2012 PLP 962 (SCMR)
NATIONAL GASES LTD. and another — Petitioners Versus BOC PAKISTAN LTD. — Respondent
| Citation | 2012 PLP 962 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Gulzar Ahmed and Muhammad Athar Saeed, JJ |
| Parties | NATIONAL GASES LTD. and another — Petitioners Versus BOC PAKISTAN LTD. — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Arbitration Act (X of 1940) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2012 PLP 962 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Arbitration Act (X of 1940) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2012 PLP 962 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Gulzar Ahmed and Muhammad Athar Saeed, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2012 PLP 962 (SCMR) (NATIONAL GASES LTD. and another — Petitioners Versus BOC PAKISTAN LTD. — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Kadir Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and A. Aziz Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 20
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)
Supplier (respondent) entered into agreement with the appellants (petitioners) to supply the same with its product along with some equipment
Said agreement provided that equipment supplied would remain property of supplier at all times; that agreement would be terminated in case appellants failed to make payment when due or where a material breach committed by appellants was not rectified within thirty days of supplier's written notice; that upon termination of agreement supplier would be entitled to recover possession of its equipment, and that the dispute will be resolved through arbitration in accordance with the Arbitration Act, 1940
Appellants failed to make payment of some supplies and supplier filed applications before the High Court under S.20 of Arbitration Act, 1940, along with interim applications for return of equipment supplied to the parties
Interim applications for return of equipment were allowed by the High Court and appeal filed thereagainst by the appellants were dismissed
Contention of appellants was that application under S.20 of Arbitration Act, 1940, was not maintainable, therefore any interim order could not be justifiably passed, and that the agreements with the supplier were for ten (10) years, therefore, same could not have been terminated by the supplier
Appellants had admitted that application under S.20 of Arbitration Act, 1940, was pending in the High Court
Question as to whether the agreement could have been terminated or not concerned merits of the case, and in the present petition Supreme Court was only concerned with the recovery of the equipment by the supplier
Supplier was entitled to recover the equipment on termination of the agreement and it was an admitted fact that agreement was terminated by the supplier
No illegality or perversity was found in the impugned order nor same called for any interference
Supreme Court dismissed petitions for leave to appeal, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
GULZAR AHMED J.
By these petitions, petitioners have challenged the common order dated 19-1-2012 by which two High Court Appeals respectively filed by the petitioners were dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioners was heard at length.
2. It appears that petitioners and respondent had entered into agreements where the respondent had agreed to supply to the petitioners their product. Under the said agreements respondent has provided its own equipments for use by the petitioners with specific stipulation that such equipments shall remain the property of respondent at all times. The agreements provided for their termination, inter alia, if the petitioner fails to make any payment when due or commits any material breach of any of the provision of the agreements and fails to rectify the breach within thirty days of respondent written notice. The agreements further provided that on its termination respondent will be entitled to recover the possession of its equipments and that the dispute will be resolved through arbitration in accordance with Arbitration Act, 1940.
3. It appears that petitioners, failed to make payment of supplies made by the respondent. The respondent gave notice of thirty days which too was not complied with, upon which agreements were terminated. Applications under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 were filed by the respondent against the petitioners in the High Court. In the said application the respondent filed applications for return of its equipments installed at the petitioners' premises. Such applications were allowed by the learned Single Judge and by the impugned order such has been maintained by learned Division Bench of High Court.
4. Mr. Abdul Kadir Khan learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the very application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act being not maintainable, no interim order could justifiably be passed by the Court and in any case the contract being for a period of ten years, the same could not have been terminated by the respondent.
5. We are not impressed by such arguments of the learned counsel for that on counsel's own admission, application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act is still pending in the High Court and whether the contract could have been terminated or not such aspect has to do with the merits of the case. We are concerned here only with regard to the recovery of the equipments by the respondent which on termination of the agreements, the respondent apparently is entitled to recover as it was admitted before us that the agreements were terminated by the respondent.
6. We do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order nor the same in any manner call for interference by us. These petitions for leave to appeal have no merits. The same are therefore dismissed. M.W.A./N-5/SC Petitions dismissed.