Preamble : Introduction
2022 SCMR 1810 SUPREME-COURT
SHAHIN SHAH VS GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA through Secretary Irrigation Department, Peshawar
Preamble—Duty of Court in arbitration matters—Scope—Once a party has agreed to arbitration, it should be the Court’s responsibility to either facilitate the said party in the arbitration while staying within the confines of the Arbitration Act, 1940 or, to compel the party to abide by the terms and conditions of a contract—Purpose of arbitration is defeated if a party refuses to abide by the agreed mode of dispute resolution—Such a trend must not be encouraged.
2022 SCMR 1810 SUPREME-COURT
SHAHIN SHAH VS GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA through Secretary Irrigation Department, Peshawar
Preamble—Rules of Reconciliation and Arbitration of International Chamber of Commerce (‘the ICC Rules), Art. 21—ICC Rules do not divest the Courts in Pakistan of their jurisdiction in arbitration matters.
2021 SCMR 1728 SUPREME-COURT
ORIENT POWER COMPANY (PRIVATE) LIMITED VS SUI NORTHERN GAS PIPELINES LIMITED
Art. 7(2)—Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act (XVII of 2011), Preamble—Arbitration Act (X of 1940), Preamble—Arbitration agreements—Incorporation of an arbitration clause by reference—Scope—Article 7(2) of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law on International Commercial Arbitration (“UNCITRAL Model Law”), in furtherance of its pro arbitration aims, explicitly allowed for incorporation of arbitration clauses by reference—Supreme Court observed that in a commercially fast paced world, where the world was essentially a global village, it was regrettable that Pakistan, although a signatory to ‘UNCITRAL Model Law’, had till date not incorporated its provisions into its domestic law and the Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act, 2011 made no mention of incorporation of arbitration clauses by reference.
2021 CLD 1069 SUPREME-COURT
ORIENT POWER COMPANY (PRIVATE) LIMITED VS SUI NORTHERN GAS PIPELINES LIMITED
Art. 7(2)—Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act (XVII of 2011), Preamble—Arbitration Act (X of 1940), Preamble—Arbitration agreements—Incorporation of an arbitration clause by reference—Scope—Article 7(2) of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law on International Commercial Arbitration (“UNCITRAL Model Law”), in furtherance of its pro arbitration aims, explicitly allowed for incorporation of arbitration clauses by reference—Supreme Court observed that in a commercially fast paced world, where the world was essentially a global village, it was regrettable that Pakistan, although a signatory to ‘UNCITRAL Model Law’, had till date not incorporated its provisions into its domestic law and the Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act, 2011 made no mention of incorporation of arbitration clauses by reference.
2020 CLC 760 ISLAMABAD
The IMPERIAL ELECTRIC COMPANY (PRIVATE) LIMITED VS ZHONGXING TELECOM PAKISTAN (PRIVATE) LIMITED
Preamble—Object, purpose and scope of Arbitration Act, 1940—Provisions of Arbitration Act, 1940 were to be interpreted in such a manner as to achieve essential objective of speedy adjudication through a domestic forum—Very purpose of Arbitration Act, 1940 is to achieve adjudication within a short time by avoiding time consuming procedure in civil courts—Policy of law is that arbitration proceedings not to be unduly prolonged.
2016 PLD 121 SUPREME-COURT
KARACHI DOCK LABOUR BOARD VS QUALITY BUILDERS LTD.
Preamble—Competence or jurisdiction of an arbitrator—Kompetenz-Kompetenz (German)/Competence de la Competence (French)/ Competence Competence (English), principle of—Principle that an arbitral tribunal shall determine its own jurisdiction, and that if the question of proper constitution of an arbitral tribunal was not raised before the tribunal itself, this would constitute a waiver of the right to object which objection could not be subsequently raised for setting aside the award—Reasons for limited applicability of such principle in Pakistan stated.
2016 PLD 121 SUPREME-COURT
KARACHI DOCK LABOUR BOARD VS QUALITY BUILDERS LTD.
Preamble—Arbitration proceedings—Doctrine of least intervention (by the court)—Applicability—Doctrine of least intervention (by the court) was a valid principle, but the court would not apply the same where there had been sheer non-compliance with the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940.
2016 YLR 237 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ZAHEER BROTHERS VS MULTAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
- 32 & Preamble— Arbitration agreement—Dispute between the parties—Arbitration—Once dispute between parties had been referred to arbitration then only remedy was under Arbitration Act, 1940 and not through a suit.
2016 CLC 1757 ISLAMABAD
NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY VS LILLEY INTERNATIONAL (PRIVATE) LIMITED
Ss. 30, 33 & Preamble—-Bar to suits contesting arbitration agreement or award—Effect of legal proceedings on arbitration—Arbitration proceedings— Limitation— Objection as to limitation/ maintainability not raised before Arbitrator—Effect—Powers of Arbitrator—Scope—‘Misconduct’ on part of Arbitrator—Scope—Notice of arbitration award not given to all parties by Arbitrator—Effect—Powers of civil court while hearing objections to award—Scope—Respondent/National Highway Authority (NHA) awarded contract to the respondent-Company for construction of a project, however, later on, the Company also claimed compensation for the work not included in the original contract, which was declined by the Authority—Arbitrator allowed the claim of the Company and passed an award for payment of certain amount to the Company, and the civil court, after entertaining objection from the Authority made said award a rule of court—Validity—Civil court hearing objections to the award under Ss.30 & 33 of Arbitration Act, 1940, not being court of appeal, was not to appraise the entire case, but the court had to confine itself to the grounds mentioned in Ss.30 & 33 of the Act—Contention that the Arbitrator had not given any finding on the question of limitation was not factually correct as the parties had agreed to resolve the dispute through arbitration and by mutual consent had appointed the respondent as sole Arbitrator; therefore, all previous discussions/ meetings had come to an end—Respondent had not raised the question of limitation in its reply before the Arbitrator and raised the same for the first time in the supplementary affidavit in evidence—Question of limitation, even if the same was not properly appreciated by the court or the authority which passed an order, did not render the decree or an award a nullity—Objection as to limitation should have been taken before the Arbitrator in clear terms—Award could not be considered to be a nullity in the eye of law, even if the claim was barred by time—Respondent had not raised the issue of maintainability of arbitration in its reply to the claim of the Company—Contention that the proceedings before the Arbitrator were not maintainable as no appeal had been filed against the decision of Dispute Resolution Committee had no substance, as both the parties had submitted to the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator and contested the matter on merits—Technicalities could not defeat the chosen forum of the parties—Object of Arbitration Act, 1940 was that when the parties to a contract decided to get their dispute settled by an Arbitrator, the decision of the Arbitrator should have been considered to be final—Party, participating in arbitration proceedings without protest, could not question the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator when award had been given against that party—Arbitrator was not obliged to give reasons for his decision, and even if giving of reasons was held to be obligatory, that was not obligatory for the Arbitrator to give detailed judgment—Arbitrator was the final judge of fact and the court was bound by the Arbitrator’s findings of fact and could not review the same, unless the same were not supported by evidence—Coming to an erroneous decision was not ‘misconduct’ in terms of Ss.30 & 33 of the Act—Error or infirmity in the award should have been floated on the face of it—Arbitrator, in the present case, while passing the award, had addressed all legal and factual issues, and no error was floating on the surface which could show that the award was suffering from any apparent legal infirmity or that the proceedings by the Arbitrator had been conducted in the manner which amounted to misconduct—Failure to give notice of the award to the respondents did not nullify or vitiate the award—Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.
2014 YLR 1628 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Mst. DAULAN BIBI VS Mst. AISHA BIBI
Preamble— Arbitration— Essence—Scope—Arbitration was an arrangement for the determination of a dispute between the parties by a person chosen by them—Essence of arbitration was the resolution of dispute by a decision through a person acting as an arbitrator and not by the court—Concept of arbitration was based upon withdrawing dispute from the ambit of courts and providing a remedy to the parties to get their disputes settled through a person of their own choice—Arbitrator only and solely derived his jurisdiction and powers from the reference/agreement which the parties specifically referred to him—Arbitrator had an arbitrary power to decide the sole referred dispute by the parties after conducting proceeding as envisaged in the Arbitration Act, 1940 and there must be an arbitration agreement; and that there was a dispute under agreement and that proceedings were conducted by the arbitrator.
2013 MLD 1490 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
RAB NAWAZ VS MUHAMMAD KABEER
- XXIII, R.3—Arbitration Act (X of 1940), Preamble—Compromise of suit—Statement between the parties to the suit for decision of the same on the statement of a third person did not fall within the ambit of O.XXIII, R.3, C.P.C. nor provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940 were applicable—Such statement between the parties being a mere agreement, could be retracted by any party due to lack of confidence upon the Referee—Court had no jurisdiction to record the statement of the Referee when there was lack of confidence by any party to the suit.
