ZHONGZING TELECOM PAKISTAN (PVT.) LIMITED vs THE IMPERIAL ELECTRIC COMPANY (PVT

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

ZHONGZING TELECOM PAKISTAN (PVT.) LIMITED VS THE IMPERIAL ELECTRIC COMPANY (PVT.) LIMITED. S. 14---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), First Sched., Arts. 178 & 181---Arbitral award---Filing before the court---Limitation---Filing of award by arbitrator himself---Effect---Objection that filing was barred by limitation---Legality---Distinction from party-initiated filing---Scope---Briefly, the petitioner and the respondent entered into a contract for supply and installation of DG sets at PTCL sites---Contract contained an arbitration clause nominating the CEO of PTCL as arbitrator---An arbitral award was made in favor of the respondent and was initially filed before the civil court but was returned for want of pecuniary jurisdiction, after which the arbitrator himself filed the award before the district court---Petitioner objected that the filing was barred by limitation under Article 178 of the Limitation Act, 1908---Objection was accepted by the district court but set aside by the High Court, leading to the present petition before the Supreme Court requiring determination of the issue as to “whether Article 178 of the Limitation Act, 1908, applied where the award was filed by the arbitrator himself without a party applying to the court, or whether such filing was governed by the residuary Article 181 of the Limitation Act, 1908?”---Held: Article 178 of the Act of 1908 being the primary provision regulated the period within which proceedings could be instituted for making an Award Rule of the Court---It prescribed a period of ninety days, running from the date on which notice of the making of the Award was served---Where a party did not first request the arbitrator or umpire to file the Award in Court, it could directly approach the Court and seek an order directing the Arbitrator or umpire to file the Award or a signed copy thereof---An application of this nature fell within the ambit of Article 178 of the Act of 1908, provided that notice of the Award had been served in terms of Section 14(1) of the Act of 1940---A different legal regime applied where no notice of the Award had been served and the party merely requested the Arbitrator, under Section 14(2) of the Act of 1940, to file the Award in Court---In such a situation, the residuary Article 181 of the Act of 1908 applied---Article 181 prescribed a period of three years commencing from the date when the right to apply accrued---In matters of arbitration, that right accrued when the Award is made and the party obtained knowledge of it---Article 178 of the Act of 1908 has no application where the Award was filed by the Arbitrator himself because he sought no relief for his own benefit---Service of notice upon the party is, therefore, a sine qua non for the applicability of Article 178 of the Act of 1908, and in the absence of such notice, the provision could not be invoked---In the present case, the record clearly demonstrated that the respondent did not, at any material stage, file an application under Section 14(2) of the Act of 1940 seeking a direction from the Court requiring the Arbitrator to file the Award---Instead, it was the Arbitrator who filed the Award before the District Court, without any judicial direction compelling him to do so---In such circumstances, the essential preconditions for the applicability of Article 178 of the Act of 1908 were not met, and the provision was erroneously invoked---High Court rightly held that Article 178 of the Act of 1908 applied only where a party to the arbitration proceedings applied to the Court for filing of the Award---It did not apply to an application made by the party to the Arbitrator for filing the Award, which would instead have been governed by Article 181 of the Act of 1908---Leave was declined and present petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

ZHONGZING TELECOM PAKISTAN (PVT.) LIMITED vs THE IMPERIAL ELECTRIC COMPANY (PVT — 2026 CLD 642 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 CLD