Enforcement of Judgments 2026 Comparisons

Public Registers and Records

Pakistan has no single public asset registry from which a party can comprehensively identify another person’s assets. Instead, information is dispersed across various public authorities and registries, and the extent of public access depends on the nature of the asset. Land is the primary asset lead.

In Punjab, land records have been substantially digitised through the Punjab Land Records Authority (PLRA). A person may obtain a “Fard” (record-of-rights) through the PLRA’s online system or at an Arazi Record Centre for a named person. However, the traditional Patwar Khana system continues to operate alongside the digitised regime, and certain records or transactions may still require verification through the local Patwari.

The Punjab government has also recently introduced legislation providing for a green property certificate which would serve as valid title verification. However, the regime is yet to be made effective. The certificate will only be issued at the request of the original owner of the property. In other provinces, land records remain largely maintained through the traditional revenue administration, with searches generally conducted through the local Patwari or the relevant revenue authorities, making remote or centralised searches more difficult.

Vehicles, Corporate Assets and Financial Information

Motor vehicles are registered with the provincial Excise and Taxation Departments, while company shareholdings and directorships are searchable via the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP) eServices/LEAP portal, which gives free basic status data and paid certified filings, including annual returns showing shareholders. Bank accounts, tax records and the State Bank’s credit bureau (eCIB) are not publicly accessible. They are protected by statute, including Section 216 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 for tax records and the Protection of Economic Reforms Act, 1992 for foreign-currency accounts, and are reachable only by court order – for example, by production of a banker’s books under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984.

Asset Declarations of Senior Civil Servants

A recent exception to the general position on public asset information concerns senior civil servants. Pursuant to the Civil Servants (Amendment) Act, 2025, the declarations of assets and liabilities of civil servants in BS-17 and above, together with those of their spouses and dependent children – including domestic and foreign assets and liabilities – are required to be digitally filed with the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) and are to be made publicly available through the FBR, in accordance with the prescribed rules. This constitutes a limited statutory public asset disclosure regime and does not amount to a general public asset registry.

Freezing and Disclosure Orders

Freezing and disclosure relief before judgment is available in limited forms. A plaintiff who can show that the defendant is about to remove or dispose of property in order to obstruct or delay execution of a prospective decree may seek attachment before judgment under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), under which the court directs the defendant to furnish security or attaches the specified property.

Interim injunctions under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC are also used to restrain the alienation of particular assets during a suit. The court may also appoint a receiver over the property under Order XL of the CPC. In banking matters, the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 provides a further interim and security-preservation regime before the Banking Courts. Under Section 30 of the CPC, the court may, on the application of a party or of its own motion, order the delivery and answering of interrogatories and the discovery, inspection and production of documents, and may summon a person to produce documents in evidence. These powers are elaborated in Order XI, under which a party may require the opposing party to make discovery on oath of documents in its possession or power (Rule 12) and to produce them for inspection (Rules 14 and 15). However, such orders are confined to documents relating to the matter in issue in the suit and are not a general means of ascertaining the defendant’s assets; a party that fails to comply may have its suit dismissed or its defence struck out (Rule 21). There is, however, no equivalent of a worldwide freezing order over unspecified assets, and no general pre-judgment asset disclosure order against a defendant; disclosure is obtained after judgment through the mechanisms described below. The foregoing measures operate only until judgment.

Once a decree has been obtained, the judgment-debtor’s assets are charged through attachment in execution under Order XXI CPC. The executing court attaches property in the following manner:

• actual seizure of movable property in the judgment-debtor’s possession (Rule 43);
• prohibitory order in respect of debts, shares and other intangibles on the person holding them (Rule 46); and
• an order prohibiting the judgment-debtor from transferring or creating a charge on immovable property (Rule 54).

Under Section 64 CPC, any private alienation of the property after attachment is void as against claims enforceable under the attachment.

Post-Judgment Examination of the Judgment-Debtor

Following the grant of a money decree, Order XXI Rule 41 of the CPC provides an important mechanism for identifying the judgment-debtor’s assets. Upon the application of the decree-holder, the court may order the oral examination of the judgment-debtor regarding their property.

The purpose of the examination is to obtain information concerning the nature, location and extent of the judgment-debtor’s assets for the purposes of executing the money decree. This is the principal statutory mechanism for post-judgment asset disclosure under the CPC. In addition to these mechanisms, information regarding a party’s assets may be obtained through the ordinary processes of litigation, including discovery and production of documents where relevant to the issues in dispute, summons issued to public authorities for specific records, and court-directed disclosure where warranted by the circumstances of the case. Financial institutions and tax authorities are generally bound by statutory confidentiality obligations and will ordinarily disclose information only pursuant to a lawful court order or where otherwise authorised by law.

Pakistani courts issue several distinct types of judgments depending on the stage and nature of the dispute. These include the following:

• ex parte or default judgments are passed under Order IX CPC where a defendant fails to appear or defend after being validly served;
• summary judgments are available under Order XXXVII for suits on negotiable instruments and similar liquidated claims;
• judgments on admission under Order XII Rule 6, interim or interlocutory orders (including injunctions under Order XXXIX); and
• final judgments, which can decree a specific sum of money, possession of property, specific performance, partition, permanent injunction or declaratory relief.

Family courts issue decrees in matrimonial and custody matters, and the probate jurisdiction issues letters of administration and probate. Other recognised decrees include preliminary and final decrees (for example, in mortgage suits under Order XXXIV and partition suits under Order XX Rule 18 CPC) and consent or compromise decrees recording a settlement under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC. Each culminates in a formal “decree” that is the actual instrument enforced in execution. Decrees also issue from specialised forums. Banking courts constituted under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, for instance, pass decrees for recovery of finances in favour of financial institutions, which are executed in substantially the same manner as decrees of the ordinary civil courts.

The Execution Application

A decree is enforced by filing an execution application under Section 42 read with Order XXI CPC (Sections 36–74) before the court that passed it, or a court to which it has been transferred. Under Sections 38 and 39 CPC, a decree may be sent for execution to another court, including one in another district, where the judgment-debtor resides, carries on business or holds property.

In the province of Punjab, as per the latest amended law, on passing of an executable decree by a court, the suit shall stand converted into execution proceedings and no separate application for the purpose and no fresh notice to the judgment-debtor shall be necessary.

Modes of Execution

The main modes are:

• attachment and sale of movable or immovable property;
• garnishee proceedings against debts owed to the judgment-debtor (including bank balances) under Rule 46;
• attachment of government or private-sector salary under Rules 48 and 48A;
• delivery of possession for property decrees;
• appointment of a receiver; and
• for money decrees, arrest and civil detention of the debtor (capped at a limited period and subject to exemptions).

Other Remedies

Breach of an injunction is enforced through contempt and attachment under Order XXXIX Rule 2A. Pakistan has no separate “charging order” as such, but attachment achieves a similar effect. Attachment of debts and receivables owed to the judgment-debtor (garnishee proceedings) is the nearest equivalent to a third-party debt order, and attachment of salary functions as an attachment of earnings, subject to the proviso to Section 60(1) of the CPC, which exempts a statutory portion of salary. Where the debtor is genuinely insolvent, a decree-holder can instead pursue insolvency proceedings under the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 or, for a company, winding-up under the Companies Act, 2017.

Costs

Court fees for an execution application are nominal, so the main cost is legal fees, which scale with the complexity of the debtor’s objections.

Timing

Timing varies widely with the mode chosen. Attaching a bank account or salary is usually the fastest route, often resolved within months if the funds are identified quickly. Attaching and auctioning immovable property is far slower, commonly taking two to seven years on average once objections, valuation and sale-confirmation proceedings are factored in, and rural land can take even longer. In practice, the threat of arrest for a recalcitrant debtor with visible means often produces a faster settlement than a full attachment-and-sale process. Likewise, a winding-up petition against a defaulting company often paves the way for a faster settlement.

Oral Examination Under Order XXI Rule 41 CPC

Under Order XXI Rule 41 CPC, a decree-holder can apply for the judgment-debtor (or, for a company, an officer) to be orally examined in court about debts owed to them and what property or means they possess to satisfy the decree. The court is empowered to make an order for the attendance and examination of such judgment-debtor, or officer or other person, and for production of any books or documents.

Under Rule 41, not only the judgment-debtor but also any other person (for instance, a garnishee or mortgagee in possession) may be orally examined by the court. There is no independent state agency that traces assets on the decree-holder’s behalf, so these court-compelled disclosures, combined with land and company record searches, are the practical legal tools available.

Objections Before the Executing Court

A judgment-debtor can raise objections directly before the executing court under Section 47 CPC, which channels most execution disputes there rather than through a fresh suit. Common grounds include:

• defective service of the original suit;
• the decree being void or passed without jurisdiction;
• the decree having already been satisfied;
• the attached property being exempt under Section 60 CPC (which protects, among other things, a debtor’s only dwelling house and tools of trade); or
• a third party asserting ownership of attached property under Order XXI Rule 58.

Appeals and Stay of Execution

Separately, the underlying decree itself can be challenged by a first appeal under Section 96 CPC, or on a point of law by a second appeal under Section 100, and the appellate court can grant a stay of execution under Order XLI Rule 5 pending the outcome of the appeal. A court may also stay proceedings during the pendency of such an appeal subject to provision of an appropriate security. A determination made by the executing court under Section 47 is deemed a decree, and is therefore itself open to appeal.

Certain decrees cannot be enforced, or can be enforced only with modification.

• A decree obtained by fraud is liable to be set aside rather than executed.
• A decree that is a nullity for want of jurisdiction cannot be executed, and the executing court may refuse to execute it.
• A purely declaratory decree, such as a declaration under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 that carries no consequential relief, has no executable content and operates by declaration alone.
• A decree for specific performance of a contract of a personal nature (for example, personal service) will not be compelled by the court.
• Property that falls within the Section 60 CPC exemptions, such as a debtor’s only residential house, basic tools of trade, and a portion of salary, cannot be attached.
• Execution applications are also subject to a limitation: the first application must ordinarily be filed within three years of the decree under Article 182 of the Limitation Act, 1908 (six years where certified copy of the decree has been registered), and Section 48 CPC bars fresh applications presented more than six years after the date of the decree. A decree that is not pursued in time therefore becomes unenforceable.
• Decrees against the government require a mandatory notice period under Section 82 CPC before execution can proceed, and are subject to additional procedural safeguards.

Court Registers

There is no single, publicly searchable national register of civil judgments or decrees in Pakistan, unlike some other jurisdictions. However, judgments, decrees and subsequent execution proceedings are formally recorded and maintained in registers prescribed under the respective High Court Rules and Orders applicable in each province and the Islamabad Capital Territory. These registers are maintained by the concerned courts and contain details relating to the institution, adjudication and subsequent proceedings of cases, including the case number and year, names of the parties, nature of proceedings, date of institution, details of the judgment and decree passed, decretal amount (where applicable), execution proceedings, and any subsequent orders relating to satisfaction, adjustment or disposal of the decree.

Accordingly, while there is no single national database through which all judgments against a person can be searched, the official record of a judgment or decree remains preserved in the court record of the court which passed the decree and, where applicable, the executing court.

Recording Satisfaction of a Decree

A judgment-debtor who has paid the decretal amount does not seek the physical removal or deletion of the judgment from the court record. Instead, the satisfaction of the decree is formally recorded. Under Order XXI Rule 2 of the CPC, where a decree has been satisfied or adjusted out of court, such payment or adjustment is required to be certified to the court, and the court records this.

