BLITZ ADVERTISING (PVT.) LTD. vs CIVIL JUDGE LAHORE S — 2025 CLD 1154 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

BLITZ ADVERTISING (PVT.) LTD. VS CIVIL JUDGE LAHORE S.2(e)---arbitration act (X of 1940), Ss. 14 & 17---Foreign arbitral award---Scope---application to make the award rule of court---Civil Court in Pakistan, jurisdiction of---Constitutional petition was filed to challenge the order passed by Civil Court dismissing an application filed by the petitioner by which dismissal of the main application (filed by respondent to make the award rule of court) was sought---Contention of the petitioner was that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction as it was a foreign arbitral award within the meaning of the Recognition and Enforcement (arbitration agreements and Foreign arbitral awards) act, 2011 ('the act 2011'), and was to be conducted under the London Court of International arbitration (LCIa) arbitration Rules, 2014 ('the Rules 2014')---Validity---Record revealed that an arbitration took place between the petitioner and respondent by an arbitration Tribunal set up through a letter dated 06.08.2020---The award was announced on 16.12.2021 by sole arbitrator appointed by the parties---The sole arbitrator was appointed by London Court of International arbitration (LCIa) through an email dated 06.08.2020---apart from that it was clearly mentioned in that email that the seat of arbitration shall be Lahore, Pakistan; the language of arbitration proceedings shall be English, and the law of arbitration and the arbitration agreement shall law of Pakistan---Further, there was no contention that the award so rendered was at Lahore which fact was mentioned on the first page of the copy of award which had been attached with present petition---The term 'foreign arbitral award' as defined in the act, 2011 connotes that a foreign arbitral award shall mean a foreign arbitral award made in a Contracting State and such other State notified by the Federal Government in the Official Gazette---In the present case, the arbitral award was made at Lahore and so could not be considered as a foreign arbitral award made in a Contracting State---Otherwise, the term 'foreign arbitral award' would clearly mean taken literally that the arbitral award had been made in a foreign country though that country was a Contracting State---It did not matter whether the Rules, 2014 were applicable and in terms of which the sole arbitrator was appointed---What was of crucial significance was the fact that the award should be made in a Contracting State which would mean a State which was signatory to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign arbitral awards, 1958 (the New York Convention)---Since the award had been made at Lahore and the entire proceedings were also conducted at Lahore, there was no warrant for this/High Court to hold that the award in question was a foreign arbitral award which could only be enforced under the provisions of the act 2011---additionally, both the parties were Pakistani entities and there was no warrant to hold that they intended the ensuing award to be treated as foreign arbitral award within the meaning of the act 2011---No illegality in the impugned orders have been noticed---Constitutional petition was dismissed.

BLITZ ADVERTISING (PVT.) LTD. vs CIVIL JUDGE LAHORE S — 2025 CLD 1154 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 CLD