Pakistan Tobacco Company Limited through its general attorney Vs Iftikhar Hussain and others

JUDGMENT SHEET

IN THE PESHAIITAR HIGH COURT, PESHAIITAR.

(Judicial Department) C.R No. 5O1-P of 2O21

Po,klsto,n Tobacco companu Llmlted through rts qeneral attorneu as. Iftlkho;r Hussaln and others.

Present: Mr. Alam Zeb Kholn, Adaocate for pefitloner. M' Farrno;n Ulah Kho;ttak. Mlr Wall & Asad Jan. Adoocates for Resoondents.

Date of hearing: 24.07.2024

JUDGMENT

MUHAMtrIAD I{ADDIW AritwAR. J.- This single judgment in the instant petition shall also decide connected c.R No. s4o-p ot 2O27 titled "Phlllo Paklstdn Lbnited us. Iftlkhar Husso;ln and otherc, because both the petitions are the outcome of consolidated judgement and decree dated zo.og.2oz| in civil appeal No. IL9l13 of 2OLB & 118/ 13 of 2018 whereby their appeal against the judgement & decree of learned civil judge-Vl Peshawar dated 15.11.2011 dismissing their objections & and making the award of arbitrator "as a rule of Court", were dismissed.

2.Pakistan Tobacco Board (PTB) awarded the contract for collection of Federal Tobacco Cess (FTC) on surplus tobacco stock etc. for the year 2OO3-2OO4 to respondent No.l executed on lst July 2003 with an arbitration clause that any dispute between the parties shall be decided by the by the Chairman, PTB as sole arbitrator or in his absence by the Secretary PTB. That on the transportation of tobacco, which was over and above to the allotted quota of the companies by PTB regarding "Charge Cess" a dispute arose to the effect that uthether the petltloner sho,ll SAbZAIi/* (S.B) HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MUHAMMAD NAEEM ANWAR

a whether the . 'ldoner rs entttled to recoaer the cess from PTB uthtch tlrc board coflected from the compolnles or the contpo,nles pdld to board as oAmanato or the comoanl"s shq.ll pau the cess ta pr& Respondent No.1 filed two writ petitions before this court for issuance of appropriate directions to the Pakistan Tobacco Board to act in accordance with law, and the Board may be directed to pay the cess collected from the companies on transportation of Tobacco over and above their allotted quota, to him (contractor). During pending adjudication of the petitions, or the direction of court, the arbitration proceedings commenced which culminated in the award, thus, both the petitions were disposed of on 19.04.2006, in term that the petitioner may avail the remedy provided under section l4(2) of the Arbitration Act of 1940, from the court of competent jurisdiction, as an alternate remedy, if so advised. owing to the direction of this court respondent No.l filed application under section 14(21 of the Act of 1940, before civil Court on 29.04.2006.

Learned Trial Court, on hearing the parties, on OZ.O2.2OLO, observed that the Arbitrator has failed to determine the factum of cess upon the export quota and that who was entitled to receive the amount of cess on the transportation of tobacco on over and N above to the allotted quota. The award was set aside, and the Court directed that fresh arbitration be commenced to be conducted by the Secretary of PTB within the period of two months. The order was amended to the extent of Chairman PTB instead of Secretary vide order dated ZS.O?.?OLO. The court sabzAli/' (S.B) HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MUHAMMAD NAEEM ANtyAR

directed the arbitrator to give the findings besides other issues on three issues i.e.,

af fficther the Petitloaer is entltled for the collecHon of cess upon the export guota oftobacco?

bl Whether the Detltioner is entitled for the surplus quota dditionat quota in the llqht of MLO 497?

cf Ulhether the Petitloner ls entltled for admitted amount of the Cess beyond the surolus and addldonal quota?

The arbitrator completed the arbitration proceedings, announced the award on r4.o5.2o10, and submitted the same before the court on 15.05.2010 owing to the application submitted by respondent No.1. An application was submitted by respondent No.l for arraying Pakistan Tobacco company & Lakson Tobacco company as necessary party, which was alrowed on 29.10.2010 and amended application under section r4(2) was filed on 24.ll.2olo. Both the added respondents have submitted their objections to the arbitration proceedings & award on various legal and factual objections. After hearing t]:e parties, learned civil Judge discarded the objections and the award dated 14.0s.2010 was made rule of Court on 15.11.2O11. Being aggrieved, both the petitioners filed their respective appeals however, their appeals were dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge-)o/ Peshawar on 2O.O3.2O21hence these petitions.

3.I have listened to the arguments of the learned counsel for N the parties and perused the record annexed with their petitions.

4.Admitted position is that there was no specific clause in the contract on respondent No.1 and PTB regarding the Cess charged on transportation of tobacco, over and above to the allotted quota, owing to which the dispute arose between sabzAli/* (S.B) HON'BLE MR TASTICE MAHAMMAD NAEEM ANVAR

respondent No.l & pakistan Tobacco Board. Respondent No.l was claiming his entitlement the cess on the transportation of tobacco collected from the companies including the petitioners whereas the PTB has denied form the claim of respondent No.l and as per record PTB had directed the companies to deposit the cess charged on the transportation of tobacco surplus to their allotted quota. It is also an admitted fact that the companies had deposited the amount of cess for transportation of tobacco more than their quota with the board as "Amanat". undeniably, the companies had to pay the cess of the transportation of tobacco over and above to their allotted quota either to the contractor or to PTB. The dispute arose when respondent No.2 denied the right of contractor for collection of cess from the companies on over and above to their allotted quota for transportation of tobacco. It was the plea of respondent No.1 to direct respondent No.2 to act in accordance with the settled terms of the contract and to direct respondent No.2 to pay the Cess collected on the transportation of tobacco, surplus from their allotted quota to them. It is indisputable that there remained no dispute between petitioner & respondent No.1 &,2, either individually or collectively, during the entire period of the contract and undisputedly, they have never litigated with both the respondents No.l & 2. The arbitrator was to resolve the issue as to who was entitled for collection of the Cess for transportation of surplus tobacco from their allotted quota. In resolving the issue or determination of controversy the N petitioners were obviously not the parties. In essence, the grievance of the petitioners was to the effect that learned arbitrator while resolving the issue between respondents No.1 & sabzAli/* (S.B) HON'BLEMR.IASTICEMaHAMMADNAEEMANWAR

2, has bulldozed them for the payment of amount and that too without arraying them as party and affording them an opportunity of being heard before the decision against them in favour of both the respondents No.l & 2. None of the parties to the reference of contract and award was aggrieved from the decree of the court "in making award as rule of court", whereas the petitioners who were neither party to the contract nor were arrayed as party in the application filed under section 14(21, earlier to the arbitration proceedings, of the Act of lg4o were aggrieved because of the findings of the arbitrator against them followed by dismissal of their objections and the judgement & decree. It appears from record that after filing of award pursuance to the application submitted by respondent No.l under section L4(21 of the Act of L94O, the petitioners filed their objections which were resisted by both the respondents No. 1& 2 through their reply and after hearing the parties, learned civil Court dismissed their objections and vide same judgment & decree had made the award as rule of court. It was a "composite order" against which the petitioners fiIed their separate appeals.

The impugned judgement & decree of the learned trial court which provides two distinct remedies under section t7 & 39 of the Act of 1940 being composite order in view of the principle laid N down by the Hon'lcle Supreme Court in the case of Sh(,,htn Shqh Versus Gotwnmcnt of Khuber Pakhfutnkhwa through Secretafl, Irrlaatlon Depdttment. Peshauror and, others (2022 SCMR 18101. Under section LT the court has limited jurisdiction for setting aside the award which provides that the award can be set aside when (a) the decree is in excess of the SabzAri/* (S.Bl HON'BLEMR.IUSTICEMaEAMMADNAEEMA^WAR

L

award and (b) it is otherwise not in accordance with the award.

whereas, under section 39 the validity of the decree can be questioned when (a) an arbitrator or umpire has mis-conducted the an

arbitration or after arbitration proceedines have become invalid c

procured or is otherwise invalid. It is intriguing aspect of the matter that during proceedings notices were issued to the petitioners by considering them that they are major parties to the issue involved but neither the arbitrator not the parties to the proceeding including respondent No.1 has applied for making the petitioners as party to the proceeding of arbitration. tneuvsnt ts the Order sheet dated O9.O4.2O7O, of the arbltrator.] On 24.04.2010 it was clearly submitted to the arbitrator that since they (petitioners) were not party to the proceedings of arbitration as such they were unable to address the issue because they were not aware of the facts of the case and even then, neither the arbitrator has made them partl, nor respondent No.1 bothered to do so.

5.In addition, after competition of arbitration, on the direction of the Court, when award was submitted before the court an application was submitted by respondent No. 1 for impleadment of petitioners in the application fiIed under section N L4(21 of the Act of l94O which was allowed and amended application was filed before the court, notices were issued to the petitioners, who on their appearance have filed objection to the arbitration proceedings on the ground of misconduct, violation to SAbZAIi/* (S.B) EON'BLE MR, IUSTICE MAHAMMAD NAEEM ANIYAR

the principle of natural justice, illegality and improper application of law. In the impugned judgement & decree learned trial Court has held that since the agreement was between respondents No.1 & 2 as such they were not arrayed as party; that sufficient opportunities were granted to the parties but they failed to explain their position; that ordinarily, the agreement is executed between the contractor and PTB and the companies are bound to be charged for the Cess even for the transportation of tobacco over and above to their allotted quota as such the entire aspect of the case has rightly been dealt by the Arbitrator. The appellate court has upheld the findings of the trial Court, but the significance aspect is whether there was anv clause in the asreement for collection of the Cess of the surplus quota allotted to the comnanies and whether a Derson who has never been impleaded as parW. could be held responsible for the payment of amount to ei of the narties? Scrutiny of the record reveals that neither it was the clause of the agreement that the Contractor shall collect Cess on the transportation of tobacco surplus to the quota allotted to the companies nor there was any claim of respondent No.l against the petitioners. Admittedly, respondent No.l was aggrieved that he was restrained from collection of the Cess of the transportation of the tobacco which was in excess to the allotted quota of the companies, and it is also transpired from record that the companies have deposited the cess of the transportation of surplus quota with PTB. Moreover, respondent No.2 refuted the claim and demand of respondent No.l, but it is more than important that through award respondent No.1 was held entitled for Cess on the sabzAli/* (S.Bl HON'BLEMR.IUSTICEMUEAMMADNAEEMANWAR

I

t

transportation of surplus quota. Issue No. (a) & (b) were decided in favour of respondent No.l and issue as reproduced in para- No.2 of this judgement, that whether the petitioner is entitled for admitted t of the Cess be-'rond the surplus and additional quota? was decided in favour of respondents No.1 & 2 but against the petitioners who were never made party to the arbitration proceedings. The Sind High Court in the case of Jlr[essrs.

Sho,hzo;d All Usmanl Choho;n trersus Manaqlnq Dlrector. Slnd Sma,ll Industtles Corporatlon (1989 CLC 54O) has set aside the award for irregularity and misconduct for not issuing the last notice to the party and for not supplyrng the copy of claim to the party, especially, when the petition of the case of party to the proceedings of arbitration, the Court has held:

The copy of the dianr sheet was sent by letter dated 9-2-1986. AEaln on 17-2-1986 the case was adJourned to 8-3-1986. On 8-3-1986 depositlon of Chohan was recorded and the case was adJourned to 31-3-1986 to summon hls wltnesses. In these clrcumstances the arbltrator ought to have issued a pre-emptorv notlce to the defendants of his intentlon to proceed ex parte on 17-2-1986. The dlary sheet as well aa letter dated 9-2-1986 are absolutelv gllent as to whether-the copy of the clalms was delivered to the representative of the defendants. There ls uothlng on record that the letter dated 9-2-1986 wae delivered to the defendants. The arbltrator could have recorded in the marsin of the dlary that the colly of the clalm was delivered to the representatlve of the defendants. The managlng dlrector of the defendants. as already stated. wae out of countrv. The defendants have been preJudlced bv omlsslon of notice by the arbltrator of his lntentlon to proceed ex patte. The defendants cannot be sald to be aware of the proceedings flxed for 17-2-1986. 8'3'1986. 24-3-1986 and 31-3-1986. Thus. after golng through the record and pfoceedlngs before the arbltrator. I am of the oplnlon that omlssion to qlve notlce to proceed ex parte agalnst the defendants and falllng: to supplv the copy of the clalm bv the plaintiff. the arbltrator hae preludlced them. This omlssion on the part of the arbltrator is an lrreeularity ln procedure adopted by the arbitrator and amounts to misconduct as the defendants have not been glven proper hearing of the matters ln dlspute and as such the award ls lieble to be set aslde.

SAbZAII/* (S,B) HON'BLE MR IASTICE MUHAMMAD NAEEM ANIYAR

Moreso, the parties (respondents No. 1 & 2) have settled their score by succeeding in getting the award in their favour and thereafter, when the award was submitted, the petitioners were added as party, in such circumstances the petitioners were condemned unheard by the arbitrator and that too with the connivance of both the parties to arbitration proceedings. In such scenario, to the extent of the findings against the petitioners, the award is violative to the principle of audi alteram partem according to which each party is entitled to a fair hearing and must be given the opportunity to respond to evidence against them. The petitioners have specifically taken the grounds in their application for violation of the principle of natural justice which is apparent in the case in hand for findings of arbitrator against them. I also rely upon the dicta laid down by the Hon,ble Supreme Court in the case of Natlonal Hlqhuag Authorltg throuqh Cho;lrnto;n. Isla fitabad Versus Messrs, Sa flbu constntctlon co. Ltd. Islamorbdd and others 120123 SCMR 11031 wherein it was observed that "The grounds for challenging an Award are uery limited. Tlrcre are three broad areas on which qn arbitrotion Autard rb likely to be challenged i.e. firstlg, jurisdictional grounds (non-existence of a ualid and binding arbitration agreement); secondlg, proedural grounds (failure to observe principles of nafitral justice) and thirdlg, substantiue grounds (arbitrator made a mistake of law)."

\" 6. More particularly, the court cannot sit in appeal over the award in search of latent errors in the proceedings or the award.

The Court can set aside the award only if it is apparent from the award that there is no evidence to support the conclusions or if sabz Aril' (S.B) HON'BLE MR JaSTICE MUHAMMAD NAEEM ANWAR

L

the award is based upon any legal proposition which is incorrect.

The court can set aside the award if there is any error, factual or legal, which floats on the surface of the award or the record, these parameters were fixed by the apex court in the case of rnlum Aqeel versus Lo;tlf furuhdmfltad chaudhflr dnd others (2023 scMR 136U. The arbitration was conducted to settle the matter between the parties to the contract, he did so but by no stretch of imagination he was bestowed with the powers to fix the liability or to held a person liable to pay the amount which was the bone of contention between the contractor and prB and that too without any stance of the petitioners being party before him, such conduct of the learned arbitrator betrays the 1ack of rationale, purpose, scope and the object of the settlement through the manner agreed by the parties to the contract other than the court which also amounts to misconduct on the part of arbitrator.

Honble Supreme Court in the case of Muhammad. Farooo Sho,h Versus Sho,klrulla,h (2006 SCMR 1657f fixed the outline for the arbitrator and for the umpire (if any), it was observed by the Court that:

It is well-settled that there must be purity iii the admlnletratlon of Justlce as well as ln the adminlstratlon of quasi-Justice whlch are lnvolved iu the adJudlcatory process before the Arbltrators. It ls also well-settled that once the Arbitrator enters ln an arbltratlon, the Arbitrator must not be gullty of any act whlch can possibly be constnred as indlcatlve of partiality or unfairness. A bare perusal of the added section 26-A would reveal that after lnsertlon tt ts obllgatory upon the Arbltrator or Umplre to glve reasons ln sufflcieat detail aad such reasols should be made ln the award itself. A llne of dletlnctlon ls to be drawn ia betweeu "sufflcient detall/reasons" and that of "appllcation of mlnd" to determlne the controversy as both are not synonynous and lnterchangeable. By no stretch of imagination it can be imagined that prlor to sectlon 26-A in the Arbltratlon Act, the Arbltrator or Umplre were not bound to examlne the eatlre controversy wlth dlllgent appllcatlon of mlnd to make an ln depth SAbZAII/' (S.B) HON'BLE MR. TUSTICE MAHAMMAD NAEEM ANWAR

LL

v scrgtiny of the evldence aud thereafter draw conclusion lrrespective of the fact whether it was to be mentloned ln the award ltself or othewise' would hardly make any dlfference as an Arbltrator or Umplre cannot be relieved of hls duties i.e. to set the controversy at naught by impartlng speedy Justlce after havlng taken lnto conslderatlon all the relevant factors.

7.Adverting to another important issue, as the arbitrator has decoded issues No. (a) & (b) in favour of respondents No.1 against which respondent No.2 has not filed any objections or the appeal against the decree of the trial Court, in the similar fashion, the arbitrator has decided issue (c) which too is on hand in favour of respondent No.1 and on the other hand it is favouring respondent No.2, nonetheless, the grievance of the petitioners is only to the extent of the findings of the arbitrator, judgement & decree of both the learned courts below they were held liable to make the payment thus, in such circumstances whether the court could upheld the findings of tl:e award in partiality and set aside the award for a single issue? This issue has been put to rest by the apex Court in the case of Allo;h Dln & Compo;nA Versus Ty:old.lnq Corporatlon of Po;klsta.n and others (2OO5 SCMR 6t4l wherein the controversy was to the effect that the learned single Judge of Hon'ble Sind High Court has upheld the amount mention at item No. (i) to (iii) while declined to award the claim under item No.(iv), both the parties filed their respective appeals to the Division Bench but the appeal of both the parties were dismissed, Hon'lcle Supreme Court has held:

The learned Divlsion Bench ln the impugned Judgment had aptly reJected N the above clalm on the ground that compensatlon for loss of goodwlll or reputation is generally not awarded, partlcularly ln the absence of tanglble evidence showing addltional loss and further that since the purchaser waa already awarded Rs. 1 mllllon by the arbitrator as conpensation for the antlcipated loss of proflt further compcnsatlon on sabzAli/* (S.B) HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MAHAMMAD NAEEM ANITAR

account of loss of goodwill and reputation was not Justifled. We lind ourselves ln agreement wlth the reasoning of the learned Divlsion Bench. The learned counsel appearlng for the purchaser was unable to show any discusslon by the arbltrator ln the award regarding the loss suffered by the purchaser on account of reputatlon or goodwill. Apart from a bare claim of tbe purchaser, the learned counsel could not even refer to any evidence produced by the purchaser before the arbltrator on thls lssue' The finding of the arbltrator on the issue reproduced above indicates the absence of such evldence as he had awarded compensatlon on the item simply on the ground that the purchaser was not questioned on behalf of the Food Department on the lssue. Such failure by the depattment does not go to prove the loss caused to the purchaser. It was the burden to the purchaser to have produced independent evidence of the damage caused to his reputation a1d goodwlll on accoult of [on'performance of the contract by the Food Department. Bald statement of the petltioner' without more, that he had suffered loss on this account was not sufflcient to establish the claim. In this view of the matter the Purchaser was rightly denied damages for loss of goodwill and reputatlon. In view of the above, I am of the view that respondent No' 1 was rightly held entitled for the Cess on collection of the Cess on surplus quotas for transportation of tobacco thus, issues No' (a) & (b) were rightly decided in favour of respondent No.1. Moreover, despite the claim of respondent No.2, from the initiation of litigation since 2006 tiIl the award, they have not objected to the findings of the arbitrator thus, respondent No.1 was rightly held entitled for Cess on over and above the surplus quota of the companies. However, for determining the liability of petitioners, neither they were made party to the proceedings nor were provid.ed with any opportunity for filing of their reply before the learned Arbitrator arld no evidence to the extent of transportation of tobacco over and above to their quota was placed on file except the reply of respondent No2 and purported signed statement of representative of the petitioner of connected petition, however, the facts and figures mentioned in the award for determination of sabzAli/* (S.B) HON'BLE MR. ,|USTICE MUHAMMAD NAEEM ANWAR

v issue (c) except the stance of respondents No. 1 & 2 nothing was made available and the record which was relied upon by the learned arbitrator, the petitioners were never afforded any opportunity as a party to the arbitration for resolution of the issue in the terms of reference for the arbitrator who has to decide , the dispute of entitlement for the cess of the surplus tobacco transported by the companies. It is stunning in its significance that respondent No. 1 never filed any claim against the petitioners till the submission of award. The astounding in development for filing of application to implead the petitioners fixing the application after filing of award was to set the stage for the liability but the mode adopted is not permissible in consonance with law. Thus, the findings to the extent of issue (c)

are unjustified, unwarranted, illegal and as such are struck down.

S.onelegalaspectrequiresdeterminationthatwhena person was not party to the arbitration proceedings, could he of challenge the award by filing of objection or appeal instead the regular suit as the bar under section 33 is only in respect of party to the proceedings and in such circumstances, he was not barred to file regular suit to challenge the decree against him as

Abd,ul Rolslnld throuoh lltst. sft.o,i3fofl Beoum qnd others

(2OO4 SCMR 76t. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioners no doubt were not party before the Arbitrator however, sensing the findings of the arbitrator respondent No.1 for the first time N" of realized.that the petitioners were necessary party for resolution controversy. The court, while allowing the application, has also SAbZ AIi/* (S.B) HON'BLE MR TUSTICE MUHAMMAD NAEEM ANIYAR

v

held that the petitioners were necessary party to the application.

When tJ:ey were necessary parties to the application, of course they were necessary party to the arbitration proceedings and without impleading them no effective award, to the extent of the liability of the petitioners, could be announced and such award could not be made as a rule of Court for the purpose of execution against the interest of petitioners. In Juolqllrr.l aersus General Flbre Dealers Ltd,. (AIR 1955 Cal. 354) it was laid down that "The procedural rule applicable to arbitration proceedings is more tolerant than the rule followed in Courts of law. Broadlg stated, the principtes gouerning tle arbitrator's right to proceed ex pafte are: lf a oartu to an arbitration fails to dDDear at one of the sittinqs. the arbitrator cannot or, at least, ouaht not to proceed ex parte aqainst him at that sittina. WlTere the non-appearance was accidental or casual, tlrc arbitrator ouaht ordinarilu to proceed in the ordinara uuau, -fucina anotlter date of hearina and awaitina the future behauiour of tlw defaulting partv."

9.Accordingly, a person not made party to the proceeding could not be held liable for any decision either by the court or by the arbitrator. ln Wazlr Kha;n and 8 others aersus Sardor Al7 qnd 25 others (2OO1 SCMR 75O), in similar controversy, the award was submitted by the arbitrator but without impleading the necessary parties to the proceeding and of the basis of award the matter was disposed of by the High court, but when the application filed by the necessary party challenging the award and decision thereon, the High Court accepted the application and set aside the award, against which the petition was filed before the apex Court which was dismissed by observing that: sabz Ali/* (S.B) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MaHAMMAD NAEEM ANVAR

Under sectlon L7 of the Act the Court was required to look lnto the award to satlsfy itself that the aaae was proper and ln accordance wlth law and that it dtd not require reconslderation by the arbitrator and after the cxptty of the perlod for makiug the applicatlon to set aside the award, pronounce Judgment and pass a decree accordlngly to the award. In tbls case, it appeaB that the court before passlng the order dld not examine the award ln the ltght of the provlsions of sectlons 17 and 26'A of the Act and passed a mechanlcal order. Section 26'A of the Act provldes that the Arbitrator must state the reasons for' the award ln sufllcient detail to enable' the Court to conslder the guestlon of law arislng out of the award and where the award does not state the reaaous lnsufflcient detall, the Court should remlt the award to the Arbltrator to glve reasons for the award. The provlslone of sectlon 26-A of tlre Act are mandatory and tf the award has been glven without recordlng any reason therefor, the court would remlt the award to the Arbltrator. The award ln the lnstant case was given without recording any reason, therefore, the coutt should have remltted the award to the Arbltrator to glve reasons. Slnce the mandatory provlslons of sectlons 17 and 26-A of the Act have not been complled wlth, therefore, the award was lnvalld and unmaintalnable' By considering the dicta laid down as reproduced above in juxtaposition with the principle laid down in the case of Allo;h Dtn & ComPanu Versus Trordlng Corooratilon of Po;klsto;n and others (supral The the matter to the extent of liability of the petitioners or otherwise requires to be decided by the Arbitrator after their impleadment in the application before him (arbitrator) separatelv for the .rrear 2003-2004? whether the petitioners have t 4a

\ so Since the above

questions have not been answered and because the petitioners were necessary party to the arbitration proceeding therefore, the sabzAli/* (S.B) HON'BLE MR JaSTICE MUHAMMAD NAEEM ANWAR

award to the extent of findings of issue (c ), the judgements & decrees to that extent are set aside and for settlement of the additional issues the petitioner are made party to the application submitted by respondent No.l who shall submit amended application before the Arbitrator (the Chairman of PTB), the petitioners shall file their reply and the Arbitrator shall proceed with the matter but being the old issue of respondents No.l & 2, and for that matter of petitioners pertaining to the year 2003- 2OO4 (financial year), shall expedite the proceeding to its logical conclusion, he shall complete the entire exercise within two month, after receipt of the attested copy of this order/judgement, when he enters upon the reference. Thereafter, the award shall be submitted before the court in accordance with law. In view of the controversy involved, I make no order as to costs. The Office shall send the copy to the parties, their counsel and to the Designated Arbitrator. The parties shall appear before the arbitrator on 16.019.2024. However, the arbitrator shall issue notices to the parties for their appearance in furtherance of the direction discussed above. Hence, this and the connected C.R No' 54O-P of 2O2I. are disposed of in the above terms.

In deciding the issue, I have also made reliance on the case law reported as Dcslolr. Grouo of Pa;klsto;n qersus Cllfhon Cdntonmcnt Board (1990 MLD 2O1Ol, Muhammad ttnls Dlo;hl sethl and another arerslals Federo/fron of Paklstan. cluntbers of cornnBrce And. Ind.ustrt* (Lgg6 Cl.C L2261, Trrtrner Mortlson @ro;hr;ms Grouo Of Companles. Iandon Uersus Rlce Expott Corpordffion P ktstan Ltd. LD 1998 KARACHI 791, htnlah Proulnce throuqh Secretattt to @aternment of thc Punlab: Irrloatlon and Pouer sabzAli/* (S.Bl HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MUHAMMAD NAEEM ANWAR

Vt,,:.

Depdrtmcnt. Iahore and arNot Br vefsus iltessrs. crto,;uhf,n & companu throuoh Manaalnq Partner (PLD 2OOO Lahore 314), vlce-chancellor. Ia.rr,re uersus lfressrs Moderate Bulldefs thnouqh A. Outahtd.dtn (2oor MLD 2331, Falso;l(,r,a.d dcuelooment olut urrltu aensus R.C.C. llmlted th,:ouoh lfio;notal'[;a Dlnector (2OO3 YLR 297?1, tJmar Dln throuoh L.Rs. versus trfist. shrlkeela Blbl and oth.ers l2oo9 scMR 291, Messrs. Thodlns cot?ofdtlon of paklstorn Ltd. Veftrus lllessrs. Genero,l Industrlal lfio;chlnes l2OL6 MLp 8971.

Announced on 24.O7.2024.

Reteased. on 29. O 8. 2 O24.

JUDGE

SabzAli/' (S.B) HON'BLE MR JASflCE MUHAMMAD NAEEM ANIYAR