Section 13 Arbitration Act 1940

Section 13 : Powers of arbitrator

2019 CLD 566 ISLAMABAD

DEFENCE HOUSING AUTHORITY, ISLAMABAD VS MULTI-NATIONAL VENTURE DEVELOPMENT (PVT.) LTD.

13—Authority of arbitrator—Scope—Arbitrator is not a mere conciliator—Arbitrator is a judge of the parties and the concept is based on the premise that he or she shall be a third party, seen as non partisan arbiter or referee—Arbitrator cannot be seen as biased, interested, coloured or prejudiced.

2017 PLD 497 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

NASIM AHMED VANA VS State

Chap. II, Ss. 3 to 19 & Chap. III, S.20—Reference to arbitration—Principle—Bar exists on invoking provisions of S.20 (Chap.III) of the Arbitration Act, 1940, when parties to arbitration agreement have invoked provisions of Chap. II (Ss. 3 to 19) of Arbitration Act, 1940.

2017 PLD 497 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

NASIM AHMED VANA VS State

Ss. 3 to 20 & 37(4)—Arbitration—Agreement fixed by time—Plaintiffs contended that parties had arbitration agreement between them and the matter be sent to arbitrator for decision—Validity—Agreement fixing time during which reference could be made to arbitration was impliedly considered valid by S.37(4) of Arbitration Act, 1940, which vested Court power to extend such time when it was of the view that some undue hardship was likely to be caused to parties by not extending same—Where agreement itself could not be acted upon having become inoperative due to invalidity, the Court was not entitled to appoint arbitrator of its own choice and substitute original agreement of parties—High Court declined to extend validity of arbitration agreement under S.37(4) of Arbitration Act, 1940, as circumstances did not warrant to do so nor any undue hardship would be caused to parties to arbitration agreement, who were pursuing their remedies in parallel legal proceedings which were more effective and expeditious—Suit was dismissed in circumstances.

2014 SCMR 1268 SUPREME-COURT

QUTUBUDDIN KHAN VS CHEC MILLWALA DREDGING CO. (PVT.) LIMITED

13—Arbitrator, powers of—Scope—Arbitrator was not clothed with any power, which neither any law conferred upon him nor there was any such usage of trade having the force of law, nor any agreement between the parties conferring such power.

2014 SCMR 1268 SUPREME-COURT

QUTUBUDDIN KHAN VS CHEC MILLWALA DREDGING CO. (PVT.) LIMITED

Ss. 13 & 29—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 34—Interest Act (XXXII of 1839), S. 1—Arbitrator, powers of—Scope—Awarding interest prior to date of decree—Legality—Arbitrator could not award interest prior to date of decree, in the absence of any express or implied agreement between the parties, or on basis of mercantile usage and statutory provisions or on equitable grounds in a proper case—Section 34, C.P.C., which gave discretion to court to award interest from the date of suit or period prior to it, did not apply to arbitration proceedings—Likewise, the Interest Act, 1839 also did not confer power on the Arbitrator to award interest—Grant of interest from the date prior to award or from the date of award until payment of the amount due and payable, the Arbitrator could under no circumstances award interest for the period beyond the passing of the decree by the court in terms of award—Under S. 29 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, only the court and not the Arbitrator had discretion to order interest, from the date of the decree at such a rate as the court deemed reasonable—Grant of interest prior to date of award, in absence of an express or implied statutory provisions, or agreement between the parties, would be an error of law apparent on the face of award.

