Section 14 Arbitration Act 1940

Section 14 : Award to be signed and filed

2013 MLD 689 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Syed FAQIR SHAH VS Haji INAYATULLAH KHAN

Ss. 14, 15, 17 & 30—Making award rule of court—Duty of court—Scope—Upholding award should be preferred rather than vitiating same—Exceptions stated.

2013 MLD 689 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Syed FAQIR SHAH VS Haji INAYATULLAH KHAN

Ss. 14 & 17—Making award rule of court—Reappriasal of evidence by civil court—Scope—Civil court only having supervisory jurisdiction could not act like court of appeal to re-appraise evidence.

2013 MLD 689 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Syed FAQIR SHAH VS Haji INAYATULLAH KHAN

Ss. 14, 17 & 30—Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 158—Filing of award in court by arbitrator for making same rule of court—Application for setting aside award filed after 77 days of its filing in court—Applicant’s plea that he had not been served with any notice of date, time and place of arbitration proceedings—Validity—Point of limitation would not come in way of justice, when arbitrator had mis-conducted himself and too when a party alleged non-service of any notice—Record supported such plea of applicant—Application for making award rule of court was dismissed in circumstances.

2013 CLD 2167 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

FAUJI FOUNDATION through General Manager (Engineering) VS CHANAN DIN AND SONS through Attorney

Ss. 14, 20 & 30—Non-completion of work by respondent within agreed time—Award of fresh contract by applicant to a third party for completing remaining work— Respondent’s notice to appellant claiming Rs.1,13,78,207—Reference of dispute between parties to Arbitrator in terms of arbitration clause in contract—Submission of claim by respondent for Rs.2,24,18,619 instead of Rs.1,13,78,207—Award by Arbitrator for differential amount of Rs.4.9 million made rule of court by Trial Court—Validity—According to terms of contract, respondent’s claim had to be confined to amount for which he had issued notice to applicant—Neither court nor Arbitrator was competent to enlarge scope of contract or application made under S.20 of Arbitration Act, 1940—Award for differential amount between respondent’s contract and such third party’s contract was beyond jurisdiction of Arbitrator—Arbitrator’s function was not to be influenced by his imagination and opinion, rather he was obliged to apply agreed clauses of contract between parties—High Court set aside impugned judgment and remanded case to Trial Court for its decision afresh in terms of reference.

2013 CLD 604 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Haji ASHRAF ALI VS Haji MUSHTAQ ALI

Ss. 14 & 17—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R.11—Application for making award rule of court—Rejection of such application under O.VII, R.11, C.P.C.—Scope—Provisions of C.P.C. would stand excluded to the extent where a procedure had been provided in Arbitration Act, 1940—Provision of O.VII, R11, C.P.C. would apply to plaint in a suit—Plaint though not defined in C.P.C. would be regarded as a written memorial tendered to a court in which plaintiff set forth cause of action and sought order/judgment/decree as a consequential relief—Application under Ss. 14 & 17 of Arbitration Act, 1940 would not be deemed to be a plaint or suit—Application under O.VII, R.11, C.P.C., thus, would not be maintainable in proceedings under Ss. 14 & 17 of Arbitration Act, 1940.

2013 CLD 604 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Haji ASHRAF ALI VS Haji MUSHTAQ ALI

Ss. 14, 17, 30, 32 & 33—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R.11—Stamp Act (II of 1899), S.33 & Art. 12—Registration Act (XVI of 1908), S.17—Application for making award rule of court—Applicability of S.33 & Art. 12 of Stamp Act, 1940 and Registration Act, 1908—Scope—Application under O.VII, R.11, C.P.C. for rejection of application under Ss.14 & 17 of Arbitration Act, 1940 on ground that award was not drawn on stamp paper and that award for being unregistered could not be made rule of court—Maintainability—Provisions of C.P.C. would stand excluded to extent where a procedure had been provided in Arbitration Act, 1940—Provision of O.VII, R.11, C.P.C. would apply to plaint in a suit—Application under Ss.14 & 17 of Arbitration Act, 1940 would not be deemed to be a “plaint or suit”—Court could set aside award on basis of specific provisions provided in Arbitration Act, 1940—Deficiency of stamp duty, if any could be ordered to be made up by Trial Court at any state—Mere fact of non-drawing of award on stamp paper would not justify rejection of application for making award rule of court—Registration of award would be necessary only after same was made rule of court, but not before such stage—No party could be prejudiced by mere existence of an award—Award would not become operative and enforceable unless same had been filed in court and court adjudicated about its validity—Application under O.VII, R.11, C.P.C. was dismissed in circumstances.

2013 CLD 522 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

FARMERS’ EQUITY PRIVATE LIMITED (FEP) VS MEHBOOB ALAM

Ss. 34, 14 & 17—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXIII, R. 3—-Suit for recovery—Application of defendant for stay of proceedings in suit in presence of an arbitration agreement between the parties was dismissed—Said arbitration agreement was entered into by the parties after the date of institution of the suit—Effect—Suit after institution was subsequently referred by parties to arbitration without leave of the court through an agreement which was dated after institution of suit—Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 was restricted to cases in which the suit had been instituted after agreement to refer to arbitration—Procedure for making reference to arbitration in a pending suit was provided in Ss.21 to 25 of the Arbitration Act, 1940—Reference to arbitration and award procured in a pending suit without intervention of the court were a nullity and such award could not be made rule of the court in accordance with Ss.14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940—-No bar existed on parties to get their case decided by mutual agreement at any time prior to final adjudication under provisions of O.XXIII, Rule 3, C.P.C. under which existence of a lawful agreement was one of the essential pre-requisites for the applicability of said provision—Arbitration agreement without orders of a court in pending suit being departure from mandatory provisions of Ss.21 to 25 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 could not be categorized as a lawful agreement and was not enforceable—Application under S.34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 was therefore rightly dismissed by Trial Court—Appeal was dismissed.

