MUHAMMAD ANWAR vs Messrs ASSOCIATED TRADING CO. And Other
This civil petition arose from an application filed by the petitioner under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, seeking a direction to the respondents to file an arbitration agreement in court and refer their dispute to arbitration. The respondents contested the application, denying the existence of any arbitration agreement. A Single Judge of the Sindh High Court dismissed the application on finding that no concluded agreement or arbitration agreement existed between the parties, supported by a certificate confirming the alleged contract was not approved or confirmed by the foreign government involved. A Division Bench of the High Court subsequently dismissed the petitioner's appeal. The Supreme Court of Pakistan affirmed the concurrent findings of the High Court, observing that the petitioner failed to demonstrate the existence of any contract containing an arbitration agreement. Finding no question of law arising for consideration, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition.
- Can an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act 1940 be allowed when the existence of a concluded contract containing an arbitration agreement is not established?
- Whether an unapproved or unconfirmed contract can constitute a valid arbitration agreement for reference to arbitration under the Arbitration Act 1940?
- Does a petition for leave to appeal lie before the Supreme Court when concurrent findings establish the absence of an arbitration agreement and raise no question of law?
- Section 20, Arbitration Act 1940
ORDER
S.A. NUSRAT, J.--The petitioner moved the Sind High Court under section 20 of the Arbitration Act and prayed that the respondents be directed to file the arbitration agreement in Court and thereafter the dispute between the parties be referred to arbitration in accordance with the arbitration agreement. The application was resisted and the respondent's denied the existence of any arbitration agreement. A learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the application by order, dated 5-9-1984 holding that there was no concluded agreement between the parties much less any arbitration agreement. A certificate was produced on behalf of the respondents from the Peoples Republic of China confirming that the alleged contract, dated 5-7-1983 was not approved/confirmed by the Chinese Government. The petitioner filed appeal against t1e said order which was dismissed by a learned Division Bench of the High Court on 7-11-1984.
2. We heard the petitioner who appeared in person. He was unable to satisfy us that there existed any contract incorporating any arbitration agreement as found by the learned High Court. No question of law arises in the petition, which is dismissed accordingly.