2014 CLD 824 SUPREME-COURT

QUTUBUDDIN KHAN VS CHEC MILLWALA DREDGING CO. (PVT.) LIMITED

2014 CLD 824 SUPREME-COURT

QUTUBUDDIN KHAN VS CHEC MILLWALA DREDGING CO. (PVT.) LIMITED

2014 PLD 504 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

K – ELECTRIC LIMITED VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN

13—Arbitration agreement—Dispute between parties raising a constitutional issue—Filing of suit by plaintiff—Whether such dispute suitable for arbitrators to decide—Whether suit should continue in presence of arbitration agreement—Principles—Question was whether arbitrators, engaged upon a domestic arbitration and acting within the framework of the municipal law, could decide a constitutional issue of that jurisdiction, more so where the constitutional issue was said to be beyond the jurisdiction of even the courts—Such an issue could not be regarded as one that was suitable for arbitrators—Distinction existed between a legal issue and one that was of a constitutional nature—Former may well (subject to ultimate consideration by the court) be regarded as falling within the arbitrators remit, however, the latter was an issue that must be decided by the court itself, especially where that court was a superior court such as the High Court—Constitutional issue raised in the suit must be directly and substantially in issue—If it was only collaterally or incidentally in issue, then there would be no bar to referr the matter to arbitration—However, it does lie within the jurisdiction of the arbitrators to decide whether a party had properly and successfully invoked a force majeure clause in the contract in relation to or out of which the dispute arose, therefore in such limited sense, a constitutional point may go to the arbitrators.

2014 CLC 1519 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

MANAGING DIRECTOR, KARACHI FISH HARBOUR AUTHORITY VS HUSSAIN (PVT.) LTD.

Ss. 13, 33 & 30—Appellant objected to the arbitration award on the ground that the Sole Arbitrator had framed issues to decide the controversy after recording of evidence, and such procedure was illegal—Validity— Sole arbitrator had the authority to regulate its own procedure, and was not bound to follow any specific procedure, subject to the condition that the parties be allowed to lead their evidence as well as be provided with an opportunity to contest claims—Appellant in the present case, objected to the fact that issues were framed by the Sole Arbitrator after recording of evidence, which had done so as a matter of convenience to decide the controversy between the parties at hand and to give its findings on all issues which had arisen and were relatable to the evidence led by the parties, and none of the issues that were decided, were outside the scope of the evidence so lead by the parties—Appeal was dismissed.

2013 MLD 689 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Syed FAQIR SHAH VS Haji INAYATULLAH KHAN

Ss. 8, 9, 13, 30 & 42—Arbitrator, powers of—Scope—Arbitrator could neither ignore principles of natural justice nor act at back of parties—Principles.

2012 CLC 316 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Malik SARDAR MUHAMMAD QASIM VS Malik Haji ABDUL GHAFFAR

Ss. 13, 17, 32 & 39—Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss.12, 42 & 54—Suit for performance of arbitration agreement—Parties entered into an agreement through which the parties referred their disputes to panel of arbitrators to decide the same out of court—Terms of agreement showed that if any of the parties failed to comply with the decision of the arbitrators, said party only could be allowed to sue the other party after payment of Rs.5,00,000 (Rupees five lac) as a fine—Arbitrators inspected the place in question, heard both the parties, collected necessary information from the general public and thereafter through their judgment or award directed the defendant to remove his four grinding machines within a week from the site pertaining to the plaintiff-Both parties accepted the decision of arbitrators by signing along with the arbitrators the decision in presence of the witnesses—Criminal case pending against the defendant, on account of said settlement arrived at between the parties, was also withdrawn—Defendant, after withdrawal of said case, not only failed to remove his four grinding machines, but also refused to accept the arbitration award—Plaintiff filed suit before Majli-e-Shoora for performance of. agreement arrived at between the parties—Said suit was decreed and defendant was permanently forbidden for interfering in the land in dispute and defendant was also directed to remove the four grinding machines from the decreetal site—Defendant filed appeal against judgment of Majlis-e-Shoora, on two grounds; firstly that suit filed by the plaintiff was not maintainable against an arbitration agreement or award; secondly that as value of the suit for specific performance was Rs.60,000 but no court fee had been deposited by the plaintiff–Validity-Arbitration award passed out of the court on the basis of a valid authorized document though could not be executed or treated as ‘award’ or ‘decision’ like that passed by . court under Arbitration Act, 1940, but where the parties on account of an agreement declared to adopt a particular way to solve their dispute and in that respect they by their mutual consent, executed written agreement by authorizing the third person as an arbitrator to decide their dispute, in consequence of said written agreement, if arbitrators after holding inquiry, taking evidence and hearing the parties, had decided the dispute, which the parties had accepted, then law of estoppel would apply to such kind of award and parties would not be allowed to go back by such award/decision—Order sheet had shown that plaintiff had paid the required court-fee-No illegality or impropriety having been found in the impugned judgment by the Majlis-e-Shoora, appeal was dismissed by High Court.