2013 MLD 1162 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Haji ASHRAF ALI VS Haji MUSHTAQ ALI

Ss. 14 & 17—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R.11—Application for making award rule of court—Rejection of such application under O.VII, R.11, C.P.C.—Scope—Provisions of C.P.C. would stand excluded to the extent where a procedure had been provided in Arbitration Act, 1940—Provision of O.VII, R.11, C.P.C. would apply to plaint in a suit—Plaint though not defined in C.P.C. would be regarded as a written memorial tendered to a court in which plaintiff set forth cause of action and sought order/judgment/decree as a consequential relief—Application under Ss. 14 & 17 of Arbitration Act, 1940 would not be deemed to be a plaint or suit—Application under O.VII, R.11, C.P.C., thus, would not be maintainable in proceedings under Ss. 14 & 17 of Arbitration Act, 1940.

2013 MLD 1162 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Haji ASHRAF ALI VS Haji MUSHTAQ ALI

Ss. 14, 17, 30, 32 & 33—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R.11—Stamp Act (II of 1899), S.33 & Art.12—Registration Act (XVI of 1908), S.17—Application for making award rule of court—Applicability of S.33 & Art. 12 of Stamp Act, 1940 and Registration Act, 1908—Scope—Application under O.VII, R.11, C.P.C. for rejection of application under Ss.14 & 17 of Arbitration Act, 1940 on ground that award was not drawn on stamp paper and that award for being unregistered could not be made rule of court—Maintainability—Provisions of C.P.C. would stand excluded to extent where a procedure had been provided in Arbitration Act, 1940—Provision of O.VII, R.11, C.P.C. would apply to plaint in a suit—Application under Ss.14 & 17 of Arbitration Act, 1940 would not be deemed to be a “plaint or suit”—Court could set aside award on basis of specific provisions provided in Arbitration Act, 1940—Deficiency of stamp duty, if any, could be ordered to be made up by Trial Court at any stage—Mere fact of non-drawing of award on stamp paper would not justify rejection of application for making award rule of court—Registration of award would be necessary only after same was made rule of court, but not before such stage—No party could be prejudiced by mere existence of an award—Award would not become operative and enforceable unless same had been filed in court and court adjudicated about its validity—Application under O.VII, R.11, C.P.C. was dismissed in circumstances.

2013 CLC 434 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

FARMERS’ EQUITY PRIVATE LIMITED (FEP) MULTAN VS MEHBOOB ALAM

O.VII, R.2 & O. XXIII, R. 3—Arbitration Act (X of 1940), Ss.34, 14, 17 & 21 to 25—Suit for recovery—Application of defendant for stay of proceedings in suit in presence of an arbitration agreement between the parties was dismissed—Said arbitration agreement was entered into by the parties after the date of institution of the suit—Effect—Suit after institution was subsequently referred by parties to arbitration without leave of the court through an agreement which was dated after the institution of suit—Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 was restricted to cases in which the suit had been instituted after agreement to refer to arbitration—Procedure for making reference to arbitration in a pending suit was provided in Ss.21 to 25 of the Arbitration Act, 1940—Reference to arbitration and award procured in a pending suit without intervention of the court were a nullity and such award could not be made rule of the court in accordance with Ss.14 & 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940—No bar existed on parties to get their case decided by mutual agreement at any time prior to final adjudication under provisions of Order XXIII, Rule 3, C.P.C. under which existence of a lawful agreement was one of the essential prerequisites for the applicability of said provision—Arbitration agreement without orders of a court in pending suit being departure from mandatory provisions of Ss.21 to 25 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 could not be categorized as a lawful agreement and was not enforceable—Application under S.34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 was therefore rightly dismissed by Trial Court—Appeal was dismissed.

2013 CLD 1213 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

TRANSGLOBE SHIPPING SERVICES VS

Ss. 14 & 30—Limitation Act (IX of 1908) Arts. 178 & 158—Filing of award by arbitrator—Object and scope—Purpose of S.14(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 relating to notice of making of award was only to inform the parties that an award had been made so that they may file an application for filing of the award in court and such application had to be filed within ninety days of the service of notice of making the award under Art.178 of the Limitation Act, 1908—Object of notice of filing the award was to enable the parties to file an application for setting aside the award for which the limitation under Art.158 of the Limitation Act, 1908 was 30 days—No provision existed in the Arbitration Act, 1940 which cast a duty on the arbitrator to supply copies of the award and its annexures to the parties—Arbitrator was required under law to only file the award in the court whereafter his responsibility came to an end—After filing of the award notices were issued to the parties by the court and if the parties were duly served, then in order to safeguard their interest, it became the duty of the parties to pursue the matter vigilantly by obtaining copies of such documents which had been received them—Application of the defendant was dismissed, in circumstances.

2013 CLD 719 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

BESROCK (PVT.) LTD. VS PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS CORPORATION

14—Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 178—Filing of arbitration award in court—Object—Limitation—Scope.

2013 CLD 719 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

BESROCK (PVT.) LTD. VS PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS CORPORATION

Ss. 14, 3 & Sched.—Filing of arbitration award in the court—Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 was related to procedure in filing an award which was ministerial act and nowhere precluded an arbitrator or umpire from filing an award suo motu—Party other than an arbitrator could only file an award in the court when specifically authorized by the arbitrator and it was the role of arbitrator/umpire to either file award himself to make it rule of the court or to authorize one or both of the parties to file the award in the court.

2013 CLD 1483 ISLAMABAD

OIL & GAS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED VS MARATHON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

Ss. 14, 17 & 39—Award given by sole Arbitrator appointed in terms of arbitration clause—Award made rule of court—Appellant’s plea was that Arbitrator had been appointed without fulfilling conditions precedent mentioned in arbitration clause—Validity—When parties had voluntarily opted for resolution of their dispute through Arbitrator, who had delivered award, then court would proceed with presumption of correctness attached to award—Award could not be disturbed merely on technical reason not affecting merits of award or at whims of some party aggrieved by terms of Award—Record showed that parties with their mutual consent had appointed sole Arbitrator—Appellant had participated in arbitration proceedings and produced evidence on each and every issue—High Court dismissed appeal in circumstances.

2013 CLD 1483 ISLAMABAD

OIL & GAS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED VS MARATHON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

Ss. 14, 17 & 39—Award made rule of court—Jurisdiction of Appellate Court—Scope—Appellate Court would not interfere with award, if having been made by Arbitrator after framing of issues.

2012 CLD 1166 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR

SAFDAR ALI KHAN VS AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

14—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, R.2 & O.XLVII, R.1—Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Arts.158 & 178—Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), S.42—Azad Jammu and Kashmir Supreme Court Rules, O. XLVI—Review of Supreme Court judgment— Money suit— Arbitration proceedings— Objection to report/award of the Arbitrator—Limitation—Parties having agreed for appointment of an arbitrator, Trial Court appointed arbitrator who filed report in presence of the parties—None of the parties filed objection on the report submitted by the arbitrator with stipulated period of 30 days—Later on after about 2-1/2 months, plaintiffs filed objection to the said report and prayed for setting aside the award—Court rejected the objection which was filed beyond the period of limitation and passed decree in terms of award submitted by the arbitrator—Feeling aggrieved from the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, the plaintiff filed appeal in High Court—High Court modified the judgment and decree of the Trial Court to the extent of finding regarding overpayment to the plaintiff, and rest of the judgment and decree was upheld—Appeal filed before the Supreme Court having been dismissed the plaintiff had filed review petition—Award/report having been submitted by the arbitrator in presence of counsel for the parties, written notice was not the requirement of law—Plaintiff having failed to point out any error apparent on the face of record in the judgment under review, no case for review was made out—Review petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court in circumstances.

2012 CLC 1097 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR

SAFDAR ALI KHAN VS AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

VII, R.2 & O.XLVII, R.1—Arbitration Act (X of 1940), S.14—Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Arts.158 & 178—Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), S.42—Azad Jammu and Kashmir Supreme Court Rules, O.XLVI—Review of Supreme Court judgment—Money suit—Arbitration proceedings—Objection to report/award of the Arbitrator—Limitation—Parties having agreed for appointment of an arbitrator, Trial Court appointed arbitrator who filed report in presence of the parties—None of the parties filed objection on the report submitted by the arbitrator with stipulated period of 30 days—Later on after about 2-1/2 months, plaintiffs filed objection to the said report and prayed for setting aside the award—Court rejected the objection which was filed beyond the period of limitation and passed decree in terms of award submitted by the arbitrator—Feeling aggrieved from the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, the plaintiff filed appeal in High Court—High Court modified the judgment and decree of the Trial Court to the extent of finding regarding overpayment to the plaintiff, and rest of the judgment and decree was upheld—Appeal filed before the Supreme Court having been dismissed the plaintiff had filed review petition—Award/report having been submitted by the arbitrator in presence of counsel for the parties, written notice was not the requirement of law—Plaintiff having failed to point out any error apparent on the face of record in the judgment under review, no case for review was made out—Review petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court in circumstances.

2012 SCMR 1606 SUPREME-COURT

Ch. QAISER MEHMOOD VS PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Secretary, Government Communication and Works

14(2)—Remitting of award—Serving of notices on parties—Object—Object of S.14(2) of Arbitration Act 1940, was to procure the attendance of the parties concerned before the court, after award was filed so as to provide them an opportunity to file objections, if any.

2012 SCMR 1606 SUPREME-COURT

Ch. QAISER MEHMOOD VS PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Secretary, Government Communication and Works

14(2)—Remitting of award—Serving of notices on parties—Scope—Dispute between claimant (appellant) and government department (respondent) resolved through arbitration—Arbitrators submitting their award before the court—Claimant, District Attorny and an official representing the Government department making conceding statements before the court to the effect that they would not object to the award—Authority to make conceding statement by said official—Scope—Said official made an application for adjournment in order to file objection to the award but same was dismissed by the Trial Court—High Court set aside decree of Trial Court holding that the official and District Attorney were not empowered to make concessional statements before the Trial Court and that in terms of S.14(2) of the Arbitration Act 1940, Trial Court should have served notices on the parties after the arbitrators had filed the award—Validity—Reply to claimant’s application for appointment of arbitrators was made by said official on behalf of the Government department—Before arbitration award was submitted in court, said official was representing the Government department and was present on the day the award was filed and continued to appear before the court on subsequent dates—Government department had never questioned the authority of the official to represent it or to make a statement on its behalf—Fact that said official had made an application before the Trial Court for filing objection to the arbitration award showed that he continued to represent the Government department—Executive Engineer (XEN) who represented the Government department along with said official during the arbitration proceedings had also not questioned the authority of the official to make a statement on behalf of the Government department—Said official and District Attorney were present before the Trial Court when the award was filed, therefore, no prejudice was caused to the Government department—Appeal was allowed, judgment and decree of the High Court were set aside and that of the Trial Court was restored.

2012 CLD 502 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

GOVERNMENT OF N.-W.F.P. VS JAN CONSTRUCTION CO.