2013 PLD 406 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Haji NAIMATULLAH VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Defence
Preamble—Arbitration—Scope, object and purpose of arbitration stated.
2013 CLD 1438 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR
COMMUNICATION AND WORKS DEPARTMENT, AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR VS DESIGN AND ENGINEERING SYSTEM
Preamble—Arbitration Act, 1940, object of—Scope—Sole object of Act, 1940 being to enforce arbitration agreement and resolve dispute between parties thereto through domestic Tribunal speedily—Principles.
2010 PLD 1 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR
AMEEN GENERAL ENTERPRISES through Managing Director VS AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR GOVENRMENT through Chief Secretary, Muzaffarabad
Preamble, Ss. 17, 30 & 31—Arbitrator, arbitration proceedings and award—Nature and object—Judgment in terms of award—Material essential to be considered by Court stated.
2006 CLC 1678 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
M.S. PORT SERVICES (PVT.) LIMITED VS PORT QASIM AUTHORITY
–Preamble & S.9—Arbitration Act (X of 1940), Preamble—Applicability of general rule of C.P.C. to arbitration proceedings—Scope—General rule of Code of Civil Procedure though was applicable to all proceedings of civil nature, but scheme of Arbitra
2005 YLR 2709 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MUJTABA HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI VS SULTAN AHMED
—Preamble, Chaps.II [Ss.3 to 19], III [S.20] & IV [Ss.21 to 25]—Modes of arbitration–Perusal of Arbitration Act, 1940, reveals that there are three modes of arbitration: Arbitration without intervention of Court; Arbitration with intervention of Cour
2005 YLR 2709 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MUJTABA HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI VS SULTAN AHMED
—Preamble—Scheme of the Arbitration Act, 1940 is that the dispute between the parties, who entered into an agreement of arbitration, should be decided by one or more persons, who are called to be Judges in the said dispute, and not by a regular or ord
2003 PLD 180 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
ADAMJEE CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. VS ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN
Arbitration Act 1940 —-Preamble—Role of Courts—Scope—Role of Courts in the scheme of the Arbitration Act, 1940, is of supervisory character.
2002 PLD 720 SUPREME-COURT
MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM VS Mst. IRSHAD BEGUM
—-S. 13—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XLI, R.11— Arbitration Act (X of 1940), First Sched., para.5—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)—Ejectment of tenant—Appeal—District Judge on appeal referred the matter to the Arbitrators-
2001 CLC 664 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ABDUR RAUF VS ZUBEDA KALEEM
- 41 & Second Sched.—Powers of Court under Second Sched., exercise of—Such powers could be exercised even in a case where reference to arbitration had been made by intervention of the Court—Effect of the provision of S.41(b), Arbitration Act, 1940 was to clothe the Court with the same powers in relation to the arbitration proceedings and to issue interim order for the preservation and safety of the subject-matter of the dispute.
2001 CLC 289 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ALPHA INSURANCE CO. LIMITED VS NIZAM DIN & SONS
Arbitration Act 1940 Preamble—Law leans in favour of upholding the award and not vitiating the same.
2001 MLD 99 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN, CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, KARACHI VS AL-FAROOQ BUILDERS
Arbitration Act 1940 —-Preamble & S. 30—Qbject of Arbitration Act, 1940—Setting aside of award—Conditions—Sole purpose of Arbitration Act, 1940, is to curtail litigation in Courts and promote settlement of disputes amicably through persons in whom both the parties repose their confidence—Court has to endeavour to sustain the award rather than to destroy the same unless it can be shown by sufficient arid reliable material on record that the arbitrator is guilty of misconduct or that the award is beyond the scope of reference or that the same is violative of statute or in contradiction to the well-settled norms and principles of law.
2000 MLD 272 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
NILOFER SAEED VS ARIF ASLAM KHAN
Arbitration Act 1940 —-Preamble & S.13—Role of arbitrator—Arbitrator is to settle dispute between the parties amicably by avoiding all types of technicalities of procedural law but within the four corners of substantive law and to provide a domestic forum for speedy disposal of dispute—Arbitration is undertaken through persons in whom both the parties repose their trust—Course that the Courts should generally follow, was to encourage settlement of dispute by arbitration, wherever the parties had themselves agreed to do so, as same was according to the scheme of Arbitration Act, 1940.
