TASCO vs FRANZEN LANDBOUW C — 2026 PLD 96 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.

TASCO VS FRANZEN LANDBOUW C.V. art. 175(2)---Recognition and Enforcement (arbitration agreements and Foreign arbitral awards) act (XVII of 2011), Ss. 6 & 7---Foreign arbitral awards---Recognition and enforcement---Inherent jurisdiction of courts---Conferment of jurisdiction---Essence and scope---Jurisdiction is not an abstract concept and it is imperative for it to be determined / exercised in accordance with the law---article 175(2) of the Constitution specifies that no court shall have any jurisdiction save as that conferred by law---Power to confer jurisdiction is a legislative function and in the absence of exercise thereof no court has any inherent or plenary jurisdiction---The rendering of orders / judgments in apparent indifference to jurisdiction has been deprecated---Such apathy undermines the credibility of the entire judicial system and renders any inconsistent edicts without jurisdiction and unconstitutional. Citation Name: 2026 PLD 96 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case TASCO VS FRANZEN LANDBOUW C.V. Ss.6 & 7---Foreign arbitral awards---Recognition and enforcement---Duty of courts---Pro-enforcement regime viz. foreign arbitral awards---Scope---The Act of 2011 provides for the recognition and enforcement of arbitration agreements and foreign arbitral awards pursuant to the Convention and formatters connected therewith---It applies to arbitration agreements executed prior or post commencement of the Act, provided that the consequent award was rendered after the 14th July 2005---The courts in Pakistan are obliged to recognize and enforce an eligible award in the same manner as ajudgment or order of a court in Pakistan, unless precluded per S.7 thereof---The relevant provision stipulates that the recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award shall not be refused except in accordance with Article V of 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---New York Convention, implemented in Pakistan by the Act, contains 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 leaves 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. Citation Name: 2026 PLD 96 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case TASCO VS FRANZEN LANDBOUW C.V. Ss.6 & 7---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.84---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.476---Foreign arbitral awards---Recognition and enforcement---Inherent jurisdiction of the court---Scope---Award by RUCIP Arbitration Committee (Netherlands)---Enforcement sought in Pakistan---Refusal of recognition/enforcement---Fraud/forgery, plea and allegations of---Facts: Appellant, under S.3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972,assailed a judgment whereby High Court had made rule of Court and decreed a foreign arbitral award rendered by the RUCIP Arbitration Committee, Netherlands, in favour of the respondent, by applying the Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act, 2011 read with the New York Convention, 1958---Issue: "Whether, despite the award being an "eligible" foreign award and notwithstanding the statutory scheme limiting refusal of recognition/enforcement to the grounds in S.7 of the Act read with Article V of the New York Convention, the decree could still be set aside by invoking the High Court's "inherent jurisdiction" on the basis of alleged irregularities such as unauthorized/forged signatures on pleadings or related proceedings?"---Held: Section 7 of the Act, 2011 clearly provided that unless an award was hit by a bar contained in Art. V of the New York Convention, the recognition and enforcement thereof could not be denied---Since it was never the case of the respondent that any of its objections to the award fell within the ambit of Art. V of the New York Convention, therefore, no occasion arose before the High Court to consider otherwise---As the appellate court there was no case before the High Court that the Single Judge-in-Chambers acted otherwise than in exercise of statutory jurisdiction conferred vide the Act, 2011---The appellant had pivoted its case upon the assertion that the pleadings were unsanctioned / signatures forged---Upon being queried as to why a successful claimant would need to fabricate pleadings /signatures to enforce an award, the appellant counsel remained unable to assist---The pleadings before the Single Judge-in-Chambers were filed before the High Court and carried the requisite certifications etc. of the Court itself and no rationale could be articulated before the High Court (Appellant jurisdiction) to question the presumption of regularity attached thereto---The recourses ought to Art. 84 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 and S.476 of the Criminal Procedure Code was inter alia not justified in view of the foregoing---Even otherwise, appellant counsel also failed to assist as how same could be entertained in view of S.7 of the Act---Single Judge-in-Chambers had aptly dealt with these objections---Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

TASCO vs FRANZEN LANDBOUW C — 2026 PLD 96 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 PLD