Once satisfaction is entered, the decree is treated as satisfied for the purposes of execution proceedings. The procedure for recording payments made into court is further regulated under the relevant High Court Rules and Orders. For instance, under the Lahore High Court Rules and Orders, payments of decretal amounts deposited by a judgment-debtor are recorded through the prescribed Civil Court Deposit Accounts system. Depending on whether the court follows the cash system or voucher system, the payment is entered into the relevant Register of Receipts.

Upon disbursement of the amount to the decree-holder, the Nazir records the date and amount of repayment against the original entry, and the Presiding Officer initials the relevant entry to confirm that the payment has been applied towards satisfaction of the decree. Thus, satisfaction of a decree is reflected through an endorsement or entry in the relevant court registers and execution record rather than by removing the judgment from any register.

The Governing Framework

Pakistan’s rules for enforcing foreign judgments come from one law, the CPC, a federal statute which applies across all four provinces and the Islamabad Capital Territory.

Meaning of Foreign Judgment

The threshold question is: what counts as a “foreign judgment”? The CPC’s own definition of “judgment” is narrow, but the courts do not apply it strictly in this context, reading the term instead in line with English law. A foreign order is therefore not rejected merely because it lacks detailed reasoning. A “foreign judgment”, in short, is any decree or order from a court outside Pakistan that has no authority inside the country.

Conclusiveness and Section 13 CPC

The substantive test is Section 13 of the CPC, which asks whether the foreign judgment is “conclusive”. Section 14 assists the judgment-creditor: the court presumes that the judgment was pronounced by a court of competent jurisdiction, although the presumption is rebuttable. Section 13 lists the grounds for refusing enforcement:

• the foreign court lacked jurisdiction;
• the case was not decided on the merits;
• the judgment misreads international law or wrongly ignores Pakistani law;
• the process breached natural justice;
• the judgment was obtained by fraud; or
• it enforces a claim that itself breaks Pakistani law.

Jurisdiction and Submission

Jurisdiction is judged by the foreign country’s own law. One exception exists: a foreign court cannot rule on land located outside its territory. Submission to jurisdiction also matters. A defendant who argues the case on the merits will usually be taken to have submitted, as will one who appeals a default judgment on the merits; an appearance made solely to contest jurisdiction, however, does not amount to submission.

The Two Enforcement Routes

The second big issue is which enforcement route applies – it depends on reciprocity. Under Section 44-A, a decree from a “superior court” in the UK or another gazetted “reciprocating territory” can go straight to a District Court for execution. The decree is then treated like a local decree, and the applicant files with it a certificate from the foreign court showing the extent to which the decree has already been satisfied.

If there is no reciprocal arrangement, the creditor must instead file a fresh suit in Pakistan. That suit is based on the foreign judgment, or the original cause of action. Section 13 still applies. Even without formal reciprocity, Pakistani courts sometimes extend comity if the other country would recognise a Pakistani judgment in return.

Other Recurring Issues

A few other issues arise regularly. Interim or non-final judgments cannot be enforced as they do not meet the “conclusive” test. Default judgments can also fail Section 13, unless the creditor proves that the defendant was properly served. Once a judgment is enforced, remittance of the proceeds out of Pakistan requires clearance from the State Bank of Pakistan, which in practice is usually a formality once a Pakistani court has ordered payment.

Treaties and Conventions

Pakistan’s treaty commitments in this field are thin. It is not a party to any multilateral convention on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, and has joined neither the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements, 2005 nor the Hague Judgments Convention, 2019. Reciprocity is created one country at a time, through gazette notifications under Section 44-A, not through treaties. Sections 13, 14 and 44-A of the CPC therefore do all the real work, no matter what other treaty relations Pakistan has with a given country.

Money Decrees and Arbitral Awards

By virtue of Explanation 3, the provisions of Section 44-A are only applicable to money decrees, excluding money decrees in respect of taxes, fines, penalties, costs and arbitration awards. Foreign decrees based on an award are excluded from the definition of a decree and are not executable under Section 44-A CPC. However, for the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, the provisions of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 1958 (the “New York Convention”) have been incorporated into domestic law through the Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act, 2011.

