Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 53 of 1973, decided on 4th October 1973.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court made on the 4th of August 1972, in Writ Petition No. 1059 of 1972):
--------Art. 199‑Jurisdiction‑Dispute arising out of contract‑Terms and conditions of agreement also providing for reference of dispute to arbitration‑Matter not suitable for being dealt with in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
Javaid Hashmi, Advocate instructed by Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 4th October 1973.
This petition for special leave to appeal seeks to call in question an order made by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court on 4‑8‑1972, whereby a constitution petition, filed by the petitioner 'to challenge certain actions of the Trading Corporation of Pakistan, was dismissed as being not maintainable, The petitioner‑firm deals, inter alia, with the import of pig iron and its half‑yearly entitlement was equivalent to Rs.82,000 for the period January June 1972. The import was to be effected through the Trading Corporation of Pakistan Limited. The purchase order placed by the petitioner was duly processed, and on 11‑5‑1972 the petitioner was informed of the opening of an irrevocable letter of credit for Rs.1,47,788.63 covering the price and the sales tax payable on the import. However, on 22‑5‑1970, the petitioner was informed that there would be a change in the price due to devaluation of the rupee. On 10‑7‑1972, it was intimated that the amount payable by the petitioner would be Rs.2,17,614.50.
Feeling aggrieved by this increase in the price of the imported pig iron, the petitioner invoked the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the High Court. It was contended on his behalf that the Trading Corporation of Pakistan had no authority to increase the price of the imported commodity, especially because no increase had been made in some other cases. The High Court, however, refused to give any relief to the petitioner on the ground that according to a clause in the terms and conditions of sale, the petitioner had agreed not to dispute the sale price in any manner whatsoever, and secondly, that the said document provided for reference of all disputes to two arbitrators. The High Court also observed that the dispute raised by the petitioner appeared to arise out of a simple contract between a purchaser and a seller, and, therefore, a constitution petition was not the proper remedy.
It is submitted by Mr. Javaid Hashmi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the High Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the real challenge was to a notification issued by the Central Government, according to which the price of imports had to be increased by the Trading Corpo ration of Pakistan owing to devaluation of the rupee. It is next submitted that the High Court has also overlooked the fact that the pig iron in question had, in fact, already been imported by the Trading Corporation of Pakistan before devaluation took place.
After hearing Mr. Javaid Hashmi, we are of the view that the High Court was right in thinking that this was not a suitable matter for being dealt with in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction. A reference to the writ petition filed by the petitioner‑firm shows that the legality of the relevant notification of the Central Government was not directly brought under challenge, and that a dispute was also raised regarding the authority of the Trading Corporation of Pakistan to levy charges for transportation, storage and financing of the imports. In these circumstances, it is not correct to say that the challenge was to the Central Government notification, and not to any action of the Trading Corporation of Pakistan.
The learned counsel had to concede that the terms and conditions of the agreement entered into by the parties do provide for reference of disputes to arbitration. For this reason, as well as for the reason that certain disputed questions of fact would need to be resolved, it is clear that the matter was' not suitable for adjudication in the exercise of the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. It was open to the petitioner to go in for arbitration according to the agreement, or to institute a civil suit for the enforcement of the contract between the parties. Thus, as rightly .pointed out by the High Court, an adequate alternative remedy was available to the petitioner, but had been availed of.
The petition, accordingly, fails and is hereby dismissed.
Leave refused;
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer