Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Law and Practice of Foreign Arbitration and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards in Pakistan pp 5–37Cite as

Analysis of the AA-APC Regime

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 502 Accesses

Part of the book series: SpringerBriefs in Law ((BRIEFSLAW))

Abstract

Main features of AA are based on the English Acts of 1889 and 1934, and ever since the AA’s adoption by Pakistan, no government has made an effort to update this important law in accordance with the guidelines of Model Law. AA was not originally enacted to provide rules for foreign arbitration. However, Pakistani courts have expansively applied and analysed the AA’s provisions in association with the APC provisions while addressing questions related to foreign arbitrations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   34.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   49.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Anees Jillani, Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards in Pakistan, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 37, No. 4 (October 1988), p. 927.

  2. 2.

    AA Chapter II, Section 3–19.

  3. 3.

    Haji Abdul Rashid Arif v. Aziz Rehman and others (2010 CLC Peshawar 1014).

  4. 4.

    AA Chapter III, Section 20.

  5. 5.

    Messrs James Construction Company (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Province of Punjab (2002 PLD Supreme Court 310).

  6. 6.

    AA Chapter IV, Section 21–25.

  7. 7.

    AA Chapter V, Section 26–38.

  8. 8.

    See, for example, Messrs Tradesmen International (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan (2005 MLD Karachi 541), para.(a).

  9. 9.

    Geneva Protocol, Articles 1 and 3 and Geneva Convention, Article 1.

  10. 10.

    APC, Section 2. Cf. Anees Jillani, Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards in Pakistan, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 37, No. 4 (October 1988), p. 929.

  11. 11.

    See Geneva Protocol, Article 1.

  12. 12.

    Messrs Barlas Bros. (Karachi) & Co. v. Messrs Yangtze (London) Ltd. (1959 PLD (WP) Karachi 423).

  13. 13.

    Messrs Barlas Bros. v. Messrs Yangtze (London) Ltd. (1961 PLD Supreme Court 573).

  14. 14.

    Cf. Anees Jillani, Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards in Pakistan, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 37, No. 4 (October 1988), p. 929. The GOP has added subsection (2) under Section 2 in the APC’s definition of "foreign awards" which provides that notifications issued before 1947 for the purposes APC shall be deemed to be notifications issued by the GOP for the purpose of enforcement of foreign awards in Pakistan, see, Foreign Awards and Maintenance Orders Enforcement (Amendment) Ordinance 1962. Until 1988, GOP had notified these States and Territories for the application of APC: Austria, Belgium, Belgian Congo, Territory of Ruanda-Urundi, Great Britain and Northern Ireland, British India, Czechoslovakia, Burma, Bahamas, British Guiana, British Honduras, Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Gold Coast Colony-Ashanti, Northern Territories-Togoland under British Mandate, Jamaica (including Turks and Caicos Islands and Cayman Islands), Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Federal Republic of Germany, Germany, Greece, Italy, Kenya, Malta, Leeward Islands (Antigua, Dominica, Montserrat, St Christopher Nevis, Virgin Islands), Mauritius, Northern Rhodesia, Palestine (excluding Trans-Jordan), Tanganyika Territory, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Netherlands Indies, Surinam and Curacao, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Newfoundland, New Zealand (Western Samoa included), Uganda Protectorate, Windward Islands (Source: Anees Jillani, Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards in Pakistan, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 37, No. 4 (October 1988), p. 931).

  15. 15.

    See Messrs Barlas Bros. (Karachi) & Co. v. Messrs Yangtze (London) Ltd. (1958 PLD (WP) Karachi 24) and (1959 PLD (WP) Karachi 423).

  16. 16.

    The court, however, stayed execution of the order of lower court, which required filing of the award, on other grounds, namely, that GOP had restricted cross-border payments in foreign exchange. The same dispute went further for determination on other grounds before SHC, which is reported as Messrs Barlas Bros. v. Messrs Yangtze (London) Ltd. (1959 PLD (WP) Karachi 423), and then before SCP, which is reported as Messrs Yangtze (London) Ltd. v. Messrs Barlas Bros. (Karachi) (1961 PLD Supreme Court 573).

  17. 17.

    G. M. Pfaff A. G. v. Sartaj Engineering Co. Ltd., Lahore (1970 PLD Lahore 184).

  18. 18.

    G. M. Pfaff A. G. v. Sartaj Engineering Co. Ltd., Lahore (1971 PLD Supreme Court 564).

  19. 19.