Ss. 14, 17 & 39—Making award rule of the court—Work, according to agreement arrived at between the Authority and the construction company was completed, but the payment having not been made to the company accordingly, matter was referred to arbitrators according to terms of the agreement—Two arbitrators announced the award, which was submitted for making same as rule of the court—Court without commenting upon the validity of the award straightaway made the same rule of the court—Validity—Court was duty bound to consider all the questions regarding validity of the award, both on legal as well as on its factual aspects—Under the law court could refuse to make the award Rule of the Court or could remit the award back to the arbitrators by pointing out deficiencies in the award—All such exercise should also be based on reasons—Such was not just a mechanical process that on the one end of the machine one would insert the award and on the other end would get the authentication of the court on the award— Short-cut as adopted by the court was not permissible under the law—Trial Court even did not bother to have a look on the award what to talk of considering its validity—Such a judgment could not be maintained—Judgment and decree of the Trial Court were set aside and case was remanded to the Trial Court for decision afresh in accordance with law as earlier as possible, but not later than one month.

2012 CLD 464 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY VS PUT SARAJEVO GENERAL ENGINEERING COMPANY

Ss. 2(c), 14(2), 17, 31 & 39—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.20(c)—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss. 23 & 28—Making award rule of court—Territorial jurisdiction of court—Award having been announced by the sole arbitrator, contractor company moved the court for making the award rule of the court—Court at place ‘P’ allowed the petition by partially making the award rule of court—Appellant had raised objection with regard to jurisdiction of the court, contending that as the contract/agreement was executed at place “I” and Head Office of the appellant as well as respondent company being located at place “I” and “L”, the court at “P” had no territorial jurisdiction over the matter—Plea of respondent company was that relevant clause of the agreement had merely fixed the venue at place “I” for the purpose of arbitration only, which had nothing to do with conferring of an exclusive jurisdiction in the court at place “I”—Agreement between the parties was executed at place “I” for a work to be done within District “P” and “N”—Agreement provided a clause for referring the dispute to adjudicator and then to the sole arbitrator—Agreement further provided that arbitration between the parties would be made at place “I”—Where there were many courts having the jurisdiction to entertain the dispute between the parties under the agreement, and the parties with their mutual consent agree to refer their dispute to any such court or courts, such consent agreement between the parties was not against the provisions of S.23 or 28 of the Contract Act, 1872—In the present case no such clause of agreement conferring jurisdiction in any one court except the one that the arbitration would be held at place “I”; in given circumstances, dispute between the parties could be referred to the court having the jurisdiction under the general law—Head Office of respondent company being at place “L”, suit regarding any dispute against respondent could be filed at place “L”—Work being done was within the territorial jurisdiction of the court at place “P” and dispute between them also cropped up there—Sub-offices of both the parties were also situated at place “P”—Such a dispute between the parties regarding the subject matter situated within the territorial jurisdiction of courts at place “P” could well be referred and agitated before the court at place “P” as cause of action wholly or partly, within the meaning of S.20(c), C.P.C. arose there—No bar existed in the agreement that the courts at place “P” would have no jurisdiction—Court at place “P” could well entertain the dispute— Findings of the courts below were set aside directing the office to send both the cases to the court of Senior Civil Judge at place “P”, who would decide the matter between the parties at its earliest.

2012 PLD 181 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Mian ASMAT SHAH VS Mian FAIQ SHAH

Ss. 14, 17, 21 & 30—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXII, R.3—Reference of matter in suit to arbitration by court with consent of parties—Application for setting aside of award filed in court by Arbitrator—Plea of minor defendant that she was minor, but court had referred such matter to Arbitrator without appointing a guardian-at-litem for her—Validity—Minor was duly represented in such through her mother—Award was not liable to be set aside merely on such ground—Court rejected such objection and made award rule of the court in circumstances.

2012 PLD 181 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Mian ASMAT SHAH VS Mian FAIQ SHAH

Ss. 14, 17, 21 & 30—Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art.158—Award, setting aside of—Objections to award filed beyond 30 days—Objector’s plea that no notice under S.14(2) of Arbitration Act, 1940 was served upon him—Validity—Court had referred matter in dispute to Arbitrator with consent of both parties—Objector had duly participated in arbitration proceedings—Award had been filed in court in presence of both parties, thus, there was no need of issuing a notice to objector about filing of award—Such plea of objector was, merely a technical ground having no force in such circumstances.

2012 CLC 463 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY VS PUT SARAJEVO GENERAL ENGINEERING COMPANY

Ss. 23 & 28—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.20(c)—Arbitration Act (X of 1940), Ss.2(c), 14(2), 17, 31 & 39—Making award rule of court—Territorial jurisdiction of court—Award having been announced by the sole arbitrator, contractor company moved the court for making the award rule of the court—Court at place “P” allowed the petition by partially making the award rule of court—Appellant had raised objection with regard to jurisdiction of the court, contending that as the contract/agreement was executed at place “I” and Head Office of the appellant as well as respondent-company being located at places “I” and “L”, the court at “P” had no territorial jurisdiction over the matter—Plea of respondent-company was that relevant clause of the agreement had merely fixed the venue at place “I” for the purpose of arbitration only, which had nothing to do with conferring of an exclusive jurisdiction in the courts at place “I”—Agreement between the parties was executed at place “I” for a work to be done within Districts “P” and “N”—Agreement provided a clause for referring the dispute to adjudicator and then to the sole arbitrator—Agreement further provided that arbitration between the parties would be made at “I”—Where there were many courts having the jurisdiction to entertain the dispute between the parties under the agreement, and the parties with their mutual consent agree to refer their dispute to any such court or courts, such consent agreement between the parties was also not against the provisions of S.23 or 28 of the Contract Act, 1872—In the present case no such clause of agreement conferring jurisdiction in any one court except the one that the arbitration would be held in “I” in given circumstances, dispute between the parties could be referred to the courts having the jurisdiction under the general law—Head Office of respondent-company being at place “L”, a suit regarding any dispute against respondent could be filed at place “L”—Work being done was within the territorial jurisdiction of the court at “P” and dispute between them also cropped up there—Sub-offices of both the parties were also situated at place “P”—Such a dispute between the parties regarding the subject-matter situated within the territorial jurisdiction of courts at “P” could well be referred and agitated before the court at “P” as cause of action wholly or partly, within the meaning of S.20(c), C.P.C. arose there—No bar existed in the agreement that the courts at “P” would have no jurisdiction—Court at place “P” could well entertain the dispute—Finding of the courts below were set aside directing the office to send both the cases to the court of Senior Civil Judge at place “P”, who would decide the matter between the parties at its earliest.

