What happened to Hascol at the Sindh High Court?

You are in your office. Sipping a cup of tea perhaps, or thinking of the many appointments that glare at you menacingly from your calendar.

Someone places a bundle of files before you. They do this everyday. And it never gets any better. You stopped reading them a long time ago. Gulping the last few sips from the cup in your hand, you resign yourself to your fate and start signing the papers.

Your mind wanders elsewhere. Is a human being a mere paper-signing machine, you perhaps wonder. What might be a good place to order lunch from today? Some financial care might also be buzzing in your brain. Eventually, the pile is done. You heave a sigh of relief. Now you can really get to your work.

Until you are made aware that one of the papers you had signed was not to be signed. The marble beneath your feet gives a crack. A tingling rises in your knees. It’s embarrassing. And you wonder at the horror of this Kafkaesque nightmare you seem to have been thrust into. 

Something similar happened recently in a case involving a dispute between Hascol Petroleum and MENA energy. A flurry of activity took place at the Sindh High Court from the 29th of October this year up until the 10th of November. A prohibitory notice signed by the court’s registrar on the 29th had seemingly disadvantaged Hascol in the $9.5 million case. The exact details of this prohibitory notice have not been shared by the SHC, but the registrar admitted his mistake, claiming the document had accidentally been placed in a pile meant for his signature and he had put down his name without reading it. 

Since admitting the mistake, the SHC has retracted the notice and informed the banks involved in the case. However, the details of what the order was are hazy. Hascol has either ignored requests to clarify what happened, or their legal team has said they cannot discuss the matter since it is subjudice, even though the specific matter of the retraction has been adjudicated upon. Not only this, but the court has not posted the correction anywhere on its website, and the staff at the relevant court has declined to share information or documents about the case. Why the secrecy and why now? To understand, we must go back to the original conflict.