2007L1301 (PLP)
PROVINCE OF PUNJAB — Appellant Versus Mian FAKHAR AND COMPANY — Respondent
| Citation | 2007L1301 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | . Mian Saqib Nisar, J |
| Parties | PROVINCE OF PUNJAB — Appellant Versus Mian FAKHAR AND COMPANY — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007L1301 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007L1301 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: . Mian Saqib Nisar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007L1301 (PLP) (PROVINCE OF PUNJAB — Appellant Versus Mian FAKHAR AND COMPANY — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Riaz Karim Qureshi for Respondent No.1.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.
The present appeal as also F.A.O. No.46 of 2006, are' being disposed of together, as both involve common questions of law and facts.
2. Along with its application for filing of the arbitration agreement and its reference to the arbitration, respondent No.l, had also moved another application under section 41 read with Schedule 2 of the' Arbitration Act, 1940 seeking restraint against the, appellants, from the encashment of the security deposits; in reply to the said application, the appellants stated that they do not intend to encash the security deposits, rather it is mentioned that "it is not the encashment of security but simple transfer of amount from Allied Bank of Pakistan to Provincial Treasury/State Bank, which shall in no case affect the "Status" of security deposited. " The learned Trial Court, has granted the injunction to the respondents through the, impugned order in the following terms:
"The application of Section 41 of the Arbitration Act, is hereby accepted and respondents. are restrained to encash the security deposits till 'the final decision of the main Arbitration application." 2-A. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that it is merely a transfer of the amount, from -one account. to another and there is no element of encashment.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and find that in the garb of the transfer, it is the realization of the security deposits, which is objected to. This obviously during the pendency of the application, has been considered inappropriate by the learned Trial Court and I do no find .any error in the said order. However, it may be held that any observation made by the learned Trial Court in its order, shall not cause any prejudice to the. case of either of the parties at the trial. These appeals, however, .have no merits and the same are hereby dismissed. F.A.O. dismissed. B.H.T./P-22/L Appeal dismissed.