2011 CLC 841 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

CHAIRMAN, WAPDA VS SYED BHAIS (PVT.) LTD.

Ss. 30, 33, 13, 15, 21 & 22—Reference to arbitrator—Powers of court—Scope—Trial Court dismissed appellant/defendant’s objection petition against award of the arbitrator—Appellant contended that the Trial Court could not reject the petition without framing the issues and providing them opportunity to lead evidence—Validity—Object of settlement of disputes through arbitration was to bypass the lengthy procedure involved in civil cases—Arbitration was a domestic tribunal controlled by chosen representatives of parties to do complete justice expeditiously without technicalities of procedural law—Trial Court did not prevent the parties from leading evidence, therefore, omission to frame issues was inconsequential—Court was not bound to frame issues and record evidence in all circumstances for decision of the suit—Function of court in arbitration cases was, principally, supervisory in nature under C.P.C.—Court had to give reasonable intendment in favour of the award leaning towards upholding rather than vitiating the same—Court would neither act as court of appeal nor override the award through its own judgment by scrutinizing the award to discover errors for the purpose of setting aside the same—Allegations of misconduct against the arbitrator were vague in nature–Arbitrator followed the procedure and answered all the pleas and objections of the parties accordingly without violating any principle of natural justice—Findings of the arbitrator were within the parameters of the submissions made by the parties before him—Possibility of a different view by appreciating the facts with a different angle was no ground for setting aside the award—Arbitrator, being the final judge on question of law and fact, his decision merited weightage unless misconduct against’ him stood proved—Not proper for the court to reappraise the evidence recorded by the arbitrator merely to discover errors or infirmities in the award—Appellant failed to point out any legal infirmity or lack of jurisdiction on the part of the arbitrator who dealt with the claims of parties minutely—Trial Court rightly dismissed the objection petition—Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

2010 CLC 1014 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Haji ABDUL RASHID ARIF VS AZIZ REHMAN

Ss. 13, 14, 20 & 21—Application for making award as rule of Court—Procedure—Duty of Court—Said application was concurrently dismissed by the trial Court and Appellate Court—Award in question was given by the arbitrators without intervention of the Court and was based on mutual consent and agreement of the parties and was acted upon—Under S.14(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940, after announcement of award, it was the arbitrator who had to file the award in the Court either at the request of a party or on the direction of the Court—Court, for the purpose of making the award rule of the Court, was not required to act mechanically as if it had to affix its stamp of approval on the award without determining its legality, maintainability and the question of its executability—Party could not file an award in the Court to make the same rule of the Court specially when the award prior to getting the authentication and sanction of the Court, was acted upon between the parties; in such a state of affairs, it would become useless to ask for its making of rule of the Court—Two Courts below after proper appreciation of evidence on the record had rightly dismissed application of the petitioner—Counsel for the petitioner was unable to point out any illegality or irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction by the two Courts below—Petition was dismissed.

2009 CLD 390 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Sh. MUHAMMAD SALEEM VS SAADAT ENTERPRISES

Ss. 13 & 30—Document, interpretation of—Arbitrator, powers of—Scope—Arbitration could not interpret document in a manner to replace his own view as against express stipulation contained therein.

2009 CLC 291 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Sh. MUHAMMAD SALEEM VS SAADAT ENTERPRISES

2008 CLC 798 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

AL-ABDULLAH CONSTRUCTORS (PVT.) LTD VS PAKISTAN WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through Chief Engineer

13—Proceedings before Arbitrator—Insistence of parties upon strict compliance of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 or procedural law by Arbitrator—Validity—Nature of proceedings before Arbitrator being in nature of proceedings before a domestic Tribunal such compliance could not be insisted upon—Party failing to avail opportunity provided for production of evidence could not blame any other person and in such case Arbitrator could base his findings on material available on record.

2006 SCMR 1657 SUPREME-COURT

MUHAMMAD FAROOQ SHAH VS SHAKIRULLAH

—Ss. 13 & 30(a)—Arbitrator, conduct of—Arbitrator after entering into arbitration must not be guilty of any act, which could possibly be construed as indicative of partiality or unfairness.

2006 YLR 881 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Secretary to Government of Punjab VS AWAN ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES

—Ss. 13 & 29—Power of arbitrator to grant interest—Arbitrator had no power to grant any interest on amount due to a claimant.

2005 YLR 1526 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MANZOOR AHMAD VS MUHAMMAD SHAHBAZ

–Ss. 13 & 20—Powers of arbitrators to appoint assistants—Petitioner had urged that order and judgment of two Courts below suffered from non-reading and misreading of evidence as they had not correctly examined and appraised evidence; and that no auth

2005 YLR 2709 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

MUJTABA HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI VS SULTAN AHMED

—S. 14 & Chap.II [Ss.3 to 19]—Award—Arbitrator, after passing the award, is required to file the award in the Court within the meaning of S.14, Arbitration Act, 1940 and then further proceedings would be conducted by the Court under the other provis

2005 YLR 2709 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

MUJTABA HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI VS SULTAN AHMED

–Ss. 20, 8, 34 & Chap. II [Ss.3 to 19]—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, R.11—Suit for dissolution of partnership, rendition of accounts, permanent injunction and declaration—Recovery of amount was stayed under S.34, Arbitration Act, 1940 o

2003 YLR 2494 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS ICE PAK INTERNATIONAL CONSULTING ENGINEERS OF PAKISTAN

—-Ss. 13 & 14—Award—Duty of Arbitrator—Arbitrator was supposed to render award in the light of contract made by parties and to give effect to the same, but not to make new contract on behalf of the parties.

2002 CLD 61 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

PAKISTAN VS MESSRS RAJASTAN ALLOY AND STEEL (PVT.) LIMITED

Arbitration Act 1940 —-S.13—Arbitrator—Powers—Ftndtng faults with the contract— Not the function of the arbitrator to be influenced by his own imagination and experience in finding faults with the relevant clauses of the contract between the parties.

2001 YLR 758 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

ABDUL SATTAR MANDOKHAL VS PORT QASIM AUTHORITY

Arbitration Act 1940 —-S. 13—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.11 & O. 11, R. 2—Arbitration proceedings—Principles of res judicata–Applicability—Only a dispute that had already been referred to arbitration, whether any award was given or not, could not be the subject-matter of a subsequent reference and to that extent such dispute might be hit by the principles of res judicata and not otherwise–Disputes, which could have been raised when making a reference but, were not raised, could not be hit by the principles of constructive res judicata—There could be successive claims depending on nature of contract, maturing into a difference and at the option of the party to the agreement might be subject-matter of reference—Where a party exercised its option to convert a dispute into a reference, the other party was obliged to enter into arbitration and subject to limitation, the same could not be resisted on the ground that it -was not raised at a particular point in time.

2000 PLD 314 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

PUNJAB PROVINCE VS CHAUHAN & COMPANY

Arbitration Act 1940 —-Ss. 13 & 29—Arbitrator awarding interest—Competency—Enforcing of terms different than those contained in contract—Validity—In absence of any contract or statutory provisions of mercantile usage, the arbitrator was not competent to award interest—Arbitrator was not entitled to act in breach of terms of the contract or to enforce terms different than the one contained in that contract.

