EFU GENERAL INSURANCE LTD. vs SECURE LOGISTIC GROUP, ISLAMABAD S — 2026 CLD 73 ISLAMABAD

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

EFU GENERAL INSURANCE LTD. VS SECURE LOGISTIC GROUP, ISLAMABAD S.28---Enlargement of time for rendering an award---Application under S. 28 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, filing of---Locus standi---Whether such application could be maintained only by the arbitrator or also by any of the parties to the arbitration agreement---Powers and discretion of court to enlarge time for making an award---Scope---The petitioner's application under S. 28 of Arbitration Act, 1940 (the Act) was dismissed by the lower court on the ground that it was only the arbitrator who could seek such extension, giving rise to the present petition---Core legal question for determination before the High Court was as to "Whether under S. 28 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, application for enlargement of time for making an arbitral award could only be filed by the arbitrator, or whether any party to the arbitration agreement also had the legal standing (locus standi) to move the court for such extension" ?---Held: plain language of S. 28 of the Act made it evident that there was no explicit or implicit requirement that an application for enlargement of time be filed by an arbitrator---The language of S. 28(1) of the Act did not specify as to who would have the standing to move the court for enlargement of time for making an award---In terms of S. 28 of the Act, any party to the arbitration agreement had legal standing to move the court for enlargement of time---Court had wide discretion and jurisdiction to enlarge the time limit for making an award especially where the request for extension of time was not a joint request made by both the parties to the arbitration agreement---Such extension could be sought and granted on more than one occasion---However, discretion vested in the court to grant extension of time ought not to be exercised in favor of a person who had adopted dilatory tactics---It was not for the High Court to determine whether or not extension was to be granted in the present matter as the said question was to be determined in the first instance by the civil court---Impugned order was not sustainable and was therefore set aside---Application filed by the petitioner was to be deemed pending before the civil court---Present civil revision petition was allowed, in circumstances.

EFU GENERAL INSURANCE LTD. vs SECURE LOGISTIC GROUP, ISLAMABAD S — 2026 CLD 73 ISLAMABAD

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 CLD