TAIGA APPAREL (PVT.) LTD. vs INTERNATIONAL FABRICATION COMPANY Procedure

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

TAIGA APPAREL (PVT.) LTD. VS INTERNATIONAL FABRICATION COMPANY Procedure---Object, purpose and scope---Arbitration is fundamentally a contractual arrangement and the parties must be held to their bargain---Parties cannot be allowed to circumvent procedure for arbitration provided in arbitration clause---Procedure for appointment of arbitrator, as provided in arbitration agreement, must be given effect. Citation Name: 2025 CLD 954 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case TAIGA APPAREL (PVT.) LTD. VS INTERNATIONAL FABRICATION COMPANY Ss. 8, 9 & 20---arbitration---Procedure to be followed---Two arbitration agreements---Respondent invoked arbitration clause before Trial Court and sought appointment of arbitrator; the application was dismissed for parties to first proceed as per agreement---Lower appellate Court set aside order of Trial Court and directed appointment of arbitrator---Validity---Both the agreements between parties required two arbitrators, followed by an umpire if needed---Correct legal provision to invoke was S. 9 and not S. 8 of arbitration act, 1940---Lower appellate Court directed Trial Court to appoint arbitrator without first determining whether two steps procedures envisaged under arbitration clauses agreed between parties had been exhausted and it also failed to address issue of whether application under Ss. 8 and 20 of arbitration act 1940 was maintainable for two separate agreements, which was erroneous, making its decision legally unsustainable---application of respondent under Ss. 8 and 20 of arbitration act, 1940 was not maintainable as it covered two separate agreements, and arbitration mechanism in both the agreements was not exhausted by respondent, rendering the application premature---High Court set aside judgment passed by Lower appellate Court as disputes between the parties fell under S. 9, rather than S. 8 of arbitration act, 1940 and the parties were at liberty to invoke arbitration clauses in letter and spirit---Revision was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2025 CLD 954 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case TAIGA APPAREL (PVT.) LTD. VS INTERNATIONAL FABRICATION COMPANY S. 8(1) & (2)---arbitrator, appointment of---Procedure---Provision of S. 8(1) of arbitration act, 1940 empowers a party to serve a notice on other party to concur in appointment of arbitrator etc., where arbitration agreement provides reference to one or more arbitrators appointed by consent of parties and parties do not, after differences have arisen, concur in appointment or appointments---If appointment is not made within fifteen clear days after service of such notice, then under S. 8(2) of arbitration act, 1940 Court may, on application of the party which had given notice and after giving the other parties an opportunity of being heard, appoint arbitrator or arbitrators or umpire, as the case may be.

TAIGA APPAREL (PVT.) LTD. vs INTERNATIONAL FABRICATION COMPANY Procedure — 2025 CLD 954 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 CLD