BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J.

( 1 ) ALTHOUGH this petition is styled as a petition under Section 11 (5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ), in fact, it is an application under Section 11 (6) thereof. This petition has come to this Court by way of transfer consequent upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of SBP and Company v. Patel engineering Ltd. , VIII (2005) SLT 405=iv (2005) CLT 236 (SC)= (2005) 8 SCC 618. Initially when this matter had come up before the District Court, notice of the petition had been issued to the respondents on 5. 10. 2005. In the order-sheet of 23. 11. 2005, which was the returnable date, it is recorded that the respondents had refused the process and were thus found to have been served. By said order dated 23. 11. 2005, the respondent Nos 1 and 2 were, therefore, proceeded with ex parte. This petition was continuing before the District Court upto 2. 3. 2006 when the same was transferred to this Court as indicated above.

( 2 ) DESPITE the fact that the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have already been directed to be proceeded with ex parte, I find that there is a difficulty with regard to entertaining th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document