Different Routes for Different Judgments

The route depends heavily on the type of judgment. Section 44-A direct execution is available only for money decrees from a “superior court” of a gazetted reciprocating territory (the United Kingdom, Singapore, Fiji, New Zealand and a handful of others), and it specifically excludes decrees for taxes, fines, penalties and arbitration awards.

Non-money judgments, such as injunctions or declaratory relief, and judgments from non-reciprocating countries, must go through a fresh Section 13 suit. Judgments against a foreign state carry an additional layer of formality, since notice must be transmitted through Pakistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the respondent state’s foreign ministry.

Execution against the assets of a foreign state is further constrained by the State Immunity Ordinance, 1981, which protects state property from attachment unless the property is in use or intended for use for commercial purposes.

Section 13 Exceptions

A foreign judgment will not be recognised or enforced in Pakistan if it falls within any of the exceptions contained in Section 13 of the CPC – namely, where the judgment:

• has not been pronounced by a court of competent jurisdiction;
• has not been given on the merits of the case;
• appears on the face of the proceedings to be founded on an incorrect view of international law or a refusal to recognise the law of Pakistan where such law is applicable;
• was rendered in proceedings opposed to the principles of natural justice;
• has been obtained by fraud; or
• sustains a claim founded on a breach of any law in force in Pakistan. 

In addition, Section 44-A CPC does not permit the direct execution of foreign judgments other than money decrees of the superior courts of notified reciprocating territories. Accordingly, money decrees relating to taxes, fines, penalties, costs and foreign arbitral awards are expressly excluded from the Section 44-A execution regime. Likewise, non-money judgments and judgments originating from non-reciprocating territories are not directly enforceable and must instead be pursued through a fresh suit in Pakistan under the principles embodied in Section 13 CPC or on the original cause of action.

Reciprocating Territories: Direct Execution

The procedure for enforcing a foreign judgment in Pakistan depends on whether it originates from a notified reciprocating territory under Section 44-A of the CPC. Where the judgment is a money decree passed by the superior court of a reciprocating territory, the decree-holder files an execution application before the competent District Court in Pakistan, accompanied by a certified copy of the foreign decree, together with a certificate showing what (if anything) has already been satisfied or adjusted.

The foreign decree is then treated as if it were a decree of the Pakistani court, and execution proceeds in accordance with Order XXI CPC. Before execution is ordered, the court issues notice to the judgment-debtor to show cause why the decree should not be executed, and the judgment-debtor may resist enforcement by establishing any of the exceptions contained in Section 13 CPC.

Non-Reciprocating Territories: Fresh Suit

Conversely, where the judgment originates from a non-reciprocating territory, or where it is a non-money judgment or otherwise falls outside the scope of Section 44-A, the foreign judgment is not directly executable. The decree-holder must file a fresh civil suit before the competent Pakistani court, either on the basis of the foreign judgment as the cause of action or on the original underlying cause of action.

The defendant can contest the suit on the merits and on the Section 13 grounds; and, once a Pakistani decree is obtained, it is executed in the ordinary way which is governed by, inter alia, Order XXI. A suit on a foreign judgment must be brought within six years of the date of the judgment under Article 117 of the Limitation Act, 1908.

The Section 44-A route is generally quicker since it bypasses a full trial, though it can still take considerable time before all objections and any appeal are resolved. The Section 13 fresh-suit route is materially slower, commonly running into several years, because the defendant is entitled to contest the underlying claim as in any ordinary civil suit, including full pleadings, evidence and appeals. Court fees for the direct execution application are nominal; the fresh suit attracts ad valorem court fees based on the value of the claim, in addition to legal fees.

A judgment-debtor may challenge the enforcement of a foreign judgment on both procedural and substantive grounds. Enforcement may be resisted by demonstrating:

• that the foreign judgment is not final and conclusive, including where it remains subject to appeal or has been stayed by the foreign court;
• that the foreign court lacked competent jurisdiction;
• that the defendant was not duly served or the proceedings were otherwise conducted in breach of the principles of natural justice;
• that the judgment was obtained by fraud;
• that it is founded on an incorrect view of international law or a refusal to recognise
• Pakistani law where such law was applicable; or
• that it sustains a claim founded on a breach of any law in force in Pakistan or is otherwise contrary to Pakistani public policy.

In the case of judgments sought to be executed under Section 44-A of the CPC, the District Court may refuse enforcement if any of the exceptions set out in Section 13 CPC are established. In addition, the judgment-debtor may raise any applicable limitation defence under the Limitation Act, 1908, where enforcement proceedings or a fresh suit have not been commenced within the prescribed limitation period. Orders passed by the Pakistani court allowing or refusing enforcement or execution are subject to the ordinary appellate remedies available under the CPC, including an appeal to the High Court where provided by law.

The legal issues relating to enforcement of arbitral awards in Pakistan vary depending upon whether the award is domestic, foreign or an investment award.

Domestic Awards

Domestic awards are governed by the Arbitration Act, 1940, a pre-UNCITRAL statute under which an award does not automatically acquire the status of an executable decree. The award must first be filed in court and made a “rule of the court” before it becomes an enforceable decree.

The principal legal issues include:

• the validity of the arbitration agreement;
• whether the arbitrator acted within the scope of the reference;
• whether there was any misconduct or procedural irregularity by the arbitrator;
• whether the award violates principles of natural justice; and
• whether the award can be set aside on the grounds provided under the Arbitration Act, 1940.

Foreign Awards

Foreign arbitral awards falling under the New York Convention are governed by the Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act, 2011, which gives the High Courts exclusive jurisdiction and confines refusal of enforcement to the narrow grounds in Article V of the Convention, reflecting a pro-enforcement policy that the Supreme Court has endorsed. The High Courts have applied this framework in a pro-enforcement manner. In China International Water and Electric Corporation v National Highway Authority (2023 CLD 1400), the Islamabad High Court recognised a foreign ICC award, holding that enforcement may be refused only on the narrow Article V grounds and that a Pakistani court cannot set aside a foreign award, that power resting with courts of the seat of arbitration. A residual category of Geneva Convention awards, from states party to the Geneva Convention of 1927 but not the New York Convention, is governed by the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act, 1937.

Investment Awards and Other Issues

Additional legal issues may arise regarding:

• limitation;
• the authenticity and certification of the award and arbitration agreement;
• whether the award falls within the scope of the relevant statutory regime; and
• whether the party seeking enforcement has complied with procedural requirements before the Pakistani courts.

In the case of ICSID investment awards, enforcement is governed separately by the Arbitration (International Investment Disputes) Act, 2011, and the principal issues concern registration and enforcement of the award in accordance with Pakistan’s obligations under the ICSID Convention.

Lastly, another issue that could surface is whether interim awards qualify as enforceable awards under the local laws, as they do not make any distinction between interim and final awards. The local courts have in some cases enforced interim awards, holding that under the circumstances the award was final and binding on the parties.

Pending Reform

Reform of the domestic regime is pending: a draft Arbitration Bill modelled on the UNCITRAL Model Law, approved by the Federal Cabinet in 2024, would replace the 1940 Act, but it has not yet been enacted.

Degrees of Judicial Scrutiny

Pakistan adopts different enforcement mechanisms depending on the category of arbitral award. Domestic awards made in Pakistan are subject to the more court-supervised procedure under the Arbitration Act, 1940. The award must be submitted to the court, and before it is converted into a decree the parties may challenge it on statutory grounds, including misconduct of the arbitrator, invalidity of the arbitration proceedings, or the award being beyond the scope of the arbitration agreement.

The court therefore exercises a greater degree of procedural oversight before enforcement. In contrast, foreign commercial arbitral awards are governed by the Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act, 2011, which follows the framework of the New York Convention. The High Court’s role is limited to determining whether any of the narrow refusal grounds under Article V of the Convention are established.

The court does not re-examine the merits of the dispute or reconsider the findings of the arbitral tribunal. A further distinction exists for ICSID investment awards, which are governed by the Arbitration (International Investment Disputes) Act, 2011. Such awards benefit from a separate enforcement mechanism based on Pakistan’s obligations under the ICSID Convention, and are enforced in the same manner as final judgments of Pakistani courts after registration. Therefore, although Pakistan generally maintains a pro-enforcement stance towards arbitration, the procedure and extent of judicial scrutiny vary according to whether the award is domestic, a New York Convention foreign award or an ICSID investment award.

Domestic Awards

In relation to domestic awards, enforcement may be refused where:

• the award has been procured through misconduct of the arbitrator;
• the arbitrator has exceeded the authority conferred under the arbitration agreement;
• the arbitration agreement or reference itself is invalid; or
• the award is otherwise liable to be set aside under the Arbitration Act, 1940.

Foreign Awards

In relation to foreign arbitral awards, awards will not be enforced where they do not satisfy the requirements of the Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act, 2011, including awards that are not binding, have been annulled or suspended by the competent authority at the seat of arbitration, or fall within any of the refusal grounds under Article V of the New York Convention. These include:

• awards arising from invalid arbitration agreements;
• awards rendered without proper notice or opportunity to present a case;
• awards dealing with matters beyond the scope of the arbitration agreement;
• awards involving non-arbitrable subject matters under Pakistani law; or
• awards contrary to Pakistani public policy.

Awards from states that are not New York Convention signatories fall outside the 2011 Act altogether.

Each of these grounds has been construed narrowly. The courts have held that the Article V grounds are exhaustive, that the burden of establishing them rests on the party resisting enforcement, and that Article V is permissive rather than mandatory, so that a court may recognise and enforce an award even where a ground is shown to exist. The enforcing court acts in substance as an executing court. In circumstances, the courts have also declined to summon the record of the arbitration, holding that the court is not empowered to hold a trial, weigh the merits, or substitute its own view for that of the arbitrators.

On invalidity of the arbitration agreement, “incapacity” in Article V(1)(a) refers to the capacity of the parties to enter into the contract in the first place. The requirement of an agreement in writing under Article II(2) has been read generously to accommodate modern commercial practice. For example, the courts have held that the phrase “exchange of letters or telegrams” extends to email and other modern means of communication, and communications exchanged through an automated information system were held to constitute an agreement in writing, read with the Electronic Transactions Ordinance, 2002.

An objection that a party had no proper notice or was otherwise unable to present its case engages the principle of audi alteram partem and the right to a fair trial under Article 10A of the Constitution, but it must be borne out by the record. However, the objection was rejected where the record showed that the objector had taken every step to delay the proceedings before the tribunal and had advanced nothing on the merits of its default.

Objections that the tribunal exceeded the scope of the arbitration agreement have fared no better. The courts have held that, where two agreements are economically interdependent and form an indivisible whole, the arbitration clause in the parent agreement is the centre of gravity and is deemed to be anchored in the subsidiary agreement, so that disputes under the latter fall within the tribunal’s jurisdiction. The court also affirmed the doctrine of kompetenz-kompetenz, under which the tribunal may rule upon its own jurisdiction.

Non-arbitrability is the ground on which Pakistani practice has diverged most from the pro-enforcement trend, although its reach is narrower than it once appeared. A majority Supreme Court Judgment has held that, where allegations of fraud and corruption went to the very existence of a valid contract, the dispute was not one arising under the contract and, as a matter of public policy, was not referable to arbitration. That remains the leading authority on arbitrability, but it was decided under the Arbitration Act, 1940, more than a decade before the 2011 Act and may not be cited as the governing authority any longer. Recently, the Supreme Court, expressly adopting a pro-arbitration approach and by invoking Section 278 of the Companies Act, 2017, stayed proceedings concerning an allegedly fraudulent transfer of shares and referred the dispute to arbitration, albeit with the consent of the parties.

Public policy, in particular, is now read restrictively. The Supreme Court has held that the exception safeguards fundamental notions of morality and justice, was never intended to be given a wide scope of application, and should not become a back door to a review of the merits of a foreign award or to the creation of grounds not available under Article V; it is an exceptional defence attracting a heightened standard of proof. Accordingly, it has been held that enforcement may be refused on this ground only where it would violate the most basic notions of morality and justice prevailing in Pakistan, and that neither an error of law or fact on the part of the arbitrator nor a misapplication of Pakistani law is a public policy objection. Recently, a High Court framed the test in operational terms: an award is contrary to public policy only if it offends a constitutional mandate, is forbidden by law, or would defeat the provisions of any law; multiplicity of proceedings, the risk of conflicting decisions and futility fall outside the doctrine.

ICSID Awards

Similar to the foregoing, an ICSID award may not be enforced where it does not qualify for recognition under the applicable statutory framework or where enforcement is sought contrary to the obligations and limitations recognised under the ICSID Convention.

Domestic Awards

For a domestic award, the award is filed in the competent court under the Arbitration Act, 1940. An application to file the award must be made within 90 days of service of the notice of making of the award (Article 178 of the Limitation Act, 1908). The court issues notice to the parties and provides an opportunity to raise objections, if any, against the award. If no valid objection is established, the court then pronounces judgment in terms of the award and draws up a decree, which is executed like any other decree under Order XXI.

Foreign Awards

For a foreign arbitral award, the party seeking enforcement files an enforcement petition before the competent High Court of the province where the debtor or its assets are located under the Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act, 2011, along with the authenticated award and arbitration agreement attached.

The High Court examines whether the requirements for recognition and enforcement are satisfied, and considers only the limited refusal grounds set out in Article V of the New York Convention. The court does not review the merits of the dispute. Once enforcement is granted, the award is treated as enforceable in Pakistan and execution may proceed in accordance with Pakistani law.

ICSID Awards

For ICSID awards, the award is recognised and registered before the competent High Court in accordance with the Arbitration (International Investment Disputes) Act, 2011. Upon registration, it is enforceable in the same manner as a final judgment of that court, subject to the applicable legal limitations concerning execution.

Domestic award enforcement under the 1940 Act tends to be slower, since it is common for objections and appeals to be raised before the award is made a rule of court, often stretching to several years. Foreign award enforcement is generally quicker in principle, given the narrow refusal grounds and the Supreme Court’s confirmation that the High Court has exclusive jurisdiction (avoiding parallel domestic-court litigation), though court backlogs still commonly push these cases to one to three years on average. Court fees for the enforcement petition itself are modest; overall cost depends mainly on how hard the respondent contests it.

Domestic Awards

For a domestic award, a party can object before it is made a rule of court on grounds such as arbitrator misconduct, the award exceeding the reference, or a dispute over the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement. Once the award is converted into a decree, the resulting decree may be challenged through the ordinary appellate remedies available under Pakistani law.

Foreign Award

For a foreign award, resistance is limited to the Article V/Section 7 grounds:

• an invalid or non-existent arbitration agreement;
• improper notice or inability to present the case;
• an award beyond the scope of the submission;
• an improperly constituted tribunal;
• an award not yet binding or already set aside or suspended at the seat;
• non-arbitrable subject matter; and
• conflict with Pakistani public policy.

A party may also raise applicable limitation objections where enforcement proceedings are initiated beyond the prescribed period under Pakistani law. A High Court’s decision granting or refusing enforcement may be challenged through the available appellate or supervisory remedies, including an intra-court appeal where maintainable and, where appropriate, an appeal before the Supreme Court in accordance with the applicable law.