• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.27 no.1
• /
• pp.37-57
• /
• 2017

An arbitrator in Pakistan is required to file an arbitral award in a civil court of competent jurisdiction for its recognition and enforcement if an arbitral award is domestic or before the concerned High Court if the arbitral award is international. The court of law is required to issue a decree upon submitted arbitral award if an interested party do not apply for modification or remission of an arbitral award and do not challenge it for setting it aside or for revocation of its recognition and enforcement within a prescribed time limit. The challenging process of an arbitral award can be started by the aggrieved party of an arbitration agreement at the seat of arbitration or at the place where recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award is sought. The aggrieved party to an arbitration agreement is required to challenge an arbitral award within a prescribed time limit if contracting parties have not excluded the right to challenge an arbitral award. Limitation for challenging an arbitral award in Pakistan is 30 days under article 158 of the Limitation Act 1908, starting from the date of service of notice of filling of an arbitral award before the court of law. Generally, 90 days are given for an appeal against decision of the civil court of law under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, it is therefore highly recommended that challenging time of an arbitral award should be increased from 30 to 90 days.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.15 no.3
• /
• pp.55-84
• /
• 2005

The arbitral award is the decision of the arbitrators on the dispute that had been submitted to them by the parties, either under the arbitration clause providing for the determination of future disputes or under submission of an existing controversy. The arbitral award has the same effect between the parties as a final and binding court judgment. The arbitration award shall acquire, as soon as it is given and delivered to each parties, the authority of res judicata in respect of the dispute it settles. The validity of an award is a condition precent for its recognition or enforcement. The validity of an award depends on the provisions of the arbitration agreement including any arbitration rules incorporated in it, and the law which is applicable to the arbitration proceedings. Such provisions usually address both the form and the content of the award. As the 'form', requires article 32 of Arbitration Act of Korea that an arbitral award should, at least, (1) be made in writing and be signed by all arbitrators. (2) state the reasons upon which it is based unless the parties have agreed that it should not, (3) state its date and place of arbitration. There are some further requirement which may have to be observed before an award which has been made by a tribunal can be enforced. (4) The duly authenticated award signed by the arbitrators shall be delivered to each of the parties and the original award shall be sent to and deposited with the competent court, accompanied by a document verifying such delivery. This rule can be interpreted as if the deposit of an arbitral award with the competent court is always required as a condition for its validity or as a preliminary to its enforcement in Korea. However, we must regard this rule which requires the deposit of an arbitral award with court, as rule of order, but not as condition of its validity. Because that the date on which the award is delivered to each party is important as it will generally determine the commencement of time limits for the making of any appeal which may be available. Furthermore, the party applying for recognition or enforcement merely has to supply the appropriate court with the duly authenticated original award or a duly certified copy thereof, not any document which proves that an the arbitral award is sent to and deposited with the competent court. In order to avoid some confusion which can be caused by its interpretation and application, the Article 32 (4) of Arbitration Act of Korea needs to be abolished or at least modified.

• Journal of Korean Society for Quality Management
• /
• v.27 no.3
• /
• pp.51-66
• /
• 1999

This paper empirically investigates the impact of winning a quality award by investigating the rate of return of a firm's stock in the stock market, and by analyzing the contribution and effectiveness to a firm's competitiveness. It also compares the effect of firms winning MB(Malcolm Baldrige) award with that of firms winning Korean quality awards on the stock market. A comparative method is used to analyze the change of award-winning firms'rate of return and then they are classified by time-series, cross-sectional, firm's size, award agency, and the year of receiving the award. The number of firms employed in this study is 74, however, multiple award-winning firms are included in the analysis, which increased the sample size to 118. Results indicate that Korean quality awards improve an award-winning firms'market value but not as much as the MB award did.

• International Journal of Quality Innovation
• /
• v.1 no.1
• /
• pp.106-120
• /
• 2000

The purpose of this research is to understand the effects of Quality Management Award on stock prices movement and to examine the comparative advantages of quality award system in Korea and the U.S. This study compares the performances of QM Award companies in the stock market with those of the market index in both countries. We develop Korean Quality Award Index(KQA Index) based on the Baldrige Index of NIST in the U.S. We inspect three studies. Study 1 tests if the performances of MB Award winners and S&P500 index have a difference in the stock market. Study 2 tests if the performances of KQA winners and KOSPI(Korean Composite Stock Price Index) have a difference in the stock market. Study 3 tests if the performances of KQA winners and MB Award winners have a difference in the stock market. From the empirical tests, the performances of KQA winners are superior to those of KOSPI and the performances of MB Award winners are superior to those of S&P500 and the performances of MB Award winners are superior to those of KQA winners.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.13 no.2
• /
• pp.103-122
• /
• 2004

Recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award play an important role in the settlement of the international commercial disputes. The New York Convention makes it a duty for the courts of signatories to recognize and enforce the foreign arbitral awards not taking the nationality of the party concerned into consideration. Recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award may be refused if the award has not yet become binding on the parties, or has been set aside or suspended by a competent authority of the country in which, or under the law of which, that award was made. The arbitral award has the same force as an irrevocable judgement including effect of excluding further litigation, its execution and formation. But the effect of set aside arbitral award made abroad in arbitral place was denied by France court for the interest of his people. There is no arbitral act but arbitral procedure is regulated by New Code of Civil Procedure in case of France. An appeal against the decision which grants recognition or enforcement is open if the recognition or execution is contrary to international pubic policy in virtue of Art. 1502. Arbitrator may consider compulsory provisions in arbitral place to assure to recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award.

• Journal of Korean Society for Quality Management
• /
• v.27 no.3
• /
• pp.40-50
• /
• 1999

This paper empirically investigates the impact of winning a quality award by investigating the rate of return of a firm's stock in the stock market, and by analyzing the contribution and effectiveness to a firm's competitiveness. It also compares the effect of firms winning MB(Malcolm Baldrige) award with that of firms winning Korean quality awards on the stock market. A comparative method is used to analyze the change of award-winning firms'rate of return and then they are classified by time-series, cross-sectional, firm's size, award agency, and the year of receiving the award. The number of firms employed in this study is 74, however, multiple award-winning firms are included in the analysis, which increased the sample size to 118. Results indicate that Korean quality awards improve an award-winning firms'market value but not as much as the MB award did.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.35
• /
• pp.101-124
• /
• 2007

This paper purposes to examine the setting aside and the refusal of enforcement of arbitral awards and their implications for practitioners. The aim of challenging an award before a national court at the seat, or place, of arbitration is to have it modified in some way by the relevant court, or more usually, to have that court declare that the award is to be disregarded (i.e. "annulled" or "set aside") in whole or in part. If an award is set aside or annulled by the relevant court, it will usually be treated as invalid and accordingly unenforceable, not only by the courts of the seat of arbitration but also by national courts elsewhere. This is because, under both the 1958 New York Convention and the UNCITRAL Model Law, the competent court may refuse to grant recognition and enforcement of an award that has been "set aside" by a court of the seat of arbitration. The New York Convention set out various grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement of an arbitration award. The provisions of the Model Law governing recognition, enforcement or setting-aside of awards are almost identical to those set out in the Convention. Especially, the New York Convention and the Model Law state that an arbitral award may be refused and set aside if a national court of the place of arbitration finds that the award is in conflict with the public policy of its own country. Each state has its own concept of what is required by its "public policy". It is possible to envisage, for example, a dispute over the division of gaming profits from a casino. In many states, the underlying transaction that led to the award would be regarded as a normal commercial transaction and the award would be regarded as valid. Indeed, it is a consistent theme to be found in the legislation and judical decision of many countries. If a workable definition of "international public policy" could be found, it would provide an effective way of preventing an award in an international arbitration from being set aside and refusal for purely domestic policy consideration.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.15 no.3
• /
• pp.85-112
• /
• 2005

The purposes of this paper are to investigate how deeply the courts in Korea and the U.S. are involved in the enforcement process of the arbitral award. The extent of judicial review of arbitral award and the procedures to execute the arbitral award were explored and compared in each of the countries. In Korea the winning party should file a suit for enforcement judgement to execute the arbitral award, while the winning party in the U.S. should file an application for motion. Such difference in the execution process between Korea and the U.S. may be led to a higher burden on the Korean winning party in the execution process due to the complexity and instability during the new litigation for enforcement judgement. In addition, the Korean Arbitration Act does not grant any authority for the court to intervene with the substantive matters in the arbitral award, while in the U.S. the Common Law allows the court to vacate the arbitral ward when the arbitral award is entered with the manifest disregard of the law by the arbitral tribunal. It would be more practical for the court to supplementarily intervene with the arbitral award which obviously hurts the legal interest of the arbitral parties.

• Proceedings of the Safety Management and Science Conference
• /
• 2009.11a
• /
• pp.251-268
• /
• 2009

This study aimed at working out a practical plan in order that National Quality Award may be helpful to develop enterprises. In line with this aim, this study investigated the cases of foreign countries that evaluate the quality managements of enterprises on the basis of the standard model, and the aftereffect of winning the award, and its influence on management performance. Investigation was focused on the companies that won Quality National Award as a result of quality innovation activities and met with good results since then and finally won Korea Quality Grand Prix 3 years after winning the award, and questionnaire was performed to the directors of the competent authorities. The questionnaire was sent by e-mail, and its questions were made with a help from the advisers of National Quality Award. Questions were mostly focused on four parts, the general states of enterprises, the operation system of National Quality Award, the after effect of winning the award, and management performance shown after winning the award.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.23 no.1
• /
• pp.1-23
• /
• 2013

When a court recognizes an arbitral award, it acknowledges that the award is valid and binding, and thereby gives it a set of effects similar to those of a court's judgment, among which res judicata is the most important. The res judicata effect of an arbitral award generally forbids parties to an action from subsequently litigating claims that were raised in a prior arbitration. In common law countries, res judicata may also preclude re-adjudication of issues raised and decided in a prior arbitration. The Korean Arbitration Act acknowledges the rights of parties to an arbitral award to seek not only an enforcement judgment but also a recognition judgment on an arbitral award. Therefore, the question arises whether or not the winning party in an arbitration must acquire a recognition judgment on the arbitral award in order to enjoy the effects of a recognized award. However, according to the case law and generally accepted views, an arbitral award is automatically recognized without any additional procedure, as long as it satisfies the requirements for recognition. Therefore, in order to resolve this question, it is desirable to eliminate the statutory clause that stipulates the right to seek recognition judgment.