|
Navigating Arbitration: Insights from Pakistan's Judicial Approach
Introduction:
As Pakistan moves towards a new arbitration law, significant developments continue under the Arbitration Act, of 1940 (“the Act”). A key provision, Section 34, allows for the stay of court proceedings when an arbitration agreement exists between parties. However, interpretations of what constitutes “taking any other steps in the proceedings” have varied across superior courts, creating ambiguity for subordinate authorities. The Lahore High Court's judgment in the Waqas Yaqub case sheds light on this issue, providing clearer guidelines.
Key Aspects of Section 34:
Section 34 of the Act can be invoked if the applicant has not filed a written statement or taken any steps in the proceedings. The phrase “before filing a written statement” is straightforward, but the interpretation of “taking any other steps in the proceedings” has been inconsistent. The Lahore High Court, through Justice Jawad Hassan, clarified this in the Waqas Yaqub case by distinguishing between situations where a trial court should refer a matter to arbitration versus assuming jurisdiction.
Case Overview: Waqas Yaqub
In the Waqas Yaqub case, the parties involved had a partnership deed with an arbitration clause. A dispute led to a suit filed in the Civil Court at Rawalpindi. The defendant, after appearing and submitting a memo of appearance, sought adjournments for filing a written statement. Subsequently, the defendant applied Section 34 to stay proceedings in favour of arbitration, which was dismissed on the grounds that steps had already been taken in the proceedings. The High Court faced the challenge of deciding if the defendant's delays constituted steps that forfeited the right to arbitration.
High Court Findings:
The High Court examined the language of Section 34, emphasizing the need for an “unequivocal intention” to proceed with the suit to forfeit arbitration rights. Justice Hassan established a test to determine if a party had taken steps in the proceedings:
The High Court’s pro-arbitration stance aligns with broader Alternative Dispute Resolution policies in Pakistan, emphasizing minimal court intervention and encouraging arbitration.
Pro-Arbitration Approach:
The judgment underscores the pro-arbitration approach prevalent in Pakistani legal philosophy, supported by statutory provisions in the Act. Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, in NHA v. Sambu Construction, reiterated that court jurisdiction under the Act is supervisory, limiting interference to breaches of duty or irregularities inconsistent with equity and good conscience.
Historical Court Interference:
Despite the pro-arbitration intent of the Act, past judgments often allowed excessive court intervention, necessitating new arbitration legislation. However, the recent judicial trend, as seen in the Waqas Yaqub case, reflects a shift towards honouring the Act’s original pro-arbitration spirit.
Conclusion:
Critics argue the Act is outdated and permits extensive court intervention. While the need for modern legislation is justified, the claim of excessive court intervention is a myth debunked by recent judgments. The essence of the law lies in its spirit, not just its letter. Courts must maintain harmony with the law’s spirit, driving parties towards arbitration per their agreements. This approach should safeguard the new legislation from undesirable interpretations, ensuring its effective implementation.
Tags : #ArbitrationLaw #PakistaniLegalSystem #Section34 #ArbitrationAct1940 #CourtIntervention #AlternativeDisputeResolution #ADR #WaqasYaqubCase #LahoreHighCourt #ProArbitration
Copyright A unit of White Code Global Consulting Pvt Ltd. All rights reserved. Unless otherwise indicated, all materials on these pages are copyrighted by A unit of White Code Global Consulting Pvt Ltd. All rights reserved. No part of these pages, either text or image may be used for any purpose. By continuing past this page, you agree to our Terms of Service, Cookie Policy, Privacy Policy and Content Policies.
