act Case
(X ofDescription
1940)---
Citation Name: 1967 PLD 698 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmarktothis Case 
Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S. 3---Arbitration---Intra-court appeal---Objection award---
Remission
MESSRS of ABDUL
HAFIZ case---Reasons not stated---Parties
AZIZ YOUSUFANI referredHAJI
& CO. VS MESSRS theirALI
dispute to arbitrator
MUHAMMAD who unanimously
ABDULLAH & CO.
Discretion of Court--TERM ,
Appellant
----- sought
S. 34-Slay dismissal of
of suit-Discretion ofCourt-Forum
award on the plea that
mentioned arbitratorsclause
in arbitration did not give to
ceasing reasons of awardclause,
exist-Arbitration and
held, frustrated-Applicant unable to show that "at time when the proceedings commenced" he was "willing to do all
things necessary to the proper conduct of the arbitration"-Order staring suit, in circumstances, held, rot justified.
Citation Name: 1967 PLD 698 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case 
MESSRS HAFIZ ABDUL AZIZ YOUSUFANI & CO. VS MESSRS HAJI ALI MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH & CO.
arbitration Act 1940 ----- S. 34-Slay of suit-Discretion of Court-Forum mentioned in arbitration clause ceasing to
exist-arbitration clause, held, frustrated-Applicant unable to show that "at time when the proceedings commenced"
he was "willing to do all things necessary to the proper conduct of the arbitration"-Order staring suit, in
circumstances, held, rot justified.
Read More
Case Description
Notes on Cases
August
CLC Notes
YLR Notes
2016 M L D 897 PCrLJ Notes
[Sindh]
Journals
August
Messrs TRADING CORPORATION

PLD OF PAKISTAN LTD.---AppellantSCMR
CLD PTD
Versus
MLD PLC
Messrs GENERAL INDUSTRIAL

CLC MACHINES---Respondent YLR
PCrLJ GBLR

Miscellaneous
 Circulars
 General Orders
 Notifications
New Statutes
 Federal
 Punjab
 KPK
 Balochistan
 Sindh
Copyrights © 2023 by Oratier Technologies (Pvt.) Ltd. (//oratier.tech)

CaseOratier
This site is developed & maintained Description
Technologies (Pvt.) Ltd. (//oratier.tech)
Help (/Login/HelpPage) FAQ's Sitemap
2016 M L D 897
[Sindh]
Versus

2016MLD Arbitration

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2016MLD Arbitration

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

9/8/23, 1:08 PM pakistanlawsite.com/Login/ReferenceCaseLawSearch?

CaseName=2006S28&&court= &&Row=0 &&bookName=undefined

Before Nadeem Akhtar and Muhammad Iqbal Kalhoro, JJ

Arbitration Act (X of 1940)---

Citation Name: 2004 CLD 1040 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case 

QUINN CORPORATION VS COTTON EXPORT CORPORATION

Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act 1937--7 , Contract Act 1872--56 ,

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2002 CLC 353 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case 

S.G. RAYON MILLS (PVT.) LIMITED VS FIDA HUSSAIN & ASSOCIATES

Citation Name: 2002 CLC 353 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case 

Citation Name: 1999 CLC 1018 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case 

CONTICOTTON S.A. CO. VS FAROOQ CORPORATION

Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act 1937--5 ,

High Court Appeal No.15 of 1979, decided on 22nd December, 2015.

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 1991 CLC 1720 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case 

Constitution of Pakistan 1973--199 ,

Head Notes Case Description

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 1985 SCMR 1918 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case 

MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE VS TALIB HUSSAIN

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 1985 SCMR 1918 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case 

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 1967 PLD 698 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case 

Arbitration Act 1940--34 ,

Head Notes Case Description

2016 M L D 897 PCrLJ Notes

Messrs TRADING CORPORATION

Messrs GENERAL INDUSTRIAL

Arbitration Act (X of 1940)---

Copyrights © 2023 by Oratier Technologies (Pvt.) Ltd. (//oratier.tech)

Help (/Login/HelpPage) FAQ's Sitemap

Bookmark this Case 

Before Nadeem Akhtar and Muhammad Iqbal Kalhoro, JJ

Messrs TRADING CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN LTD.---Appellant

Messrs GENERAL INDUSTRIAL MACHINES---Respondent

High Court Appeal No.15 of 1979, decided on 22nd December, 2015.

Arbitration Act (X of 1940)---

You might also like