    Cosmopolitan Development Company Ltd. v. Alfred C. Toepfer International (1991 CLC Karachi1087), especially para.7.

  20. 20.

    Model Law, Article 7, Options 1 and 2.

  21. 21.

    New York Convention, Article II (1).

  22. 22.

    Petrocon (Pvt.) Ltd v. Hyderabad Development Authority, Hyderabad (1990 MLD Karachi 1675), para.(a).

  23. 23.

    Hitachi v. Rupali Polyester (1998 SCMR 1618), para.(a).

  24. 24.

    See paras.1 and 4 of the judgement.

  25. 25.

    AA, Section 2 (2).

  26. 26.

    Malik Ali Akbar v. Metro Goldwyn Mayer India Ltd. (1952 PLD Lahore 249).

  27. 27.

    M. A. Chowdhury v. Messrs Mitsui O. S. K. Lines Ltd. (1970 PLD Supreme Court 373).

  28. 28.

    See also Eckhardt & Com Marine GMBH, West Germany v. Mohammad Hanif (1986 PLD Karachi 138), para.(d). The same opinion was followed by SHC in the recent case Messrs Hasan Ali Rice Export Co. v. Flame Maritime Ltd. and another (2004 CLD Karachi 334).

  29. 29.

    Messrs Mercantile Fire and General Insurance Co. of Pakistan Ltd. Karachi v. Messrs Arcepey Shipping Company USA (1978 PLD Karachi 273).

  30. 30.

    Uzin Export & Import Enterprises for Foreign Trade v. M. Iftikhar & Co. Ltd. (1993 SCMR 866), p. 876.

  31. 31.

    Eckhardt & Com Marine GMBH, West Germany v. Mohammad Hanif (1993 PLD Supreme Court 42).

  32. 32.

    Eckhardt & Com Marine GMBH, West Germany v. Mohammad Hanif (1986 PLD Karachi 138).

  33. 33.

    Messrs Mercantile Fire & General Insurance Co. Pakistan Ltd. v. Messrs Arcepey Shipping Co. USA (1978 PLD Karachi 273).

  34. 34.

    Para.(c) of the judgement.

  35. 35.

    Para.(e) of the judgement.

  36. 36.

    Para.(g) of the judgement.

  37. 37.

    Para.(h) of the judgement.

  38. 38.

    Avari Hotels Ltd. v. Hilton International Company (1985 PLD Karachi 445).

  39. 39.

    Messrs Meincke Food Processing Equipment v. Messrs Danish Butter Cookies (1992 CLC Karachi 1132). However, the court in this case had already found that no arbitration agreement existed between parties and the court appears to have unnecessarily engaged in discussion on arbitration as forum non conveniens.

  40. 40.

    Uzin Export & Import Enterprises for Foreign Trade v. M. Iftikhar & Company Ltd. (1993 SCMR 866), para.(d), and Uzin Export Import Foreign Trade Co. v. Macdonald Layton & Co. Ltd., Karachi and another (1996 SCMR 690), para.4.

  41. 41.

    Uzin Export & Import Enterprises for Foreign Trade v. M. Iftikhar & Company Ltd. (1993 SCMR 866), para.(c) of the judgement.

  42. 42.

    Para.(d) of the judgement.

  43. 43.

    Eckhardt & Com Marine GMBH, West Germany v Mohammad Hanif (1993 PLD Supreme Court 42).

  44. 44.

    Para.(b) of the judgement.

  45. 45.

    Uzin Export Import Foreign Trade Co. v. Macdonald Layton & Co. Ltd., Karachi and another (1996 SCMR 690), para.4.

  46. 46.

    Shahid Jamil, Pakistan’s Implementation of the New York Convention, International Journal of Arbitration, Mediation and Dispute Management, Vol. 74, No. 2 (May 2008), p. 172.

  47. 47.

    Excelsior Cotton Co. v. Trading Corp. of Pakistan (2003 YLR Karachi 461).

  48. 48.

    Shahid Jamil, somewhat erroneously, concluded that the court “refused to enforce the foreign arbitral agreement as being too expensive and inconvenient for the Pakistani party”. See Shahid Jamil, Pakistan’s Implementation of the New York Convention, International Journal of Arbitration, Mediation and Dispute Management, Vol. 74, No. 2 (May 2008), p. 172.

  49. 49.