1999 MLD 1876 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ATTOCK INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS LIMITED VS HEAVY MECHANICAL COMPLEX (PVT.) LIMITED
—-O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2—Arbitration Act (X of 1940), S.41 & Second Sched.—Interim injunction, grant of—Petitioner and respondent entered into a contract according to which respondent was to set up a manufacturing plant for petitioner on stipulated p
1999 YLR 978 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
ZIAUDDIN VS ROZE-UD-DIN
Arbitration Act 1940 —-Preamble— “Arbitration”— Definition–Arbitration is resorted to only when there are differences between the parties to arbitration agreement—Arbitration is a judicial determination of differences between the parties—Necessary ingredients for an arbitration are that there must be a controversy; presentation of case from both sides; if necessary evidence be brought on record; and application of mind by the arbitrator and a reasoned award must follow.
1999 CLC 1320 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
HUB POWER CO. VS WAPDA
-S. 9(b)—Arbitration Act (X of 1940), Preamble—Arbitration of two patties both belonging to Pakistan who had agreed to a foreign arbitration—Application of law to such arbitration—Principles—Award—Nature.
1999 PLD 235 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
W.A.P.D.A VS CHINA INTERNATIONAL WATER AND ELECTRIC CORPN.
Ss. 20, 39 & 41—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.151—Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S.3—Application to file arbitration agreement in Court—Appeal—Procedure and .power of Court —Intra-Court appeal–Maintainability—Arbitrator was appointed by Single Judge of High Court to resolve the dispute among the parties and Local Commissioner was also appointed by the Court to report about the work done at the site—Appointment of the earlier Local Commissioner was not objected to by any of the parties but when the earlier Local Commissioner declined to accept the assignment, Single Judge of the High Court appointed another Local Commissioner—Appellant ;sought review of the order of appointment of Local Commissioner in an i application under S.151 of C.P.C. and the same was dismissed —Validity–Order passed by Single Judge of the High Court was under S.4I of Arbitration ii Act, 1940 and the same could not be impugned under S.39 of Arbitration Act, 1940—Review of the, order passed under the provisions of Arbitration Act. for the appointment of Local Commissioner was not permissible through an application under S.151, C.P.C.—Where the appointment of earlier Local Commissioner was not objected to by the appellant and the matter was already referred to the sole arbitrator, Intra-Court Appeal was not maintainable
1999 CLC 1005 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
ABDUL SALAM VS MUHAMMAD YAQOOB
Preamble—Object—Arbitration Act, 1940 is to save the parties from the cumbersome and tiring proceedings of the civil litigation and to resolve their disputes through arbitration as early as possible.
1998 SCMR 867 SUPREME-COURT
SHARBAT KHAN VS FAZAL RAHIM
—-S. 516-A—Arbitration Act (X of 1940), Preamble—Arbitration and mediation/reconciliation—Distinction—Essential difference between a mediator and an arbitrator is that a mediator merely brings about and records a settlement arrived at between th
1997 PLD 674 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD YOUSAF VS PROVINCE OF PUNJAB
Ss. 2(a), 17 & First Sched., para. 7—Punjab Zila Council (Export Tax) Rules, 1990, R. 19—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199—Constitutonal petition—Arbitration clause in an agreement—Petitioner himself invoking jurisdiction of Commissioner by invoking arbitration clause in agreement–Effect—Petitioner having himself invoked jurisdiction of Commissioner in terms of arbitration clause in agreement, could not turn round when award was announced against him except by taking appropriate proceedings against same in accordance with law–
1997 MLD 2419 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
AMANULLAH KHAN VS KOHAT CEMENT CO.
Arbitration Act 1940 —-Preamble & S.19—Object, purpose and scope of Arbitration Act, 1940–Mode of exercise of discretion by Court in ordering supersession of arbitration agreement—Sole purpose of Arbitration Act, 1940, was to curtail litigation in Courts and to promote settlement of disputes through persons having trust of parties—Agreement between parties for resolution of their dispute through domestic forum of their choice must be allowed to prevail unless Court had come to definite conclusion that to do so would result in miscarriage of justice–Discretion vesting in Court to order supersession of arbitration agreement was not automatic but was to be exercised judiciously—Where arbitration agreement was sought to be annulled, the Court had to give reasonable grounds justifying annulment of agreement.
1996 PLD 383 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
FARHAT IQBAL VS MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE
11 ??? Arbitration Act (X of 194 Ss.2(a) & 14 ??? Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 96 ??? Exegution arbitration agreement on behalf of landowner by hh. sons whun lalidow himself was alive and proceeding under Lunacy Act, 1912 were pending agai him which had been initiated by one of the sons (subsequently execu ,arbitration agreement on his behalf) and one of landowner’s daughterssons thereafter referring matter to arbitrator requiring him to decide as to should inherit landowner’s property and thereafter withdrawing lun
proceedings against their father who was still alive ??? Arbitrator deciding matter in favour of sons that they should inherit their father’s property ??? Fat of parties i.e. landowner died in the meantime ??? Award was filed in Court one of the daughters objecting to validity of the award ??? Trial Court, howe making award rule of the Court ??? Validity??
1996 CLC 503 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ALLAH DITTA VS MUHAMMAD GHAFFAR
—-Ss. 2(a), 3 & para. 2 of First Sched.—Arbitration agreement —Umpire–Appointment of—Arbitration agreement according to which parties voluntarily opted to refer their dispute to arbitration of their own choice, was duly executed in writing betwee
1995 MLD 187 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
SAEEDA BANO VS MUHAMMAD AMIN
Arbitration Act 1940 —-First Sched., para. 3—Award having been announced by Arbitrators beyond prescribed period—Whether nullity—Parties throughout participated in the arbitration proceedings before the arbitrators up til the announcement of award, without protest or objection on account of delay—Party could not be allowed to take such objection after the award was announced against such party.
1995 PLD 286 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
PAK. DEVELOPMENT CORPN. (PVT) LTD. VS MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
Arbitration Act 1940 Preamble—Scheme of Arbitration Acf, ,1 `40—Object—Scope and import—Whole scheme of Arbitration Act, 1940, is to curtail litigation in regular Courts to get disputes settled by avoiding ,all types of technicalities of procedural law but within the four corners of substantive law and to provide a domestic forum for speedy disposal of disputes. [pp. ‘292, 294) A & E
1994 PLD 525 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
RUPALI POLYESTER LTD VS NAEL G. BUNNI
??
1994 CLC 2000 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
SUNRISE TEXTILE LIMITED VS TOMEN CORPORATION
—-S. 41 & Second Sched.—Procedure and powers of Court—Stay of proceedings—Despite stay of proceedings in the suit on reference of the dispute for decision in arbitration, the Court retained control on the subject matter of the lis for making ancil
1994 PLD 127 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
SHAFI. CORPN. LTD. VS GOVT. OF PAKISTAN
—-Preamble—Object of arbitration—Arbitration being in fact a domestic tribunal; object thereof, is to decide speedily disputes by quasi-judicial means by avoiding formalities, technicalities, delay, expenses and ordeal of litigation.
1988 CLC 1583 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
PROVINCE OF BALUCHISTAN VS MUHAMMAD HASSAN
XLI, R. 27??Arbitration Act (X of 1940), Ss.33 & 39??Provisions of O . XLI , R . 27, C . P . C . not to be interpreted narrowly and restrictedly??Recording of additional evidence by Appellate Court conditions??Where it was contended by the Appellant that Arbitrator had conducted the proceedings behind his back, examination of Arbitrator, held, was necessary.
1988 CLC 2359 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD KHALID VS A.T.M. CORPORATION LTD
Arbitration Act 1940 —‘Arbitrator’,’Referee’and’Award’–Meaning, scope and import of–Arbitrator is a person who decides a dispute after making enquiry following judicial procedure, keeping in view principles of natural justice, and law of the land–Decision thus emanating from judicial determination is known as “Award”–Where, however, a matter is referred to a person who is not called upon either to hold enquiry or to give a decision but by exercise of his sagacity, knowledge or experience to bring about merely an understanding between parties, restoring peace between them, then such person would be discharging only functions other than those of arbitrator–Intention of parties to have the dispute decided by a person of their own choice or by the Court in accordance with information provided by person referred to, by the parties, would be gathered and determined from the nature of dispute, terms of reference, commitment or undertaking given, if any, respecting binding nature or otherwise of the report, procedure to be adopted or actually adopted for resolving dispute by person to whom dispute was referred and conduct of parties before the person appointed.
1988 CLC 1318 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
AFROZ JEHAN VS NOOR JEHAN
26-A–Order making award rule of Court–Duty of Court to examine award–Arbitrator while making award was required to state reasons in sufficient detail–Where such reasons had not been stated, Court would remit such award–Arbitrator not duty bound alone to give reasons for award but Court was also required to examine such award to see whether sufficient reasons had been given to enable Court to consider any question of law arising out of award–Court made award rule of Court without realizing that by such order it was adjudicating, right of a person, who had never been a party to any proceeding at any stage–Proceedings before Court, therefore, stood vitiated–
1987 MLD 3001 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Messrs ASCONS ENGINEERS and CONTRACTOR VS Messrs PAK STEEL MILLS CORPORATION
—S.3 [First Sched., Condition No. 11–Arbitration agreement-Condition No. 1 of First Sched. when applicable–Arbitration agreement between parties under which dispute between parties was to be settled in accordance with arbitration procedure, not mentio
1987 CLC 2063 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
COMMODITIES TRADING INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION VS TRADING CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN LTD.
— S. 41 & Second Sched.–Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)–Scope of S. 41–Procedure and powers of Court- -Provisions of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, would be applicable to all arbitration proceedings before Court and in appeal–For purpose of, and in re
1986 CLC 359 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
AZHAR FAROOQUI VS PERVEZ ANWAR
Arbitration Act 1940 —Plea not taken in correspondence with regard to arbitration agreement nor taken before High Court, while making application–Such plea, held, could not be taken at argument stage.
1986 PLD 1 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
UZIN EXPORT IMPORT ENTERPRISED VS M. IFTIKHAR & CO LTD
Ss 34 & 41-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 9-Contract Arbitration clause in agreement-Expressions “steps in proceedings” and “defendant’s readiness and willingness to go to arbitration” in S. 34, Arbitration Act, 1940, illustrated.-[Interpretation of statutes].
1984 PLD 80 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
MUHAMMAD RAFIQ VS REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, BALUCHISTAN
- 43?Co?operative Societies (Bahawalpur, Khairpur, Quetta, Kalat) Rules, 1963, rr. 16 & 17?Arbitration Act (X of 1940), Ss. 2 & 14Decision of Registrar having force of decree, held, cannot be termed as award and cannot be sent for by Court under S. 14 of Arbitration Act, 1940.?[Award].
1983 PLD 134 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
GOVT. OF SIND VS SIND FINE TEXTILE MILLS
18 (I) (f )read with Defence of Pakistan Rules, 1971, r. 121 (4) and Arbitration Act (X of 1940)-Compulsory acquisition of immovable property-Determination of compensation by arbitrator-High Court dealing with appeal against award of such arbitrator under S. 18 (1) (f ) of Ordinance-Held, neither bound by limitations prescribed in Arbitration Act neither disabled from substituting its own findings and decisions on matters of fact as well.
1982 CLC 353 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
WAPDA VS NAEEM TRADING CO.
12-Arbitrator-When authority of arbitrator appointed according to a provision of agreement revoked with leave of Court or when arbitrator otherwise removed Court has to proceed under S. 12 of Act and it may either supersede arbitration agreement or appoint a sole arbitrator in place of person displaced-No fetter on powers of Court to abide by provisions of arbitration agreement and leave appointment of an arbitrator to authority named therein unless there is intention to contrary, power conferred on a third person to point an arbitrator cannot be exercised again and again-[Arbitrator].
1982 CLC 750 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
PAKISTAN REFINERY LTD., KARACHI VS INDUS SHIPPING AND TRADING CO. LTD. KARACHI
_.– S. 17, Sched. I, r. 5 -Umpire, duty of-Umpire to use all reasonable dispatch in entering on and proceeding with reference and making award-Umpire acting in such manner cannot be held to have shown interest in matter in absence of any proof.
1981 CLC 828 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MEHTABUDDIN VS ABDUL SATTAR
3 read with Sched., cl. (l)-Appointment of umpire-Parties appointing even number of arbitrators–Arbitration agreement postulating appointment of umpire only upon difference of opinion-No difference of opinion arising between arbitrators-Held, provision in arbitration agreement having been different from provisions of cl. (2) of Schedule, contrary provision in agreement to prevail portent over provisions contained in cl. (2) of Schedule.-[Arbitrator].
1979 CLC 95 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD RAMZAN VS NAZIR AHMAD
- 17-Award, appeal against-Objections against award rejected by same judgment by which decree passed-Appeal before District Judge held, brought in right forum,-[Award-Appeal (civil)]
1977 PLD 480 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
HAJI HASHAM HAJI AHMAD & BROS. VS TRADING CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN LTD., KARACHI
33 read with Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. II, r. 2Rggrieved party can, in certain cases, have successive resorts to arbitration?Question whether arbitration agreement gets exhausted with one arbitration?Depends on scope of submission clause?Party to a dispute covered by submission clause cannot split up his cause of action and submit piecemeal claims for reference to arbitration.
1970 PLD 241 SUPREME-COURT
MUHAMMAD AKBAR VS MUHAMMAD ASLAM
XXIII, r. 3 read with Oaths Act (X of 1873), Ss. 8, 10 ck 11 and Arbitration Act (X of 1940)-Parties to a suit coming to an agreement that suit may be decided in accordance with statement to be made by a third person as to matters in dispute between them-Agreement later retracted by appellant before recording of statement of third person by trial Court-Such agreement not covered by any statutory provision-Held, a contract and does not amount to an adjustment of suit.
1970 PLD 69 DHAKA-HIGH-COURT
PROVINCE OF EAST PAKISTAN VS ABDUR RASHID
Arbitration Act 1940 First Sched, Art. 3 read with S. 3-Award-Arbitrator called upon to act on 22-6-66, but not entering on reference till 18-10-66-Arbitrator, held, failed to use all reasonable dispatch in entering on reference for purposes of making an award within prescribed period of four months and therefore liable to be removed.
1969 PLD 524 SUPREME-COURT
MESSRS BADRI NARAYAN AGARWALA VS MESSRS PAK. JUTE BALERS LTD
Arbitration Act 1940 First Sched., cl. (3)-Expression “shall make their award within four months after entering on the reference”-Words “entering on the reference”.
1969 PLD 523 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MESSRS M. MUHAMMAD SAID VS CH. MUHAMMAD TUFAIL & CO. AND OTHERS
Arbitration Act 1940 First Sched., para. 3-Agreement not indicating time requisite for making award-Arbitrators making award within four months from date of reference-Award, in circumstances, within time and upheld.
1967 PLD 204 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
GHULAM MOHYUDDIN VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN
(c) Arbitration Act (X of 1940), First Schedule, para. 3- Ghulam Award given after four months of entering upon reference-Party Mohyuddin not raising objection and taking part in proceeding even after Federation expiry of four months-Not to be allowed to raise objection in of Pakistan Court.
1966 PLD 262 DHAKA-HIGH-COURT
MESSRS BADRI NARAYAN AGARWALLA VS MESSRS PAK. JUTE BALERS LTD., DACCA
Arbitration Act 1940 First Sch., cl. 3-Words “entering on the reference”- Notice calling upon parties to file statements issued not by Arbitration Tribunal but by Registrar of Chamber of Commerce before constitution of Tribunal-Arbitrators cannot be said to have entered upon reference on date of issue of such notice-Mere issue of notice by Registrar, Chamber of Commerce instead of by Arbitration Tribunal-Does not render award invalid-Arbitration Act (X of 1940), S. 30.
1966 PLD 54 DHAKA-HIGH-COURT
MESSRS M. M. ISPAHANI LTD. VS MESSRS PAKISTAN TRADING COMPANY
Arbitration Act 1940 First Sch, cl. 3 Phrase “entering on the reference”-Meaning.
1966 PLD 164 DHAKA-HIGH-COURT
MESSRS BADRI NARAYAN AGARWALLA, KHULNA VS MESSRS PAK. JUTE BALERS LTD., DACCA
3 read with First Schedule, item 3-Arbitrators cannot “enter on reference” before they are ‘appointed-Reference to Tribunal of Arbitration of Chamber of Commerce made on 1-4-57 and Court of arbitration constituted on 21-5-57-Award made on 21-8-57 (within four months of constitution of Court)-Cannot be said to have been made beyond time-Award not a nullity.
1966 PLD 19 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR
AZAD J & K GOVERNMENT VS KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD USMAN & CO.
13 & First Schedule-Arbitrator-Not bound by technicalities of law of evidence or procedure-Nor bound to frame issues or give separate findings on each issue-Issues, if framed, must all be decided not necessarily separately.
1964 PLD 3 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
PAKISTAN VS GAYER & CO., KARACHI
Arbitration Act 1940 Sch. I, para. 3-Expression “after entering on reference”-Means after arbitrator does something in pursuance of reference-Issuing notice to parties for appearance before him-Amounts to entering upon reference.
1960 PLD 677 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN VS H. GHULAM MOHY UD DIN
Arbitration Act 1940 S. 42 proviso-Not applicable where further relief could 8e granted by another Court only, or where such relief is not open at time declaratory decree is passed-West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959).
1960 PLD 591 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD SHAFI VS MUHAMMAD SABIR
Arbitration Act 1940 —Schedule I, Para. 3-Words “entering on the reference”, meaning.
1959 PLD 43 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
GHUFRAN AHMAD VS
Arbitration Act 1940 S. 3 and Schd. I, S. 1-Arbitration Agreement silent on number of arbitrators and manner in which arbitrators to be appointed-r-Reference presumed to be made according to provisions of Schd. I-Matter referred to more than one Arbitrator-Award, inoperative.
1958 PLD 378 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
HAJI SATTAR HAJI MUHAMMAD AND 9 OTHERS- VS ABDUL KARIM HAJI ISSA AND 3 OTHERS
3 and First Schedule-Contents of First Schedule-Do not have force of statutory provisions-Can be regarded as implied terns of arbitration agreement.
1958 PLD 158 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MESSRS ISMAIL BROTHERS (KARACHI) LTD., KARACHI VS MESSRS. S. M. FAZAIL & CO., KARACHI
Arbitration Act 1940 —Schedule First, para. 3 -Phrase taking over the reference” means entering upon the reference-“Entering upon reference” means when arbitrators issue notices.
1957 PLD 363 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREA. GHANI SOOFI & SONS VS THE FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN
Arbitration Act 1940 —–Necessity of amending Act so as to add provision enabling Courts to revoke even valid submissions in suitable cases.
1956 PLD 195 SINDH-CHIEF-COURT
MEMON TAYAB SHARIF VS KASAM ADAMJI
30 and para 3, Sch. I–Award beyond four months- 1Joidable and not void-Party taking advantage from award precluded from objecting.
1956 PLD 494 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
BALAWAL KHAN VS MUHAMMAD ALAM KHAN
Arbitration Act (X of 1940), Schedule 1 para. 2 read with section 8-Arbitrators failing to appoint umpire within one month-Award not necessarily vitiated.
1956 PLD 202 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD ANWAR KHAN VS WALI MUHAMMAD
—-Sch. 1, para. 3-Arbitrators enter on the reference when they enter on the matter of the reference-Receiving by one arbitrator some account books of one of the parties-Whether amounts to entering on reference.
1955 PLD 268 SINDH-CHIEF-COURT
(MESSRS) SIND COTTON EXPORTERS VS (MESSRS) A. B. SADIQ BROTHERS
3 and paragraph 2 of Schedule I-Appointment of Umpire-Time-limit-According to agreement of parties, failing which, within 30 days from latest date of respective appointments of arbitrators.
1955 PLD 224 SINDH-CHIEF-COURT
MEMAN TAYAB SHARIF VS KASAM ADAMJI, HAJI ABDUL LATIF EBRAHIM BAVANI AND OTHERS
Arbitration-Award, made beyond statutory period of four months- Voidable, not void-Unexceptionable if objector consented to continue with arbitration proceedings and had taken advantage under the award-Arbitration Act (X of 1940), Sched. I, para. 3.
1954 PLD 241 SINDH-CHIEF-COURT
MESSRS OVERSEAS COTTON CO. VS MESSRS S. M. FAZAIL & CO.
Arbitration Act 1940 —-Notice to other party to appoint his arbitrator-Letter intimating appointment of one’s own arbitrator and informing other party that writer proposes to go to arbitration -Sufficient compliance with requirement of notice.
1954 PLD 58 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
NAWAB DIN VS ABDUR RASHID
Arbitration Act (X of 1940), Para. 3, First Schedule–Case remitted to arbitrator–Award should be made within four months from date of entering on reference-Court-can however extend time.
1953 PLD 57 SINDH-CHIEF-COURT
AMIN AGENCIES LTD VS HAJI MOOSA HAJI OOMAR
Arbitration Act 1940 —-First Schedule, para. 3–Arbitrator enters upon reference when he starts actual duty as arbitrator e. g. sending notice to a party.
1952 PLD 52 SINDH-CHIEF-COURT
EBRAHIM AHMED VS SIND HOSIERY & TEXTILE MILLS
Arbitration Act 1940 —– Sch. 1, para. 2-Umpire not appointed-Award invalid.
1952 PLD 563 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
YAR MUHAMMAD VS GHULAM SARWAR
Arbitration Act 1940 —-Sch. First-Validity of arbitration agreement not affected by non-observance of requirements of First Schedule.
1952 PLD 23 JUDICIAL-COMMISSIONERS-COURT-PESHAWAR
LABAB GUL VS BADSHAH GUL
Arbitration Act 1940 — First Schedule, para. 2-Even number- of arbitrators-Award unanimous-Failure to appoint umpire-Not enough for setting aside award.
1950 PLD 228 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ABDUL MAJ1D VS BHAWAL BAKHSH
Ss. 25 and 30-Discretion of Court to set aside award-Not controlled by agreement between Parties-Unjustifiable ex-parte award by umpire-Misconduct-Award set aside.