In FHL, a dispute over oilfield interests was resolved through ICC arbitration in London, resulting in foreign awards whose enforcement in Pakistan was obstructed by interim judicial interference. A Single Judge granted interim relief to protect assets, but a Division Bench suspended this relief. The matter came before the Supreme Court, raising the question that whether such interference undermines Pakistan’s pro-enforcement obligations under the Convention.
Held: The Supreme Court reaffirmed Pakistan’s pro-enforcement bias under the New York Convention, stressing that courts must support, not obstruct, foreign arbitral awards
Court’s Observations:
“Premature judicial interference sends an adverse signal to the international community, undermines arbitral sanctity, erodes investor confidence, and undermines Pakistan’s international obligations.”
“Denial of such protection would defeat the very purpose of the Act and the New York Convention … courts must maintain a pro-enforcement bias while dealing with foreign arbitral awards.”
“Foreign arbitral awards are not to be treated as ordinary civil decrees; rather, they possess a binding character under international law, to which Pakistan has expressly committed itself.”