2012 PLD 490 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MUHAMMAD KHALID VS MUHAMMAD NAEEM

Ss. 18, 14 & 17—West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S.13—Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199—Constitutional petition—Consolidation of proceedings ongoing simultaneously before Rent Controller in an ejectment petition and civil court for enforcement of award under Ss.18, 14 & 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940—Scope—Ejectment petition before the Rent Controller was in its final stage of adjudication, and the matter had also been referred to a panel arbitrators; whose award was filed before the civil court for enforcement—Petitioner had sought amalgamation of proceedings on the ground that the Presiding Officer before whom the petition for enforcement of award was filed was also incidentally the Rent Controller in the matter—Said application of the petitioner was’ dismissed—Validity—Ejectment petition before Rent Controller was at concluding stage whereas the petition moved under Arbitration Act, 1940 before the civil court was at the initial stages—Proceedings under the ‘Arbitration Act, 1940 were to be taken up by the civil court while ejectment petition was to be decided by the Rent Controller who was a persona designate under the provisions of the West Pakistan Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959; as such, the two jurisdictions were entirely different—Pleadings, issues, evidence and other material in both the matters being different, ought to be decided independently and separately—Civil Judge could be assigned different jurisdictions, for example, as a Rent Controller or Family Judge, but it did not mean that while exercising different jurisdictions, all proceedings before the same Civil Judge could be amalgamated—Presiding Officer, in the present case, was the same who was acting as a Rent Controller, and also the Civil Judge, but in one he was a persona designata and was exercising quasi judicial jurisdiction, whereas with regard to the other he was acting as a Civil Judge under the Provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Neither two jurisdictions nor the proceedings under two entirely different laws could be consolidated or amalgamated—Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

2012 PLD 455 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

TAISEI CORPORATION VS A.M. CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (PVT.) LTD.

Ss. 2(d), 3 & 4—Arbitration Act (X of 1940), Ss.14, 30 & 33—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R.10—Application for filing in court award rendered by Arbitrator appointed by International Chamber of Commerce (ICC)—Applicant’s plea that letter of Arbitrator regarding rendering of award was received within jurisdiction of civil Court at place “L”, where cause of action arose partly—Respondent’s application under O.VII, R.10, C.P.C. for return of applicant’s such application that civil court at place “L” lacked jurisdiction to entertain same as such award being a foreign arbitral award, regarding which only High Court had jurisdiction under Recognition and Enforcement of (Arbitration Agreement and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act, 2011; and that only High Court at place “K” had territorial jurisdiction to entertain such matter—Validity—Respondent had not denied factum of principal office of applicant at place “L”, wherefrom all necessary letters between parties had been exchanged—Record showed that execution of final agreement of sub-contract had taken place at place “K”, but its execution was preceded by numerous letters exchanged between parties from their respective working places/offices—Cause of action regarding such sub-contract had partly accrued to applicant within territorial jurisdiction of court at place “L”, where its principal office located—Application under S.14 of Arbitration Act, 1940 was not one of such kind of legal proceedings to be decided by court constituted under Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act, 2011—Respondent had not made application for recognition and enforcement of such award to a court constituted under S.2(d) of Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act, 2011—No jurisdiction had been conferred upon court constituted under S.2(d) of the said Act to entertain application of nature of S.14 of Arbitration Act, 1940—Court considered under S.2(d) of Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act, 2011 had been constituted with specific limited powers of giving recognition and enforcement to a foreign Arbitral award, thus, general powers conferred upon ordinary civil court under provisions of Arbitration Act, 1940 including S.14 thereof would remain available to a party affected by an award—Parties had specifically agreed that such sub-contract would be governed by Pakistan law—Impugned award was a domestic award to be dealt with in accordance with Pakistan law—Respondent had not raised objection that such award could be challenged in seat of arbitration abroad—Arbitrator had elected to file such award in High Court at place “K”—Subsequent making of an application under S.6 of Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act, 2011 by respondent to High Court at place “K” would not divest civil court at place “L” to entertain applicant’s application under S.14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, which was not entertain able by court constituted under S.2(d) of Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act, 2011—Civil Court at place “L” had jurisdiction to entertain applicant’s application under S.14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940—Respondent’s application under O.VII, R.10, C.P.C. was rejected, in circumstances.

2012 PLD 301 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

LILLEY INTERNATIONAL (PVT) LTD. VS NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY

Ss. 2(c) & 14—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R.10—Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.12—Suit for specific performance of contract—Filing of arbitration award in the court—Territorial jurisdiction of the court—Application for return of award—Contract was entered into between the plaintiff company and defendant Authority at place ‘I’, where the Head Office of the defendant Authority was located—Said contract contained an arbitration clause—Dispute having arisen between the parties with regard to scope of work and the work actually was done by the plaintiff—Arbitrator who was residing at place ‘K’ was appointed; who found it more convenient to conduct the arbitration proceedings at place ‘K’ with the consent of the parties—Arbitrator made award and on the request of the plaintiff, arbitrator filed the award along with record pursuant to S.14 of Arbitration Act, 1940 in the court at place ‘K’—Defendant Authority filed application under O.VII, R.10, C.P.C. for return of award on the ground that the court at place ‘K’ lacked jurisdiction to hear and entertain the matter—Defendant sought direction that award be returned and remitted to the court of competent jurisdiction, which was at place ‘I’—Counsel for defendant/applicant had contended that in fact the arbitration ought to have proceeded at place ‘I’, but on the request of the Arbitrator and for his convenience alone, the proceedings were held at place ‘K’ which was without prejudice to the provisions of the arbitration claim—Court under S.2(c) of Arbitration Act, 1940, had been defined not in relation to the arbitration proceedings, but in relation to the court that would have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the arbitral reference—Question as to where the Arbitrator resided or worked for gain, or where the arbitration proceedings were held; or where the award was made was not relevant—Jurisdiction would lie with that court where the defendant ordinarily resided or worked for gain—Suit would lie before the Court at place ‘I’, because the contract was entered into there and the defendant Authority had its head office there—Court at place ‘K’ did not have any jurisdiction and award was to be returned for filing before the court of competent jurisdiction—Since proceedings had already been launched at place ‘I’, that was the only place where award could be filed—Application filed under O.VII, R.10, C.P.C. was allowed, in circumstances.

2012 CLC 236 ISLAMABAD

M.A. ALEEM KHAN & SONS (PVT.) LTD. VS PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION EMPLOYEES TRUST

3, Sched.l & Art.12—Arbitration Act (I of 1940), S.14—Award—Stamp duty—Award issued on stamp paper not properly valued—Defendant had objected that the award was issued on stamp paper, which was not properly valued—Validity—Award showed that same was written on a stamp paper of proper value—Objection was repelled.

2011 MLD 135 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Executive Engineering VS AMMICO CONSTRUCTION (PVT.) LIMITED, LAHORE

Ss. 14, 17 & 39—Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art.158—Making award rule of the court—Objection to—Limitation—Respondent company after completion of construction work according to agreement, raised certain claims against appellant Authority before the nominated arbitrators—Both arbitrators found respondent entitled to recover amount claimed by respondent company—Application filed by the respondent company under Ss.14 & 17 of Arbitration Act, 1940 for making award as rule of the court, was accepted and Executive Engineer of the Appellant Authority appeared in court and stated that he had no objection with regard to making the award rule of the court in accordance with law—When award was finally made rule of the court, appellant Authority assailed the same through appeal—Validity—Article 158 of Limitation Act,. 1908 had provided 30 days’ time to the parties from the date of filing of award to raise objection, if any—After said period no party could be allowed to raise any objection with regard to the award—No provision of law required a court to fix a particular date inviting objections from either party; it was choice of the parties, within the prescribed period of limitation, to raise any objection or not—Executive Engineer of the appellant Authority appeared before the court and made a specific statement that he had no objection if award was made rule of the court—Appellant Authority had been continuously represented till the last date of impugned order and it never bothered to raise any objection with regard to the award—Award could not be objected to at such a belated period in circumstances.

2011 YLR 202 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

SAIFULLAH KHAN VS KARACHI CUSTOMS AGENTS ASSOCIATION

Ss.14, 17 & 30—Sindh Chief Court Rules (OS), Rr. 282 & 283—Award—Objections—Matter was referred to sole arbitrator, with the consent of parties and arbitrator filed award for making the same as rule of the Court—Defendant objected to award on the ground that he was not given opportunity of hearing—Validity—Defendant had fully participated in proceedings and had specifically mentioned in the objections that his averments had duly been incorporated by the Arbitrator in his Award—Having allowed to deal with the matter, defendant was estopped and acquiesced with the matter of objecting to the same on the ground that he was either not heard or not given sufficient opportunity to present his case-High Court found the objections filed by defendant as frivolous and contrary to record—No error was apparent as alleged by defendant calling interference by High Court—Valid award had binding force and such award was to be made rule of the Court—Award was made rule of the Court.

2011 CLC 108 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

HUSSAIN (PVT.) LTD. VS KARACHI FISH HARBOUR AUTHORITY

Ss.9 (b) & 14 (2)—Sindh Chief Court Rules (O.S.), R. 282—Arbitration—Making award rule of the court—Award by sole arbitrator—Defendants objected to award on the ground that matter was to be decided by two arbitrators one appointed by each party but the award was announced by sole arbitrator appointed by plaintiff only—Validity—Defendants had waived their objections and had continued to appear before the sole arbitrator without any objection till the last date when award was given—Raising of objection by defendants at such juncture would not vitiate the award granted by sole arbitrator merely on such ground alone—High Court declined to declare the award invalid or set aside—Award was made rule of the court in circumstances.

2010 PLD 34 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

PAKISTAN TELEVISION CORPQRATION LIMITED VS INTERCONSTRUCT (PVT.) LIMITED through Managing Director, Peshawar

Ss. 14(2), 20, 33 & 39—Making award rule of the court—Principles—Objection petition filed by the appellant was turned down mainly on the ground of limitation and non-compliance of S.33 of Arbitration Act, 1940—Record had revealed that no directions under S.33 of Arbitration Act, 1940 regarding deposit of amount or furnishing of security, were given to the appellant as the amount was lying with the bank—Further award itself was not evaluated by the court and the court also failed to discuss the findings reached at in the award by the arbitrator—Tentative, shallow and cursory glance of assaying the award was not permissible under the law—Court had to minutely discuss each and every aspect embodied in the award, whether evidence so recorded by the arbitrator had properly been appreciated and discussed by him in accordance with law; whether the award was ‘ in accordance with the terms of reference or not etc.—Court was not supposed to put stamp of verification by simply making the same rule of the court—Court had to evaluate the evidence recorded by the arbitrator, it had to consider the findings arrived at by the arbitrator and was not supposed to act mechanically just like a forwarding agency—While evaluating an award the role of a court should be of an active dissenter rather than passive consenter—Trial Court, in the present case, had failed to exercise its jurisdiction in accordance with law—Judgment and decree of the Trial Court were set aside by High Court with the observations that the objections of the appellant would be deemed to be pending before the Trial Court and the court would be required to decide the same on merits and also pass an appropriate order.

