1991 PLP 1484 (MLD)
ALEXANDER S. TSAVLIRIS & SONS — Appellants Versus MANTA LINES INC. and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1484 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ALEXANDER S. TSAVLIRIS & SONS — Appellants Versus MANTA LINES INC. and others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1484 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1484 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1484 (MLD) (ALEXANDER S. TSAVLIRIS & SONS — Appellants Versus MANTA LINES INC. and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 6
Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S. 3
Enforcement of foreign award as a rule of Court
Appellants prior to filing of Administration Suit for recovery of amount against vessel which was decreed and against which appeal was pending, had also proceeded with arbitration proceedings in respect of same subject-matter which resulted in an award
Said award had been filed by appellants in Court alongwith application for enforcing that award
High Court refused to enforce that award as appellants despite knowing that arbitration proceedings initiated by them for their claim were pending, had filed the suit and obtained decree from Court
Enforcement of award was thus rightly refused in view of principle that a party could not have two decrees for the same subject matter.
Judgment & Decree
AJMAL MIAN, CJ.
This appeal is directed against a judgment dated 4th July, 1988 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in J. Misc. No.38 of 1986 declining the present appellant's application under section 6 of the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act, 1937 for enforcing the award as a rule of the Court. The appellant being aggrieved by the above judgment has filed the present appeal.
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above appeal are that the present appellant filed Adm. Suit No. 316 of 1984 for the recovery of Rs.3,25,000 U.S. Dollar against the vessel and 25% of the value of goods on the vessel. The above suit was proceeded and was decreed for a sum of Rs.20 lacs on 14th July, 1988. Against the above judgment in suit, the appellant filed Adm. Appeal No.12 of 1988 on the ground that the learned Single Judge had improperly disallowed part of the suit claim of the appellant. The above appeal was admitted for regular hearing, which is pending for adjudication. It seems that the appellants also proceeded with some arbitration proceeding in respect of the same subject matter, which resulted into an award dated 22nd January, 1985 as per learned counsel for the appellant. The above award was filed in this Court alongwith the aforesaid application for enforcing the above award, which prayer has been declined by the learned Single Judge.
3. In support of the above appeal, Mr. SA. Samad Khan, learned counsel for the appellant, has vehemently contended that since the arbitration proceeding were pending prior to the filing of the suit by the appellant, the learned Single Judge, who was trying the suit, should have stayed the suit under section 34 of the Arbitration Act and since the suit was not stayed, the resulting decree does not affect the arbitration proceeding and the award made therein. It is a well-settled principle of law that a party cannot have two decrees for the same subject-matter. In the instant case, it was known to the appellant that there were arbitration proceedings initiated by them for their claim pending and in spite of that they filed the suit, obtained a decree from this Court.
4. In our view, the learned Single Judge in the present circumstances of the case was justified in refusing to enforce a foreign award as this could be a justifiable round under the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act, 1937.
5. The above appeal is misconceived, and it is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./A-1049/K Appeal dismissed.