Dispute resolution

2021 PLD 378 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Ss. 3, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 & 21Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority Ordinance (XVII of 2002), Ss.6, 11 & 12

Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority Complaint Resolution Procedure (for Natural Gas, LPG, CNG and Refined Oil Products) Regulations, 2003, Regln.3

Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199

Constitutional petition

Dispute resolution

Forum

Electing of forum

Effect

Petitioner was natural gas distribution company and aggrieved of cognizance taken by Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority in the matter of gas theft and allied issues

Validity

Any offence relating to tempering under Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act, 2016 is exclusively triable by gas utility Court and Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority has no jurisdiction in such regard

Dispute regarding billing and metering, which is also subject matter of Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002 under Regln. 3 of Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority Complaint Resolution Procedure (for Natural Gas, LPG, CNG and refined oil products) Regulations 2003, is also available in terms of S.6(1) of Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act, 2016

If a consumer approaches Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority at first instance in terms of S.11 of Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority Act, 2002 read with Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority Complaint Resolution Procedure (for Natural Gas, LPG, CNG and refined oil products) Regulations 2003, any final decision passed in appeal by Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority under S.12 of Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority Act, 2002, can be further agitated by consumer or gas utility company before Gas Utility Court in terms of section 6 of Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act, 2016 as its independent remedy

Findings of Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority are considered as a decision as to whether same was passed in accordance with law or otherwise and findings of Gas Utility Court in shape of decree would be considered as a declaration for upholding decision of Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority or otherwise

Final verdict of Gas Utility Court in such regard under Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act, 2016 prevailed

Where a consumer or licensee company had approached Gas Utility Court under Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act, 2016 at first instance before raising of dispute before Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority, the jurisdiction of Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority could not be exercised by virtue of doctrine of election of remedies, though Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority had an authority to consider such aspect independently as a regulator

Final verdict of Gas Utility Court prevailed in such regard and parallel proceedings were not permissible over and above the proceedings of Gas Utility Court

Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

2019 CLC 887 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Forum selection clausesDispute resolutionScope

Forum selection clauses may fall in different categories, depending on intention of parties, as expressed in language of clause

Broadly, it is of two types, i.e., 'exclusive' or 'non-exclusive'

Former requires that disputes arising under contract, or in connection therewith, may be taken exclusively to court specified in clause, while that is not the case with latter

Clauses drafted in language which clearly and unambiguously shows that parties had intended to give exclusive jurisdiction to a particular court are also termed as mandatory clauses

If language is not clear and it cannot be unambiguously determined that intent was to give exclusivity, then such non-exclusive clause is also termed as 'permissive'.

2016 PLD 85 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 17 & 22Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199Constitutional petition-Sale of sugarcaneDispute resolutionProcedure

On application made by sugarcane owners, Sessions Judge in his capacity as District Chairman of Human Rights, directed police to register case against petitioners-Validity

None else except Cane Commissioner was competent to adjudicate upon claim of sugarcane owners

Punjab Sugar Factories Control Act, 1950, was a special enactment legislated for resolution of such disputes and special law had overriding effect over general law

Sugarcane owners instead of following procedure laid down in special enactment chose wrong forum for redressal of their grievance and Sessions Judge without -taking into consideration the ouster clause provided in S.22(1) of Punjab Sugar Factories Control Act, 1950, passed order in question

High Court, in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction, set aside the order passed y Sessions Judge

Petition was allowed in circumstances.

2015 YLR 1027 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

O.XXIII, R.3Arbitration Act (X of 1940), S. 20ArbitrationDispute resolutionRole of CourtCompromise between parties

During pendency of proceedings under S. 20 of Arbitration Act, 1940, parties entered in compromise and sought disposal of suit under O.XXIII, R.3, C.P.C.

Validity

Court was only gateway to adjudication of dispute between parties and not adjudicator in its own right

Present was not a regular suit under common law and dispute resolution was not possible by Court of law under S.20 of Arbitration Act, 1940

Court was not empowered to examine and even comment on "dispute/issues" between parties, lest it could prejudice case of either party

Provisions of O. XXIII, R.3, C.P.C. were not applicable to arbitration suit under S. 20 of Arbitration Act, 1940

Court appointed sole arbitrator for resolution of dispute between parties in terms of arbitration agreement

Suit was disposed of accordingly.

2014 CLD 773 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 20Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXIII, R.3ArbitrationDispute resolutionRole of courtCompromise between parties

During pendency of proceedings under S.20 of Arbitration Act, 1940, parties entered in compromise and sought disposal of suit under O. XXIII, R. 3, C.P.C.

Validity

Court was only gateway to adjudication of dispute between parties and not adjudicator in its own right

Present was not a regular suit under common law and dispute resolution was not possible by court of law under S.20 of Arbitration Act, 1940

Court was not empowered to examine and even comment on "dispute/issues" between parties, lest it could prejudice case of either party

Provisions of O.XXII, R. 3, C.P.C. were not applicable to arbitration suit under S.20 of Arbitration Act, 1940

Court appointed sole arbitrator for resolution of dispute between parties in terms of arbitration agreement

Suit was disposed of accordingly.