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.

2010 YLR 164 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Chaudhary SARDAR MUHAMMAD KHAN VS MUHAMMAD JAFAR KHAN

Ss.14 &17—Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Arts. 178 & 181—Application for making award rule of court—Limitation—Announcement of award by Arbitrator on 13-8-1995 in presence of both parties, who put their signatures on award— Filing of such application on 25-1-2000–Validity—Article 178 of Limitation Act, 1908 would apply where notice of making award was given to parties by Arbitrator—Limitation under Art. 178 of Limitation Act, 1908 would start from date of service of such notice on parties–Where notice to parties was not given by Arbitrator under S.14 (1) of Arbitration Act, 1908, then provision of Art. 181 of Limitation Act, 1908 would apply to such application—Parties in the present case already knew about announcement of award, thus, such application could be made within three years as provided under Art. 181 of Limitation Act, 1908—Such application filed on 25-1-2000 for being time-barred was dismissed in circumstances.

2010 YLR 114 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

QAMAR-UD-DIN VS ABDUL LATIF

Ss.8 & 14—Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.33— `Referee’—Referee was a person who was invited to the aid of the parties to a suit and his personal opinion was sought for resolving the controversy and his appointment was always with the consent of the parties; and he must not hold any inquiries nor was supposed to collect evidence; and the judgment and decree in that particular suit had to be based upon his personal opinion, which would amount to admission by the parties to the suit and the same had binding effect.

2010 YLR 991 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

MEHRAN METAL CONTAINERS (PVT.) LTD. VS NATIONAL REFINERY LTD.

Ss.14 & 30—Making of award as rule of court—Jurisdiction of court—Scope—Award in substance would generally oust jurisdiction of court except for purpose of controlling arbitrators and preventing misconduct and for regulating procedure after award—Finality would be attached to award passed in accordance with decision of arbitrator.

2010 YLR 1448 ISLAMABAD

NATIONAL LOGISTIC CELL(NLC) through General Manager Administration VS HAKAS (PVT.) LTD. through Chief Executive

Ss.14, 7 & 39—Submission of award for making rule of the Court—Award was not filed in the Court by the arbitrator, but it was filed by one of the parties along with application under Ss.14 & 17 of Arbitration Act, 1940—Award was to be filed or caused to be filed in the Court by the arbitrator, either on the request of the parties or any one of them or on the direction of the Court—Mere handing over a signed copy of the award to a party would not mean that there was an implied authority from the arbitrator to file the award in Court on his behalf—Court before making the award, rule of the Court, was to apply its mind, whether there was cause to remit the award or any of the matters referred to arbitration for consideration or whether the award was liable to be set aside—Without doing such exercise, Court made the award rule of the Court on the only ground that no application for setting aside the award had been filed—Since the party filing the award had no express or implied authority on behalf of the arbitrator to file award, impugned order was patently illegal and same was set aside.

2009 PLD 442 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

ABDUL HUSSAIN SHALL VS ALLAH DITTA

Ss. 14 & 17—Making award rule of the court—Legal effect of award—Award would acquire legal effect only when it was made a rule of court through the procedure visualized in Ss.14 & 17 of Arbitration Act, 1940.

2009 MLD 1399 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

RAZO (PVT.) LTD. VS PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS CORPORATION (PVT.) LTD.

Ss.14, 15 & 30—Sindh Chief Court Rules, R.282—Submitting award in the court—Power of court to modify award—Scope—Application for setting aside the award—Application filed by the umpire under R.282 of Sindh Chief Court Rules, for submitting award was registered as suit—Defendant filed objection in the form of an application under Ss.15 & 30 of Arbitration Act, 1940 praying therein to set aside the award and to pass a judgment according to law on merits—Main objection of the defendant was that evidence brought on record by the defendant during arbitration proceedings had not been appreciated by the umpire and the award was liable to be set aside—Defendant had not alleged any infirmity/irregularity or defect in terms of S.15 of Arbitration Act, 1940 or any illegality or misconduct in terms of S.30 of said Act; on the basis of which either the award be modified or set aside as prayed by the defendant in his application—Court examining the validity of any award, would not act as a court of appeal—Court hearing the objection to the award could not undertake reappraisal of evidence recorded by the arbitrator/umpire in order to discover the error or infirmity in the award—Error or infirmity in the award which rendered the award invalid, must appear on the face of award and should be discoverable by reading the award itself—Where reasons recorded by the Arbitrator were challenged as perverse, the perversity in the reasoning had to be established with reference to the material considered by Arbitrator in the award—Award passed by Umpire in the case could not be interfered because no perversity in the reasoning with reference to the material considered by the Umpire had been established by the defendant—Only objection of the defendant with regard to non-appreciation of evidence produced before the Umpire was out of scope of High Court as provided in Ss.15 & 30 of Arbitration Act, 1940—Award was made rule of the court, in circumstances.

2008 SCMR 1262 SUPREME-COURT

Mst. FATEH BEVI VS ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KHUSHAB

Ss. 12(2) & 141—Arbitration Act (X of 1940), Ss.14 & 17—West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance (II of 1962), S.7—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)—Application for setting aside judgment/decree making award rule of Court—Respondent obtained award by alleging gift in his favour by applicant–Applicant denied to have made such gift—Trial Court dismissed application but same was accepted by Revisional Court and upheld in Constitutional petition by High Court—Validity—No documentary evidence existed with regard to alleged gift made by applicant—Judgment/decree making award rule ‘of Court was ex parte—Alleged arbitration agreement had not been proved due to non-production of marginal witnesses—No reliance could be placed on deposition of arbitrator as he was neither related to either of parties nor resident of village, where parties resided and land situated nor there was any justification for his appointment as arbitrator—Civil Judge Second Class, who made award rule of Court, was lacking pecuniary jurisdiction to try civil suit of value of property subject matter of award—Concurrent findings of fact on questions of law and fact to the effect that Civil Judge, Second Class, lacked pecuniary jurisdiction, that gift was not made; that judgment/decree making award rule of Court was collusive, were un-exceptionable—Supreme Court dismissed petition and refused leave to appeal.

2008 SCMR 1262 SUPREME-COURT

Mst. FATEH BEVI VS ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KHUSHAB

Ss. 14 & 17—West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance (II of 1962), S.7—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.141—Making award rule of Court—Pecuniary jurisdiction of Civil Court—Value of subject matter of award exceeding pecuniary jurisdiction of Civil Judge, Second Class to try a civil suit of same value—Effect—Application under Ss.14 & 17 of Arbitration Act, 1940, though not being a suit, could not be entertained and decided by such Civil Judge.

2008 CLC 798 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

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

Ss. 14, 15, 16, 17 & 30—Application for making an award rule of Court—Powers of court—Scope—Court in such matter would not act as an Appellate Court, its jurisdiction being supervisory in nature—While determining validity of award, court could not undertake reappraisal of evidence/material considered by Arbitrator in order to discover error or infirmity in award—Court could remit award to Arbitrator, where award did not state reason or where illegality/error in award could be discovered by its mere reading—Where no misconduct was found on the part` of Arbitrator and award did not suffer from any illegality and infirmity, then court would be bound to give reasonable intendment in favour of award and lean towards holding same valid rather than to vitiate same.

2007 YLR 2459 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

GHULAM FATIMA VS MUHAMMAD SHAFI

Ss. 14, 17 & 20—Arbitration agreement—Petitioner claimed that after filing of the suit, the matter was resolved by arbitration between the parties, therefore, award should be made rule of the Court—Respondents denied having referred the matter to arbitration—Trial Court allowed the application and made the award as rule of the Court—Appellate Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by Trial Court—Validity—Any alleged arbitration or award in respect of subject-matter of a suit without intervention or consent of Court seized of the matter, was ineffective—High Court declined to take any exception to the finding of Appellate Court that award relied upon by petitioner was of no legal effect hence could not be made rule of the Court—Judgment passed by Appellate Court was in consonance with law—No material irregularity existed in exercise of jurisdiction warranting interference by High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction—Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

2007 YLR 1608 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

GHULAM MUHAMMAD VS GHULAM ABBAS

—Ss. 14, 30 & 26-A—Registration Act (XVI of 1908), S.49—Award made without intervention of the court is compulsorily registerable—Non-registration of such award—Effect—Award given without reasons—Interference with, by party’s counsel—Valid

2007 CLC 1877 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Mst. PARVEEN VS JEHANA

—S. 14—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.12(2)—Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art.158—Application under S.12(2), C.P.C. against decree which had made the award, a rule of Court—Application was allowed .and case was remanded. to trial Court to de

2007 MLD 1366 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through District Collector, Multan VS Messrs KHALID HUSSAIN AND COMPANY GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS

—Art. 33—Arbitration Act (X of 1940), Ss. 14 & 17—Suit, pendency of—Matter in dispute referred by Trial Court to Referee nominated by both parties agreeing to be bound by his decision—Referee made report after recording evidence of parties and e

2007 MLD 1366 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through District Collector, Multan VS Messrs KHALID HUSSAIN AND COMPANY GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS

—Ss. 14 & 17—No decree could be passed on basis of award without giving an opportunity to parties to file objections thereto.

2007 MLD 1297 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

ABDUL KHALIQ VS BASHIR AHMED

—S.12(2)-Arbitration Act (X of 1940), S.14—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199—Constitutional petition—Arbitration proceedings—Contention of the petitioner was that Power-of-attorney executed by him in favour of his wife did not at all auth

2007 MLD 877 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MUHAMMAD MAZHAR UL HAQ through General Attorney VS ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, TOBA TEK SINGH

—S. 11 & O. XX, R. 18—Arbitration Act (X of 1940), Ss. 14 & 17—Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 54 to 58—Partition suit—Plaintiff claimed separate possession of his share by partition of property jointly allotted to predecessors of plaintiff

2007 YLR 2896 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB through Secretary Government Communication and Works Department, Lahore and another VS Ch. QAISER MAHMOOD

—S. 14(1) & (2)—Respondent, a contractor, had a dispute with the Province and Executive Engineer Provincial Building Division/ petitioners regarding the contract awarded to him—Dispute was referred to arbitration with the intervention of Court upon

2007 CLC 1247 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Mrs. RUKHSANA PARVEEN VS Syed SHABAHAT HUSSAIN NAQVI

—Ss. 30, 33 & 14(2)—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.12(2)—Decree passed in an award—Application under S.12(2), C.P.C.—Maintainability—Ss.30 & 33, Arbitration Act, 1940 refer to only award and not decree passed on the basis of award, there

2007 CLC 1247 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Mrs. RUKHSANA PARVEEN VS Syed SHABAHAT HUSSAIN NAQVI

—Ss. 41, 14(1), (2), 30 & 33—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Ss.12(2) & 151—Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art.178—Notice under S.14(1), Arbitration Act, 1940—Limitation—Dispute between decree holder and judgment debtor by consent and as per t

2007 CLC 1247 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Mrs. RUKHSANA PARVEEN VS Syed SHABAHAT HUSSAIN NAQVI

–S. 14(2)—Filing the award in Court—Issuance of notice to the parties—Procedure—Held, law envisaged issuance of notice to the parties after the award had been filed in Court but there was nothing even to infer the issuance of notice to the partie

2007 CLC 879 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH