A civil court of Islamabad summoned DG – FGEHA with directives to appear in person on March 3,2025 before the court for clarification on the engagement of two different counsels by EHFPRO in a civil suit ‘M/s EHFPRO Pvt. Ltd. versus Federal Government Employees Housing Authority etc’.
TLTP has learnt the two counsel took opposite views on the filing of the suit in the matter: one counsel wished to withdraw the suit for being incompetently filed, whereas the other counsel stated that the Power of Attorney for the second counsel was incompetently executed.
In early February of this year, one of the JV partners of Federal Government Employees Housing Authority (FGEHA), Granite, had come knocking to the Court alleging that FGEHA was threatening the unilateral termination of the JV Agreement. Granite argued that if the JV Agreement were terminated in this manner, it would not only cost the company loss worth billions of rupees, it would also cause further delays in the delivery of close to 3000 apartments in G-13 which have been pending for over 15 years now.
Instead, Granite urged the Court to refer the matter to arbitration as stipulated in Clause 16 of the JV Agreement. The Civil Court was pleased to grant an injunction restraining FGEHA from terminating the JV Agreement. However, later in February, FGEHA tried to forcefully dispossess the representatives of EHFPRO from the project site.
At this stage the company again approached the Court, seeking a stay against dispossession which was granted. Nonetheless, FGEHA disregarded the Court orders and took possession of the site nonetheless. Aggrieved, the JV company decided to file a contempt application in the Court through its CEO.
In the meantime, however, the Chairperson of the Board of Directors of EHFPRO, who also happens to be the Director General (DG) of FGEHA, engaged a lawyer in the parallel and instructed him to withdraw the civil suit. Noting the anomalous situation with two different lawyers appearing for the same party tugging the Court in opposite directions, the Court saw no alternate way forward but to summon both the CEO and the Chairperson of the Company to attend the proceedings in person on 15.03.2025.
