CARGILL BV vs KHALID JAVAID AND BROTHERS Ss — 2026 PLD 130 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

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

CARGILL BV VS KHALID JAVAID AND BROTHERS Ss.6 & 7---arbitration act, 1996 (United Kingdom), Ss.30, 32 & 70---Foreign arbitral awards---Recognition and enforcement---arbitration governed by English law---awards passed by Refined Sugar association (London)---Jurisdiction and competency of Refined Sugar association to act as arbitral forum, challenge to---Scope---Facts: The applicant filed two applications before the High Court, seeking recognition, enforcement, and decree of two foreign arbitral awards passed by the Refined Sugar association of London (RSa), under S.6 of the Recognition and Enforcement (arbitration agreements and Foreign arbitral awards) act, 2011---Parties had entered into respective contracts dated 13.04.2006 which expressly incorporated RSa terms/rules and provided for arbitration under English law, disputes thereafter arose and were referred to RSa arbitration resulting in the said awards, and the respondents' objection raised before the Court was that RSa was not competent to act as arbitrator (with a further challenge touching the award on merits)---Issue: Whether, in view of the arbitration clause/contractual incorporation of RSa rules and the limited grounds available under the 2011 act read with article V of the New York Convention, the foreign arbitral awards were liable to be recognized, made rule of Court, and enforced as decrees in Pakistan, or refused on any permissible ground (including alleged lack of arbitral jurisdiction/competence)?"---Held: admittedly, the agreements were subject to the RSa Rules and Rule 26thereof specified that the arbitration was to be conducted by RSa, however, notwithstanding the same and without the same ever having been controverted by the respondents, it was patently clear that the objection as to arbitrator had been escalated by the respondents and the same had been duly adjudicated per S.30 of the arbitration act, 1996 (UK)---Tribunal was empowered to rule upon its jurisdiction, subject to the right of appeal---The arbitration act, 1996 (UK) provided for exercise of the right of appeal; as seen in inter alia in Ss. 32 & 70 thereof, however, admittedly, no challenge to the tribunal's ruling on its jurisdiction (and / or merit) was preferred by any respondent within the pale of limitation and / or at any time thereafter, therefore, High Court found the respondents' objection to be dissonant with the law---Respondents had not even attempted to displace and / or distinguish the findings in favor of jurisdiction rendered by the tribunal---The Convention, implemented in Pakistan by the act, contained no ground as to the invalidity of a foreign award or its being against the law of the contracting states, to refuse its recognition and enforcement and thus left no room for the courts of a contracting state to enter into the exercise of examining the merits of a foreign award on the points of facts or law---No case arose to afford any actionable credence to the assertions escalated on behalf of the respondents in such regard---No infirmity with the agreements and / or the awards could be identified, within the mandate of article V of the Convention---The respective foreign arbitral awards were recognized as binding and enforceable against the respective respondents, hence made rule of Court---applications filed per Section 6 of the act, 2011 were allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2026 PLD 130 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case CARGILL BV VS KHALID JAVAID AND BROTHERS Ss.6 & 7---Foreign arbitral awards---Recognition and enforcement---Duty of courts---Pro-enforcement regime viz. foreign arbitral awards---Scope---The law requires the court to recognize and enforce an award in the same manner as a judgment or order of a court in Pakistan, unless precluded per S.7 of the Act, 2011---The recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award shall not be refused except in accordance with Article V of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 1958 ('the New York Convention')---Court is required to support not supplant the arbitral process and its discretion is precluded to interfere in the merits of a case on points off act or law---Court should circumscribe opposition within the remit of Article V of the New York Convention, while emphasizing that the stipulations may be read as permissive and not mandatory.

CARGILL BV vs KHALID JAVAID AND BROTHERS Ss — 2026 PLD 130 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 PLD