| Case ID |
d38fcd90-bde7-4e5a-a848-2f6bc7ddaaa7 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Suit No. 347 of 2018 |
| Decision Date |
May 31, 2018 |
| Hearing Date |
May 09, 2018 |
| Decision |
The High Court dismissed the application for a stay of proceedings. The court found that the defendants did not demonstrate any bona fide dispute regarding the agreements. Rather, the case was strictly about the recovery of an outstanding amount owed, which the defendants failed to settle. The court noted that if the defendants believed there was a dispute, they should have sought the appointment of an arbitrator under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, which they did not pursue. Consequently, the court ruled that the current suit for recovery was valid and should proceed. |
| Summary |
In this case, the Sindh High Court addressed the application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, by the defendants seeking to stay proceedings and refer the matter to arbitration. The court emphasized the importance of the arbitration clause within the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendants. However, it was determined that the defendants did not approach the court for the appointment of an arbitrator as required under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. The court found that the underlying issue was a straightforward recovery of money, not a dispute about the contract itself. The ruling reiterated the legal principle that mere refusal to pay does not constitute a dispute that warrants arbitration. The court dismissed the application for a stay, allowing the recovery suit to proceed. This case highlights the significance of following procedural requirements in arbitration claims and underscores that the existence of an arbitration clause does not automatically preclude litigation for debt recovery. |
| Court |
Sindh High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
VERTIV PAKISTAN (PVT.) LTD.,
VERTIV (SINGAPORE),
NTG PAKISTAN (PVT.) LTD.
|
| Judges |
MUHAMMAD JUNAID GHAFFAR, JUSTICE
|
| Lawyers |
Salman Hamid,
Zubair Ahmed
|
| Petitioners |
VERTIV PAKISTAN (PVT.) LTD.,
VERTIV (SINGAPORE)
|
| Respondents |
NTG PAKISTAN (PVT.) LTD.
|
| Citations |
2021 SLD 248,
2021 CLC 377
|
| Other Citations |
M/S Shell Pakistan Ltd. v. M/S Bhoja Air (Pvt.) Ltd. 2007 MLD 1424,
Mst. Suriya Waseem Usmani and 9 others v. LM International (Pvt.) Ltd. and another 2002 CLD 624,
Shin Satellite Public Company Limited through Attorney v. M/S KASB Technology Services Limited 2016 YLR 2322
|
| Laws Involved |
Arbitration Act, 1940,
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908),
Specific Relief Act, 1877
|
| Sections |
20,
34,
2,
12,
42,
54
|