1986 PLP 1863 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD ANWAR — Petitioner Versus Messrs ASSOCIATED TRADING CO. and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1986 PLP 1863 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Haleem, C.J., S.A. Nusrat and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ANWAR — Petitioner Versus Messrs ASSOCIATED TRADING CO. and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 1863 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 1863 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Haleem, C.J., S.A. Nusrat and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 1863 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ANWAR — Petitioner Versus Messrs ASSOCIATED TRADING CO. and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 11th August, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Sind at Karachi, dated 5-9-1984 passed in High Court Appeal No. 74 of 1984).
Art. 185(3)--Arbitration Act (X of 1940), S. 20--Petitioner's application for issuance of direction to respondent to file arbitration agreement dismissed by High Court holding that there was no concluded agreement between parties much less any arbitration agreement--Order impugned--Petitioner failing to satisfy Court that there existed any contract incorporating arbitration agreement--Petition for leave to appeal dismissed. Petitioner in person.
Judgment & Decree
S.A. NUSRAT, J.‑‑The petitioner moved the Sind High Court under section 20 of the Arbitration Act and prayed that the respondents be directed to file the arbitration agreement in Court and thereafter the dispute between the parties be referred to arbitration in accordance with the arbitration agreement. The application was resisted and the respondent's denied the existence of any arbitration agreement. A learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the application by order, dated 5‑9‑1984 holding that there was no concluded agreement between the parties much less any arbitration agreement. A certificate was produced on behalf of the respondents from the Peoples Republic of China confirming that the alleged contract, dated 5‑7‑1983 was not approved/confirmed by the Chinese Government. The petitioner filed appeal against t1e said order which was dismissed by a learned Division Bench of the High Court on 7‑11‑1984. 2. We heard the petitioner who appeared in person. He was unable to satisfy us that there existed any contract incorporating any arbitration agreement as found by the learned High Court. No question of law arises in the petition, which is dismissed accordingly. M.I. Petition dismissed.