    See, for example, Gul Son Air Cargo Services (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Compagnie Internationale Air France (1997 CLC Karachi 1250), para.18; Excelsior Cotton Company v. Trading Corporation of Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. (2003 YLR Karachi 461), para.(a); Messrs Hasan Ali Rice Export Co. v. Flame Maritime Ltd. and another (2004 CLD Karachi 334), para.(c); Lithuanian Airlines v. Bhoja Airlines (2004 CLC Karachi 544).

  50. 50.

    Hitachi v. Rupali Polyester (1998 SCMR 1618), para.18.

  51. 51.

    Hashmi Can Company v. Hysong Corporation of Karachi (1999 PLD Karachi 25).

  52. 52.

    Mills Ltd. v Nichimen Corp. (2000 MLD Karachi 641).

  53. 53.

    Messrs Hasan Ali Rice Export Co. v. Flame Maritime Ltd. and another (2004 CLD Karachi 334), para.(c); Lithuanian Airlines v. Bhoja Airlines (2004 CLC Karachi 544).

  54. 54.

    See, China National Machinery Import and Export Corporation v. Tufail Chemical Industries Ltd. (2005 CLD Karachi 1577), where the court referred to the SCP’s decision in Akmedullah case reported as (1964 PLD Supreme Court 236).

  55. 55.

    Lithuanian Airlines v. Bhoja Airlines (2004 CLC 544), para.(b).

  56. 56.

    Wak Orient Power and Light Ltd. v. Westinghouse Electric Corp. (2002 SCMR 1954).

  57. 57.

    Manzoor Hussain and Others v. Wali Muhammad and another (1962 PLD (WP) Karachi 877). However, this case dealt with a domestic arbitration.

  58. 58.

    Manzoor Hussain and Others v. Wali Muhammad and another (1965 PLD Supreme Court 425).

  59. 59.

    Hub Power Co. v. Wapda (1999 CLC Karachi1320).

  60. 60.

    See the judgement pronounced by Justice Muhammad Bashir Jehangiri in Hub Power Co. v. Wapda (2000 PLD Supreme Court 841), para.33 onwards.

  61. 61.

    Para.33 of the judgement. See Sezai Turkes Feyzi Akkaya Construction Company, Lahore v. Crescent Services, Lahore and another (1997 SCMR 1928), p. 1933.

  62. 62.

    Hitachi v. Rupali Polyester (1998 SCMR 1618).

  63. 63.

    Port Qasim Authority v. Al Ghurair Ltd., Karachi (1997 PLD Karachi 636), pp. 643–644.

  64. 64.

    Lahore Stock Exchange Ltd. v. Fredrick, J. Whyte Group Pakistan and Others (1990 PLD Supreme Court 48).

  65. 65.

    Pakistan Burmah Shell Ltd. v. Tahir Ali (1983 CLC 2745), p. 2752.

  66. 66.

    Karachi Shipyard and Engineering Works Ltd. v. Messrs General Iron and Steel Works Ltd. (1971 PLD Karachi 501), pp. 503–504.

  67. 67.

    The judgement pronounced by Justice Muhammad Bashir Jehangiri in the Hub Power Co. v. Wapda (2000 PLD Supreme Court 841), para.34.

  68. 68.

    Para.(e) of conclusions.

  69. 69.

    Hitachi v. Rupali Polyester (1998 SCMR 1618), para.(j (viii)).

  70. 70.

    See for example Société Générale de Surveillance S.A. v. Pakistan (2002 CLD Lahore 790); Messrs Tradesmen International (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan (2005 MLD Karachi 541).

  71. 71.

    Société Générale de Surveillance S.A. v. Pakistan (2002 CLD Lahore 790), para.(j).

  72. 72.

    Société Générale de Surveillance S.A. v. Pakistan (2002 SCMR 1694), para.(h).

  73. 73.

    Messrs Tradesmen International (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan (2005 MLD Karachi 541), para.(c).

  74. 74.

    Hub Power Co. v. Wapda (1999 CLC Karachi 1320).

  75. 75.

    This is comparable with the situation where the dispute relates to domestic arbitration. In The China Harbour case, SHC, while dealing with a matter to be referred to domestic arbitration, observed that it was required to satisfy two conditions before referring a dispute to arbitration: 1) a genuine dispute existed between parties that could be referred to agreed arbitration; and, 2) the dispute fell within the purview of the arbitration agreement.

  76. 76.

    The court, somewhat surprisingly, compared the question of public policy with misdemeanour as provided by Section 19 of the Contract Act, which renders a contract voidable when consent is caused by coercion, fraud or misrepresentation.

  77. 77.

    See the minority view of the judgement pronounced by Justice Per M. Bashir Jehangiri in Hub Power Co. v. Wapda (2000 PLD Supreme Court 841), para.16.

  78. 78.

    SCP in Hub Power Co. v. Wapda (2000 PLD Supreme Court 841), paras.31–32 and 36.

  79. 79.

    See the majority decision in Hub Power Co. v. Wapda (2000 PLD Supreme Court 841), pronounced by Justice Sh. Riaz Ahmad.

  80. 80.

    The same was concluded by SHC in the Government of Sindh and others v. Tausif Ali Khan, where the dispute involved fraud and the court refused to refer the matter to domestic arbitration.

  81. 81.

    G. M. Pfaff A. G. v. Sartaj Engineeezing Co. Ltd., Lahore and 3 others (1970 PLD Lahore 184), para.28.

  82. 82.

    Pakistani law requires these conditions fulfilled in the plaintiff’s case for ordering injunctions: 1) prima facie case, 2) balance of convenience, and 3) irreparable loss. The court in this case refused injunction because one of these three essentials was non-existent.

  83. 83.

    Uzin Export & Import Enterprises for Foreign Trade v. M. Iftikhar & Company Ltd. (1993 SCMR 866), para.18.

  84. 84.

    Decision of SHC in Hub Power Co. v. Wapda (1999 CLC Karachi 1320).

  85. 85.

    Gul Son Air Cargo Services (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Compagnie Internationale Air France (1997 CLC Karachi 1250).

  86. 86.

    Société Générale de Surveillance S.A. v. Pakistan (2002 CLD Lahore 790).

  87. 87.

    Paras.4 and 5 of the judgement.

  88. 88.

    Société Générale de Surveillance S.A. v. Pakistan (2002 SCMR 1694).

  89. 89.

    Para.14 of the Supreme Court’s judgement.

  90. 90.

    Paras.16 and 17 of Supreme Court’s judgement.

  91. 91.

    See for example Hitachi v. Rupali Polyester (1998 SCMR 1618), para.4 and cases cited therein; Messrs Tradesmen International (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan (2005 MLD Karachi 541), para.(a).

  92. 92.

    Hassan Ali & Co. Cotton (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Poly Cotton S.A. (1996 PLD Karachi 416).

  93. 93.

    Messrs Arrow Trading Company v. Hyosung Corporation and Others (1997 MLD Karachi 55).

  94. 94.

    Alexander S. Tsavliris & Sons v. Manta Lines Inc. and Others (1991 MLD Karachi 1484).

  95. 95.

    CGM (Compagnie General Maritime) v. Hussain Akbar (2002 CLD Karachi 1528).

  96. 96.

    Para.(d).

  97. 97.

    Messrs Hasan Ali Rice Export Co. v. Flame Maritime Ltd. and another (2004 CLD Karachi 334), paras.(e) and (g).

  98. 98.

    Para.(g) (i).

  99. 99.

    Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines through Attorney v. Hassan Ali & Co. Cotton (Pvt.) Ltd. (2006 CLD Karachi 153), para.(d).

  100. 100.

    Messrs Jugotekstil Impex v. Messrs Shams Textile Mills Ltd. (1986 CLC Karachi 879).

  101. 101.

    Messrs Jugotekstil Impex v. Messrs Shams Textile Mills Ltd. (1990 MLD Karachi 857), para.17.

  102. 102.

    Ralli Brothers & Coney Ltd. v. Muhammad Amin Muhammad Bashir Ltd. (1987 CLC Karachi 83).

  103. 103.

    Paras.(b) and (c).

  104. 104.

    Para.(f).

  105. 105.

    Muhammad Wasi Saigal v. Shaikh Rashid Ahmad (1994 CLC Karachi 1406), para.(b).

  106. 106.

    Cosmopolitan Development Company Ltd. v. Alfred C. Toepfer International (1991 CLC Karachi 1087), especially para.7.

  107. 107.

    Abdul Sattar Mandokhal v. Port Qasim Authority (2001 YLR Karachi 758).

  108. 108.

    Haji Hashim Haji Ahmed & Bros. v. Trading Corporation of Pakistan (1977 PLD Karachi 180).

  109. 109.

    At paras.17 and 22.

  110. 110.

    Para.(e).

  111. 111.

    China International Water and Electric Corporation and another v. Pakistan Water And Power Development Authority and another (2001 YLR Karachi 2191).

  112. 112.

    Para.(a).

  113. 113.

    Meredith Jones & Co. Ltd. v. Quetta Textile Mills Ltd. (2002 CLD Karachi 1191), para.(c).

  114. 114.

    Meredith Jones & Co. Ltd. v. Quetta Textile Mills Ltd. (2002 CLD Karachi 1191), para.(d).

  115. 115.

    Ralli Brothers & Coney Ltd. v. Muhammad Amin Muhammad Bashir Ltd. (1987 CLC Karachi 83), para.(h).

  116. 116.

    Messrs Jugotekstil Impex v. Messrs Shams Textile Mills Ltd. (1990 MLD Karachi 857).

  117. 117.

    Messrs Yangtze (London) Ltd. v. Messrs Barlas Bros. (Karachi) (1961 PLD Supreme Court 573).

  118. 118.

    Hitachi v. Rupali Polyester (1998 SCMR 1618), para.(f). See also China National Machinery Import and Export Corporation v. Tufail Chemical Industries Ltd. (2005 CLD Karachi 1577).

  119. 119.

    Anees Jillani, Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards in Pakistan, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 37, No. 4 (October 1988), p. 929.

  120. 120.

    Cf. Hitachi v. Rupali Polyester (1998 SCMR 1618), para.42.

  121. 121.

    See Serajuddin and Co. v. Michael Golodetz (1960 AIR Calcutta 47), p. 56, where the court relied upon Oppenheim and Co. v. Hajee M. Haneef Saheb (1922 AIR Privy Council 120). Cf. Hitachi v. Rupali Polyester (1998 SCMR 1618), para.42.

  122. 122.

    Petrocon (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Hyderabad Development Authority, Hyderabad (1990 MLD Karachi 1675), para.(a).

  123. 123.

    See also Hub Power Co. v. Wapda (1999 CLC Karachi 1320), para.(k).

  124. 124.

    Hub Power Co. v. Wapda (1999 CLC Karachi 1320).

  125. 125.

    Para.(p).

  126. 126.

    See Hub Power Co. v. Wapda (2000 PLD Supreme Court 841).

  127. 127.

    Marines Limited v. Aegus Shipping Co. Ltd. (1987 CLC Karachi 1299), para.(b); Quinn Corporation and Others v. Cotton Export Corporation and Others (2004 CLD Karachi 1040).

  128. 128.

    Quinn Corporation and Others v. Cotton Export Corporation and Others (2004 CLD Karachi 1040).

  129. 129.

    Cosmopolitan Development Company Ltd. v. Alfred C. Toepfer International (1991 CLC Karachi 1087), para.7.

  130. 130.

    Petrocon (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Hyderabad Development Authority, Hyderabad (1990 MLD 1675), para.(e).

  131. 131.

    APC Section 7 is Annexed herewith as “Annex A”.

  132. 132.

    A. Meredith Jones & Co. through Attorney v. Usman Textile Mills Ltd. (2002 CLD Karachi 1121).

  133. 133.

    Para.(b).

  134. 134.

    Para.(c).

  135. 135.

    Para.(e).

  136. 136.

    Quinn Corporation and Others v. Cotton Export Corporation and Others (2004 CLD Karachi 1040), paras.(e) and (f); Cogetex S.A. v. Mayfair Spinning Mills (Public Ltd.) (2004 CLD Karachi 1023), paras.(f) and (g); Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines through Attorney v. Hassan Ali & Co. Cotton (Pvt.) Ltd. (2006 CLD 153).

  137. 137.

    Marines Limited v. Aegus Shipping Co. Ltd. (1987 CLC Karachi 1299), para.(b); Hassan Ali & Co. Cotton (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Poly Cotton, S.A. (1996 PLD Karachi 416).

  138. 138.

    Hassan Ali & Co. Cotton (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Poly Cotton, S.A. and Others (1996 CLC Karachi 1812).

  139. 139.

    Conticotton S.A. Co. v. Farooq Corporation and Others (1999 CLC Karachi 1018).

  140. 140.

    A. Merdith Janes Co. Ltd. v. Crescent Board Ltd. (1999 CLC Karachi 437).

  141. 141.

    Meredith Jones & Co. Ltd. v. Quetta Textile Mills Ltd. (2002 CLD Karachi 1191).

  142. 142.

    Para.(a).

  143. 143.

    Nan Fung Textiles Ltd. v. Nichimen & Co. (Pakistan) Ltd. (1999 YLR Karachi 2226), para.(a).

  144. 144.

    Messrs Jugotekstil Impex v. Messrs Shams Textile Mills Ltd. (1990 MLD 857 Karachi), para.(b).

  145. 145.

    Hitachi v. Rupali Polyester (1998 SCMR 1618), para.(i).

  146. 146.

    Hitachi v. Rupali Polyester (1998 SCMR 1618), paras.4 and 7, and specifically paras.8 and 16. China National Machinery Import and Export Corporation v. Tufail Chemical Industries Ltd. (2005 CLD Karachi 1577).

  147. 147.

    And in that case the arbitration procedures shall be governed by the law of the country or the forum where the arbitration has been agreed to be conducted by the parties. See Hitachi v. Rupali Polyester (1998 SCMR 1618), para.10. However, the following matters are covered by the proper law governing main contract, i.e. the law of Pakistan and within the jurisdiction of Pakistani courts: 1) validity of the arbitration agreement; 2) the question whether a dispute lies within the scope of the arbitration agreement; 3) validity of notice of arbitration; 4) constitution of Tribunal; 5) the question whether award lies within jurisdiction of the arbitrator; 6) formal validity of the award; 7) the question whether parties have been discharged from any obligation to arbitrate future disputes. See para.15. And once parties have availed jurisdiction of Pakistani courts regarding any of these matters, such jurisdiction becomes exclusive. See para.16.

  148. 148.

    President of Islamic Republic of Pakistan v. Syed Tasneem Hussain Naqvi and Others (2004 SCMR 590).

  149. 149.

    Messrs Yangtze (London) Ltd. v. Messrs Barlas Bros. (Karachi) (1961 PLD Supreme Court 573).

  150. 150.

    China National Machinery Import and Export Corporation v. Tufail Chemical Industries Ltd. (2005 CLD Karachi 1577).

  151. 151.

    Nan Fung Textiles Ltd. v. Sadiq Traders Ltd. (1982 PLD Karachi 619).

  152. 152.

    According to the description of instrument provided by the Schedule, an award means, “any decision in writing by an arbitrator or umpire, not being an award directing a partition, on a reference made otherwise than by an order of the Court in the course of a suit.”.

  153. 153.

    Messrs Jugotekstil Impex v. Messrs Shams Textile Mills Ltd. (1986 CLC Karachi 879).

  154. 154.

    Ralli Brothers & Coney Ltd. v. Muhammad Amin Muhammad Bashir Ltd. (1987 CLC Karachi 83), para.(a).

  155. 155.

    Messrs Jugotekstil Impex v. Messrs Shams Textile Mills Ltd. (1990 MLD Karachi 857).

  156. 156.

    Petrocon (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Hyderabad Development Authority, Hyderabad (1990 MLD Karachi 1675), para.(b).

  157. 157.

    Quinn Corporation and Others v. Cotton Export Corporation and Others (2004 CLD Karachi 1040), para.(d).

  158. 158.

    M/S. Rashid & Company v. Punjab Government and another (1995 CLC Lahore 1914).

  159. 159.

    Messrs James Construction Company (Pvt.) Ltd., through Executive Director v. Province of Punjab through Secretary (2002 PLD Supreme Court 310).

  160. 160.

    Para.19 of the judgement.

  161. 161.

    Stahel Hong Kong Ltd. v. General Impex Corporation (2005 MLD Karachi 1677).

  162. 162.

    See para.3 of the judgement; see also A. Meredith Jones & Co. through Attorney v. Usman Textile Mills Ltd. (2002 CLD Karachi 1121).

  163. 163.

    Petrocon (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Hyderabad Development Authority, Hyderabad (1990 MLD Karachi 1675), para.(c).

  164. 164.

    Cogetex S.A. v. Mayfair Spinning Mills (Public Ltd.) (2004 CLD Karachi 1023).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, University of Turku, 20014, Turku, Finland

    Ahmad Ali Ghouri

Authors
  1. Ahmad Ali Ghouri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ahmad Ali Ghouri .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Ghouri, A.A. (2013). Analysis of the AA-APC Regime. In: Law and Practice of Foreign Arbitration and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards in Pakistan. SpringerBriefs in Law. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32744-5_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation