AIRLINK 204.40 Decreased By ▼ -0.05 (-0.02%)
BOP 9.98 Decreased By ▼ -0.11 (-1.09%)
CNERGY 6.98 Increased By ▲ 0.07 (1.01%)
FCCL 35.46 Increased By ▲ 0.63 (1.81%)
FFL 17.30 Increased By ▲ 0.09 (0.52%)
FLYNG 24.40 Decreased By ▼ -0.12 (-0.49%)
HUBC 139.49 Increased By ▲ 2.09 (1.52%)
HUMNL 14.01 Increased By ▲ 0.19 (1.37%)
KEL 4.90 Decreased By ▼ -0.01 (-0.2%)
KOSM 6.72 Increased By ▲ 0.02 (0.3%)
MLCF 45.92 Increased By ▲ 1.61 (3.63%)
OGDC 224.10 Increased By ▲ 2.19 (0.99%)
PACE 7.16 Increased By ▲ 0.07 (0.99%)
PAEL 43.90 Increased By ▲ 0.93 (2.16%)
PIAHCLA 17.15 Increased By ▲ 0.07 (0.41%)
PIBTL 8.69 Increased By ▲ 0.10 (1.16%)
POWER 9.13 Increased By ▲ 0.11 (1.22%)
PPL 191.01 Increased By ▲ 0.41 (0.22%)
PRL 43.65 Increased By ▲ 0.61 (1.42%)
PTC 25.60 Increased By ▲ 0.56 (2.24%)
SEARL 111.48 Increased By ▲ 5.07 (4.76%)
SILK 1.03 Increased By ▲ 0.01 (0.98%)
SSGC 42.99 Increased By ▲ 0.08 (0.19%)
SYM 18.79 Increased By ▲ 0.48 (2.62%)
TELE 9.22 Increased By ▲ 0.08 (0.88%)
TPLP 14.00 Increased By ▲ 0.89 (6.79%)
TRG 68.75 Increased By ▲ 0.62 (0.91%)
WAVESAPP 10.37 Increased By ▲ 0.13 (1.27%)
WTL 1.88 Increased By ▲ 0.01 (0.53%)
YOUW 4.08 Decreased By ▼ -0.01 (-0.24%)
BR100 12,274 Increased By 136.5 (1.12%)
BR30 37,633 Increased By 487.5 (1.31%)
KSE100 116,198 Increased By 925.9 (0.8%)
KSE30 36,600 Increased By 288.6 (0.79%)

The Lahore High Court (LHC) set aside a decision by a civil judge, saying arbitration could not be demanded after acceptance of a final settlement.
The court passed these orders in a petition filed by Managing Director Pak American Fertilisers Company Ltd (PAFCL) challenging the decision, allowing arbitration after final settlement with respondent M/s Industrial Fabrication Company on work awarded for equipment erection and above ground piping at PAFCL premises at Iskenderabad.
The petitioner contended that respondent company had submitted its final bill, which was found to be exaggerated and finally it was settled by the parties. The respondent after one and half year without referring to its letter alleged that undue deduction had been made and simultaneously demanded arbitration under clause 37.3.2 of the contract.
It was argued that not only such a demand violated clauses 37.1 and 37.1.1 of the general conditions of the contract but also abused existence of any dispute between the parties since the same had already been finally settled and a cheque in respect of equipment erection issued.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2008

Comments

Comments are closed.