2000 CLC 876 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MUHAMMAD IQBAL VS P.I.D.C.

Arbitration Act 1940 —-S. 13(d)—Award, correction of—Scope—After the award has been made, the arbitrator can make correction of typographical errors.

2000 MLD 272 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

NILOFER SAEED VS ARIF ASLAM KHAN

—-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 dis

1999 MLD 2773 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

PAKISTAN AGRICULTURAL STORAGE AND SERVICES CORPORATION VS SHEIKH MUHAMMAD LATIF

Arbitration Act 1940 —S. 13—Power of arbitrator—Evidence not recorded—Effect—Where the sole arbitrator had arrived at the conclusions after taking into consideration the respective stands of-the parties and formulating the findings and then giving the details of the award, mere not recording of any evidence by the sole arbitrator did not make the award invalid—Appeal filed by the plaintiff against the award was dismissed in circumstances.

1996 MLD 700 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MUHAMMAD SHER VS STATE

Arbitration Act 1940 —-Ss. 13 & 22—Order of referee— “Referee” and “arbitrator” —Distinction–Person appointed as “referee” is required to make a statement on his knowledge or belief before Court whereas an arbitrator has to decide dispute after hearing parties on the basis of material produced before him—If dispute was referred to a person for his “decision” which was to be arrived at after hearing parties and said person appeared in Court and produced a written decision in which it was expressly stated that he had been appointed as an arbitrator and he having heard the parties had arrived at conclusion in face of such categorical statement it could not be said that person so appointed had acted as a “referee” and not an “arbitrator”—[Words and phrases].

1993 PLD 683 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

AZRA ALI VS ARIF ALI

13 — Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VI, R.17 — Arbitration proceedings —Arbitrator disallowing plaintiffs application for amendment of petition for claim — Effect — Arbitrator was not a Court but a private Tribunal; principles for amendment of pleadings might not be followed in arbitration proceedings as .those proceedings were not proceedings in a suit where at any stage of proceedings Court could allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings for determining the real questions in controversy before it — Scope of reference to arbitrator, on the other hand, was confined to the terms of reference; arbitrator could not be allowed to travel beyond what was referred to him, otherwise, he would be acting without jurisdiction.

1992 CLC 1093 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

MEMON MEDICAL SOCIETY VS BANTVA HOUSING ENTERPRISES

Arbitration Act 1940 S. 13—Proceedings by arbitrator—Arbitrator was supposed to act impartially and neutrally—Arbitrator, while adjourning proceedings to a specific date, changed such date by overwriting the same without notice to defendantâ€¦.Inference from such overwriting was drawn that proceedings were taken either on the original date or the date which had been changed by overwriting—Neither notice of change of date was given to defendants nor a notice of arbitrator’s intention to proceed ex parte against them was given to the defendants—Arbitrator had thus, committed misconduct in proceedings.

1990 MLD 459 SUPREME-COURT-INDIA

HARI DUTT BHARDWAJ VS HARYANA STATE AGRICULTURE MARKETING BOARD, PUNCHKULA

Arbitration Act 1940 —S.13–Award–Jurisdiction of Arbitrator–Superintending Engineer of Agricultural Marketing Board appointed Arbitrator–Arbitrator, an Officer on deputation reverted to parent Deptt. before passing of award–Provincial Government, however, continuing deputation by subsequent order–In view of order of Government, Officer must be deemed to have had jurisdiction as Arbitrator on date of passing of award.

1990 CLC 293 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

NADIR KHAN VS ZEENAT BIBI

—-S.5–Arbitration Act (X of 1940), Ss. 13, 14, 17 & 21–Suits for restitution of conjugal rights and dissolution of marriage cannot be referred to arbitration.[Muhammadan Law].

1990 MLD 2010 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

DESIGN GROUP OF PAKISTAN VS CLIFTON CANTONMENT BOARD

Arbitration Act 1940 —-Ss. 13 & 16—Arbitrator becomes functus officio after the award has been given by him—Arbitrator cannot act as arbitrator except as provided under S. 13(d) or if the award is remitted by Court to him under S.16—Arbitrator can be re-appointed so long reference is not superseded and the terms of agreement permit it—Court has discretion to supersede the reference or not when the award is set aside.

1990 MLD 1764 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

ALPINE CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. VS UNIVERSITY OF KARACHI

Arbitration Act 1940 —-S.13—Arbitrator is not bound by any set rule of evidence nor is he required to frame issues and give his findings separately on each one of them.

1990 MLD 261 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

DESIGN GROUP OF PAKISTAN VS CLIFTON CANTONMENT BOARD

—Ss.8, 13 & 30–Misconduct–Proof–Arbitration forum, though not bound by rules of procedure or even of law of evidence, but even then such forum could n, t proceed in disregard of all evidence–Sole arbilrator, appointed in case having proceeded withou

1989 MLD 2434 SUPREME-COURT-INDIA

INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA VS K.D. BALI

Arbitration Act 1940 —Ss. 5, 11 & 13(2)–Arbitrator–Statement of special case for opinion of Court-Not obligatory on arbitrator to state case as soon as party so desires–Non-statement of case for opinion by arbitrator cannot be ground for bias so as to ask revocation of his authority.

1989 MLD 2137 SUPREME-COURT-INDIA

FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA VS SURENDRA DEVENDRA AND MOHENDRA TRANSPORT CO.

Arbitration Act 1940 —Ss. 13 & 2 (a)–Transport contract–Provision in contract that liability of transporter to bear demurrage will be determined by specified authority–Court injunction restraining that authority from determining liability from certain date-Arbitrator could determine liability for subsequent period.

1989 PLD 1 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

TARIQ FAROOQ VS NASRUDDI

S.13??Powers of arbitrator??Award to be in conformity with terms of reference??Arbitrator derives power from original agreement or terms of reference which normally provide extent of authority exercisable by him??Award is to be necessarily in conformity with terms of reference, both in substance and spirit??Whenever on admitted facts or on proof of circumstances it could be established that arbitrator had traversed beyond the scope of his authority, or terms of reference, award submitted by him would lose its legal sanction.

1989 MLD 2010 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

MUHAMMAD YASIN VS MUHAMMAD FAROOQ

Arbitration Act 1940 —Ss.2(e), 3, 5, 13 & 14–Jurisdiction of arbitrators–Objection to–Where a party to arbitration agreement allowed arbitrators to proceed with reference submitted to their jurisdiction without objection, led evidence, such party is estopped, from challenging jurisdiction of arbitrator: -[Estoppel].

1988 CLC 1583 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

PROVINCE OF BALUCHISTAN VS MUHAMMAD HASSAN

Ss. 14(1) & 13–Parties not served with notice–Award invalid.

1987 PLD 575 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

WASEEM CONSTRUCTION CO VS GOVT. OF SIND

Ss. 20, 30 s 33??Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Ss. 4 & 5 and Sched. Art. 158??Award??Filing of objections to award??Limitation?Objections not filed within. 30 days of filing of award as provided under Art. 158, Limitation Act, 1908 due to closure of Court for summer vacations??Period of limitation having expired during summer vacations of the High Court whether defendants were entitled to file objections on the date when Court reopened??Contention of plaintiff’s counsel that objections filed in the case were barred by time appearing to be well?founded??Law on point, however, being somewhat unsettled, objections dealt with on merits.

1987 CLC 2198 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

ORIENTAL SHIPPINGS CO. LTD. VS HABIB INSURANCE CO. LTD.

Arbitration Act 1940 — Ss. 13, 30 & 32–Jurisdiction of arbitrator- -Party participating in proceedings before arbitrator without raising objection to his jurisdiction, submitting his claim and examining witnesses on disputed points without demur–Such party cannot, in the end, turn back to challenge jurisdiction of arbitrator on such submissions.-[Jurisdiction]

1986 CLC 281 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

ABDUL RAZAQ VS SHARIF KHAN

4–Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981), Art. 9–Arbitration Act (X of 1940), S. 13–Arbitration–No evidence led before arbitrator and nothing on record showing that he had even called or heard petitioners before passing award against them–Grave injustice, held was done to petitioners–Order passed as such set aside and case remanded for a fresh adjudication.

1983 CLC 513 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

PUNJAB PROVINCE VS ZAFAR IQBAL CHEEMA

–S. 13-Powers of Arbitrator-Arbitrator has .no powers to impose penalty unless so provided in terms of contract itself.

1981 CLC 1667 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

GUL AHMED TEXTILE MILLS LTD., KARACHI VS STARKO LTD., KARACHI

Ss. 13 & 30—-Award, setting aside of-Arbitrators not bound by technical rules- of procedure or Evidence Act, 1872–No error discoverable on face of award–Award based on oral evidence and material produced before arbitrators- Whether award based on sufficient evidence or not-Not open to question before High Court-Objections rejected.—(Award).

1980 PLD 30 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

VARIETY TRADERS VS GOVT. OF PAKISTAN

Ss. 13 & 14-Arbitrator-Reasons for decision-Arbitrator, held, not under statutory obligation to give reasons for his decision on each and every issue separately.-[Arbitration].

1980 CLC 890 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

KARSAZ CONSTRUCTION CO. VS DIRECTOR OF WORKS & CHIEF ENGINEER

13(b)-Arbitrator empowered to state special case for opinion of Court on question of law yet to set forth facts affirmatively.[Question of law].

1979 CLC 446 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

ALI HUSSAIN VS RAFIQ-UD-DIN

13-Referee and arbitrator-Distinction-Referee acts on his own knowledge and belief and not a persons appointed to decide matter after inquiry and taking evidence.-[Arbitrator].

1967 PLD 598 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

SAFIA BAI AND OTHERS VS KARACHI CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETIES UNION LTD

Arbitration Act 1940 —- Ss. 13, 30 & 33-Arbitrator judge of law arid fact-Technical rules of procedure and Evidence Act, 1872-Not applicable-Award made by arbitrator generally final-Error to law ors face of record-What amounts to.

1966 PLD 19 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR

AZAD J & K GOVERNMENT VS KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD USMAN & CO.

Arbitration Act 1940 S. 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.

1965 PLD 326 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

HAJI MUHAMMAD SULEMAN VS KADIR BUX

Arbitration Act 1940 Ss. 13, 14, 17 & 21–Dissolution of marriage-Not a subject for arbitration Portion of award dealing with such dispute cannot be made rule of Court.

1964 PLD 490 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MUHAMMAD AKRAM VS CH. MUHAMMAD SALIM

Arbitration Act 1940 Arbitration-Meaning-Arbitrator and mediator-Distinction-Arbitration Act (X of 1940), Ss. 13 & 2(a).

1964 PLD 614 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

GOVERNOR-GENERAL OF PAKISTAN VS ASAFIA CONSTRUCTION LTD

Arbitration Act 1940 Ss. 13 (b) & 39 and Letters Patent (Lahore), cl. 10-Appeal not provided against particular order under Arbitration Act, 1940-No bar to appeal being filed under cl. 10, Letters Patent-Word “judgment” in cl. 10, Letters Patent Meaning-Decision of Court in case stated for its opinion under S. 13 (b), Arbitration Act, 1940-Not “judgment” within meaning of cl. 10, Letters Patent and consequently no Letters Patent appeal competent.