Section 15 : Power of Court to modify award
2021 CLC 761 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
PAKISTAN STATE OIL COMPANY LTD. VS PAKISTAN NATIONAL SHIPPING CORPORATION
Ss.15 & 30—Award, modification of—Contractual liability—Force majeure—Appellant was an Oil Company and respondent was a Shipping Company—Dispute was with regard to recovery of demurrages claimed by respondent/shipping company due to delayed discharge of cargo—Appellant/oil company was aggrieved of making award rule of the Court—Validity—Held, there was a requirement to invoke force majeure clause as in view of directives and policy guidelines, subject cargo was declared off-specification by independent Government Surveyor viz HDIP, and cargo could not have been unloaded by appellant/oil company— Appellant/oil company took mitigating steps by continuously corresponding and coordinating with concerned parties including respondent/shipping company and controlling authorities of government for resolution of dispute— Cargo was discharged, once request of appellant/oil company to grant one time waiver was approved and communicated by government authorities— Correspondence from appellant/oil company highlighted the fact that cargo was contaminated and deteriorated during voyage— Respondent/shipping company experienced somewhat similar situation in respect of other consignments of appellant/oil company, which were subject matter of other proceedings— Division Bench of High Court set aside award to pay demurrages and monetary claim of respondent/shipping company was rejected— Intra Court Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.
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.
2016 PLD 121 SUPREME-COURT
KARACHI DOCK LABOUR BOARD VS QUALITY BUILDERS LTD.
15—Power of court to modify award—Scope—Notwithstanding the absence of objections filed by any party and/or the fact that parties may consent to the making the award a rule of court, the court was duty bound to examine the validity and legality of an award and it may sua sponte modify or set aside the award if the facts and dictates of justice so demanded—Court could not and certainly should not, remain dormant by merely affixing the judicial stamp on an award — Court was not a part of an assembly line which had to churn out finished products mechanically without applying its judicial mind to the process involved.
2015 PLD 21 SUPREME-COURT
A.M. ASSOCIATES VS GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA
15—Arbitration Council-7-Members—Arbitration award made without involving one of the members—Effect—Arbitration Council coram non judice—In terms of the contract parties had appointed a Dispute Adjudication Board, comprising of one Chairman and two members—Subsequently Dispute Adjudication Board was converted into Arbitration Council, and arbitration proceedings were conducted without involvement of the Chairman—No explanation was given as to why the Chairman was not made part of the Arbitration Council, and why proceedings were not held in the city, specifically provided as place of arbitration in the contract—In terms of the contract, the matter was to be decided by three arbitrators and not by two, therefore for all practical purposes the Chairman should have been a part of the decision of the award—Failure of the two arbitrators who passed the award to include and involve the Chairman in the Arbitration proceedings had rendered the award without jurisdiction and arbitrators were guilty of misconduct—Arbitration Council had become coram non judice for passing the award, which therefore could not be made rule of court—Appeal was dismissed accordingly.
2014 SCMR 1268 SUPREME-COURT
QUTUBUDDIN KHAN VS CHEC MILLWALA DREDGING CO. (PVT.) LIMITED
Ss. 15, 16, 30 & 33—Arbitration award presented in court—Objections filed against award—Power of court to examine such an award and set it aside—Scope—While hearing objections and examining the award, the court could not sit as a court of appeal on the award rendered by the Arbitrator and substitute its own view for the one taken by the Arbitrator—Award of the Arbitrator who was chosen as judge of facts and of the law, between the parties, could not be set aside unless the error was apparent on the face of the award or from the award it could be inferred that Arbitrator had misconducted himself.
2014 CLD 824 SUPREME-COURT
- QUTUBUDDIN KHAN VS CHEC MILLWALA DREDGING CO. (PVT.) LIMITED
Ss. 15, 16, 30 & 33—Arbitration award presented in court—Objections filed against award—Power of court to examine such an award and set it aside—Scope—While hearing objections and examining the award, the court could not sit as a court of appeal on the award rendered by the Arbitrator and substitute its own view for the one taken by the Arbitrator—Award of the Arbitrator who was chosen as judge of facts and of the law, between the parties, could not be set aside unless the error was apparent on the face of the award or from the award it could be inferred that Arbitrator had misconducted himself.
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.
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.
2011 PLD 43 ISLAMABAD
NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY VS HAKAS (PRIVATE) LIMITED
Ss. 15 & 39—Modification of award—Powers of the court—Scope—Court under S.15 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, had power to modify the award, provided it appeared that a part of the award was upon a matter not referred to arbitration and such part could be separated from the other part and did not affect the decision. on matter referred or where the award was imperfect in form, or contained any obvious error which could be amended without affecting such decision or where the award contained a clerical mistake or an error arising from an accidental slip or omission—Court could not enter into the merits of the case and could not assume the power and authority of the arbitrator—Appreciation of evidence was entirely an authority of the arbitrator, but if there was an error on the face of record such error could be rectified—Court could suo motu modify or correct the award, notwithstanding that the objections were barred by limitation—Court could modify the award, even after period of limitation, provided the modification did not require evidence and did not change the decision of the arbitrator—Where the modification in the award changed the decision of the arbitrator, such modification was liable to be set aside.
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 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 CLC 751 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
CHAND BAGH FOUNDATION through Authorized Representative VS Messrs REHMAN BROTHERS (PVT.) LTD. Through Chief Executive
#NAME?
2005 YLR 2244 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ARSHIA AZHAR VS Mst. SARWAT IMTIAZ
—Ss. 2(3), 15, 26-A, 30, 33 & 39—Stamp Act (II of 1899), S. 2(15) & Art.45—Arbitration agreement— Reference—Award—Rule of Court—Question of stamp duty—Instrument of partition—Parties who were before the High Court in a Constitutional pet
2005 CLD 907 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
PAKISTAN CARPET MANUFACTURERS AND EXPORTERS ASSOCIATION VS MOHIUDDIN ANSARI
—-S.12—Arbitration Act (X of 1940), Ss. 15, 16, 17, 18, 30, 31 & 33—Making award rule of the Court—Objection to-ÂConstitution of Arbitration Tribunal—Powers of Managing Committee—Basic questions in the present proceedings were, as to whether
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
2004 PLD 722 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
NATIONAL FIBERS LTD VS PAKISTAN through Secretary Privatization Commission, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad
—-Ss. 15, 17, 20, 21 & 30—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXIII, R.I—Filing of arbitration agreement in the Court—Setting aside of award—Withdrawal of suit—Making award rule of the Court—‘Contents of the award did not show any infirmity
2004 CLC 1879 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through Managing Director WASA VS Messrs FAISAL INTERNATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LIMITED
——–Ss. 14, 15, 17 & 30—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XLI, R.33—Award—Decision/opinion of Arbitrator given in award–Substitution of the same by the Court—Validity—Such decision/opinion could not be substituted by Appellate Court in ex
2004 CLC 594 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS Messrs FAISAL INTERNATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION
—-Ss. 15 & 30—Award, substitution of—Legal misconduct–Supervisory role of the Court—Opinion/decision given by an Arbitrator cannot be substituted by the Civil Court or even the High Court in discharge of Appellate jurisdiction unless and until’ s
2004 CLC 1977 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
ADAMJEE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD. VS ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN
—-Ss. 15, 20 & 30—Making award rule of the Court—Objections to award—Modification and correction of award—Court while hearing objections to the award, has not to act as Court of appeal and the Court should be slow in proceeding to scrutinize the
2003 YLR 2494 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS ICE PAK INTERNATIONAL CONSULTING ENGINEERS OF PAKISTAN
—-Ss. 15, 16 & 30—Award, setting aside of—Party proposing to settle dispute regarding certain period through arbitration could not be heard afterwards to say that there was no agreement in writing regarding such period.
2003 YLR 2596 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Messrs IFTIKHAR ZAIDI ASSOCIATES VS Messrs PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS CORPORATION
—-Ss. 15 & 30—Award may be modified or corrected when the same falls within the scope of S.15, Arbitration Act, 1940 and can be set aside if governed by S.30 of the said Act.
2002 SCMR 366 SUPREME-COURT
MESSRS WAHEED BROTHERS (PAKISTAN) LTD., LAHORE VS MESSRS IZHAR (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE
Arbitration Act 1940 —-Ss. 15, 30 & 39(2)—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XX, R. 19—Award—Sole arbitrator appointed by parties gave his award—Parties entered into compromise before Civil Court and with their consent award was modified, which was made rule of the Court—Respondent filed application for execution of award as incorporated in the decree—Appellant claiming set-off from respondent filed application under O. XX, R.19, C.P.C.; which was dismissed and his appeal was also dismissed by High Court—Contention was th4t modified award being a new agreement between the parties was not capable of execution—Validity—Importance of modified award could not be downplayed by calling same as a “new agreement”, which was a consent document and reflected unanimous view of the parties expressed therein—Award was made rule of the . Court after taking into consideration all the evidence brought on record by the parties–Courts below after discussing the factual aspect in detail had rendered concurrent findings, wherein neither any legal flaw nor misreading or non-reading of evidence had been pointed out nor there was any justification for exercising jurisdiction under Ss.15 & 30 of Arbitration Act, 1940—No legal point having been raised Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.
2002 YLR 3796 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
PROVINCE OF PUNJAB VS Messrs MUHAMMAD ANWAR & CO
—-Ss.15, 30 & 39—Setting aside of award–Appeal against order of Court making award rule of Court—Award made and pronounced by arbitrators was objected to by appellant alleging that arbitrators had mis-conducted proceedings—Court after framing iss
2002 PLD 427 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Maj. (Retd.) HUMAYUN AKHTAR VS PAKISTAN DEFENCE OFFICERS HOUSING AUTHORITY
Arbitration Act 1940 —-Ss. 15, 16 & 17—Filing of award in Court—Non-raising of objections by parties—Duty of Court—Mere absence of objection would not absolve the Court from its responsibility of deciding whether the award was void on the face of it.
2001 CLC 1878 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
PRIVATIZATION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN CONSTITUTION AVENUE,
ISLAMABAD
VS MESSRS PETROSIN PRODUCTS (PVT.) LIMITED
Arbitration Act 1940 —-Ss. 15, 16, 17, 20 & 41—Award, making rule of Court—Matter finalized by arbitrator on direction of the Trial Court—Arbitration clause was present in the agreement between the parties—Dispute was referred to the sole arbitrator as per agreement—Appellant was delaying the matter on one pretext or the other—Trial Court directed the arbitrator to himself evaluate and finalize the dispute—Arbitrator in compliance thereof delivered the award and filed the same in the Trial Court which was made rule of the Court—Validity—Trial Court examined the contents of the award and also the objections raised by the appellant and made the same as rule of the Court—Civil Court was not a Court of appeal against an arbitration award–Where contents of such award did not spell out any disqualification therein rendering the same invalid and no allegation of misconduct was raised against the- arbitrator, such award was based on proper assumption of law and facts and the same did not warrant interference.
2001 MLD 868 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
TRADING ENGINEERS (INTERNATIONAL) (PVT.) LIMITED VS WATER AND SANITATION AGENCY OF THE LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
—-S.15—Modification of award—Invalid portion of the Umpir’s award was separable from the valid portion of the same—Such award need not to be set aside, but could be modified in terms of S.15, Arbitration Act, 1940.
2001 MLD 233 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY VS MODERATE BUILDERS
Arbitration Act 1940 —-Ss. 15, 29 & 30—Award, setting aside of—Arbitrator including interest on the amount of award—Award was made rule of Court –Contention was that amount of interest included by the arbitrator and the amount so granted was ante-litem—Validity—Arbitrator was not vested with the jurisdiction to award interest—Where interest was awarded by the arbitrator, the same was illegal and the award was void to that extent—Award being separable, entire award need not be set aside or remitted back to the arbitrator—High Court, under the provision of S.15 of Arbitration Act, 1940, was empowered to correct the error by modifying award and the same was modified by deleting the amount of interest included in the award—Order and decree passed ,by the Trial Court was set aside and the award was modified accordingly.
2001 MLD 99 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN, CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, KARACHI VS AL-FAROOQ BUILDERS
Arbitration Act 1940 —-S. 15—Award—Validity—Duty of Court—Mere absence of objection per se does not absolve the Court to its primary responsibility of deciding whether the award is valid on the face of it.
2000 PLD 157 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
PAKISTAN VS RAJASTAN ALLOYAS AND STEEL (PRIVATE) LIMITED
Ss. 14, 15, 16, 17, 30 & 39? ??Arbitration proceedings ??? Objections to award ??? Non?framing of proper issues by Trial Court and failure to appreciate real controversy between the parties ??? Effect ??? Objection application was filed against the validity of the award given by arbitrator ??? Trial Court rejected that application on the ground of delay ??? Validity ??? Trial Court failed to appreciate the real controversy and to frame a material issue essential for the just adjudication of the matter and also failed to perform the duty cast upon it under S. 17, Arbitration Act, 1940 ??? Objection petition having been unlawfully rejected, order of Trial Court was set aside and case was remanded for decision afresh.
1999 MLD 3216 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
RAHIM JAN VS WARN GARDAZI
Arbitration Act 1940 —-Ss. 14, 15, 17 & 39—Arbitration proceedings—Making award rule of Court—Objection to—Appeal against order of dismissal of objection—Review against appellate order—Maintainability—Award given by arbitrator was objected to, but Court despite such objections made award rule of Court—On filing appeal against order of dismissal of objections against award and making award rule of Court, Appellate Court modified the award—Review against appellate order—Maintainability—Finality of award could only be taken away in manner provided under Arbitration Act, 1940—Decision of original Court under 5.14/17 of Arbitration Act, 1940 could be challenged by way of appeal under S.39 of said Act and in no other way— In absence of any provision for review in Arbitration Act, 1940, no question would arise to subject an award or an appellate judgment to a challenge by way of review—Review petition was dismissed, being not maintainable, in circumstances.
1999 MLD 511 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
RAHIM JAN VS IKRAM GARDEZI
—-S.114 & O.XLVII, R.1—Arbitration Act (X of 1940), Ss. 14, 15, 17, 32, 39 & 41—Review—Maintainability—Petitioner in his review petition had sought review of judgment passed by High Court in appeal in matter of arbitration award—Review, like a
1999 CLC 1777 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
QUALITY BUILDERS LTD. VS KARACHI METROPOLITAN CORPORATION
Arbitration Act 1940 —-Ss. 15, 20 & 30—Award—Record and proceedings, before Arbitrator had s-1 shown that arbitrator had judiciously proceeded with the task assigned to him and both the parties were provided adequate opportunity to put up their case before him—Allegation that arbitrator had misconducted himself or proceedings, thus, was without any basis—Award given by arbitrator was valid, in circumstances.
1999 MLD 2617 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MESSRS GHEE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN LTD. VS MESSRS KUOK OILS AND GRAINS (PVT.) LTD.
Arbitration Act 1940 —-Ss. 15 & 16—Award—Objection—Reappraisal of evidence—Scope—Court hearing objection to award does not act as a Court of appeal—Reappraisal of evidence recorded by Arbitrators, in order to discover any error or infirmity is not permissible.
1999 MLD 1600 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
TRANSOCEAN ASIA LTD. VS RICE EXPORT CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN
Arbitration Act 1940 —-Ss. 15, 16, 30, 33 & 42—Breach of contract—Forfeiture of earnest amount—According to agreement arrived at between plaintiffs/buyers and defendants/seller Corporation, plaintiffs/buyers agreed to purchase certain quality of rice from defendant/seller Corporation—Plaintiffs/buyers having not been able to purchase rice, defendant/seller Corporation, cancelled contract arrived at between parties and forfeited advance payment which was deposited by plaintiffs/buyers with defendant/seller Corporation as earnest amount—To resolve dispute between parties, matter was referred to Arbitrator appointed with consent of parties—Sole Arbitrator after hearing parties had concluded that plaintiffs/buyers having committed breach of contract, defendant/seller Corporation was entitled, under terms of contract, to forfeit earnest money held by it—No misreading of evidence having been pointed out by plaintiffs/buyers to upset findings of sole Arbitrator, forfeiture of earnest money by defendant/seller Corporation was legally justified—Award given by Arbitrator was made rule of Court.
1998 PLD 132 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ZAKAULLAH KHAN VS GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN
Ss. 14, 15, 16, 17, 30 & 33—Nature and object of arbitration proceedings and role of Courts therein stated. Arbitration is a settlement’ of controversies/disputes by one or more persons chosen by the parties themselves. The persons so chosen are known as Arbitrator/Arbitrators/Umpires. The object of arbitration proceedings is to curtail periqd o-f litigation; to encourage resolution of conflict through Judges of their own choice; that Arbitrators are not strictly bound by rules of technicalities embodied in Procedural Laws as well as Qanun-e-Shahadat/Evidence Act; that the Courts’ are given role to see that these Judges decide causes strictly in accordance with law, in exercise of their supervisory power contained in sections 14 to 17, and sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act. Thus, it is clear that the role of the Courts, in the scheme of Arbitration Act is of supervisory character and is not akin to appellate power under the Code of Civil Procedure.
1998 PLD 79 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
TURNER MORRISON GARAHAMS GROUP OF COMPANIES VS RICE EXPORT CORPN. PAK. LTD.
Ss.15, 16 & 30—Award—Setting aside, correction or modification of award—Power of Court—Extent—While grounds for setting aside award were to be found in S.30, Arbitration Act, 1940, Ss. 15 & 16 of the Act lay down circumstances under which award might be corrected and modified or remitted for consideration—Arbitration award in substance would generally oust jurisdiction of Court except for purposes of controlling Arbitrators and preventing misconduct and for regulating procedure after award—Court would have no right ,to review or re-appraise evidence considered by Arbitrator on merits—Finality would be attached to decree passed in accordance with decision of Arbitrator–
1993 MLD 2349 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
PROVINCE OF SINDH VS HAJI KHAN
—-Ss. 29 & 15—Grant of pendente lite interest by arbitrator —Validity–Arbitrator had no power to grant pendente lite interest from the date of tiling of the suit till payment or even till the date of award—Trial Court had correctly declined to in
1991 CLC 66 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
PROVINCE OF SINDH VS WASEEM CONSTRUCTION CO.
Arbitration Act 1940 S.15—Award—Provisions of the contract documents having not been properly appreciated and considered error would be apparent on the face of the award.
1989 PLD 261 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB VS SYED SHAFIQUE AHMAD
Reference to arbitration??Scope??Nature of dispute between parties specifically spelt out in application for appointment and reference of dispute to arbitrators??Arbitrators’ jurisdiction was thus limited to determine the disputes as mentioned in that application??Arbitrators could not proceed to decide or determine any other dispute which would be beyond the scope of reference.
1989 CLC 2194 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ALI MUHAMMAD VS BASHIR AHMAD
—Ss.14, 15, 16, 17 & 30–Arbitration proceedings–Object and scope of-Arbitration is a process by which parties voluntarily refer their disputes to an impartial third person selected by them for decision based on evidence–Scheme of Arbitration Act and
1989 MLD 54 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE VS MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH
—Ss. 15, 16 & 17–Award–Objections to–Objections to award with prayer for setting it aside, held, could be made in reply to application for making award rule of Court provided it was within limitation.
1988 SCMR 789 SUPREME-COURT
ASIAN ASSOCIATED AGENCIES VS PAKISTAN
—Ss.15, 16 a 30–Sale of Goods Act (III of 1930), 159.42 3 43-Award–Leave to appeal granted to consider (i) whether the award suffered from an error on face of record because a buyer, entitled to reject the .goods, could not be compelled to return the
1987 PLD 461 SUPREME-COURT
NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CO. VS W.P. W.A.P.D.A.
Ss. 15 & 30–Arbitration in substance ousts jurisdiction of Court save for purpose of controlling arbitrator and preventing misconduct and regulating procedure afterward–Court cannot sit in judgment over award–Provisions of S.30 set out grounds on which Court may set aside award, one of which is misconduct of arbitrator–Where two of the items referred to arbitration in fact already settled between parties, if arbitrator in such matters enters into arbitration and gives award in respect of them, he acts in excess of his authority–Such action of arbitrator would not however, constitute misconduct of arbitrator within meaning of S. 30 rendering whole award bad in law–Where arbitrator in respect of an item did not wish to give decision because “parties had agreed that this question did not fall within the reference” yet the award was given by him in respect of such item, it would be a mistake or accidental error and could not be basis for reaching a finding of misconduct on part of arbitrator.
1987 PLD 393 SUPREME-COURT
GHULAM ABBAS VS TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF KARACHI
- 15–Modification of award–Decision of arbitrator in respect of each item of claim constituted a separate part of the award–No argument was advanced on behalf of the respondent that decision on any of the items was unjustified which could vitiate entire award–No cross-appeal was filed by respondents for setting aside award on the ground that some portions of the award were found to be illegal by Court–Supreme Court, held, that only the portion of the award relating to matters not upheld finally by the Court would be struck out and the award should stand modified to that extent.
1987 CLC 50 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
MUGHAL BAZ VS N.W.F.P.
Arbitration Act 1940 —Ss. 15 & 25–Award, modification of–Court, held, would have jurisdiction to modify award made by arbitrator–Such modification coinciding with amount claimed by plaintiff could not be taken exception to.
1987 MLD 308 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
S.S.A. MOEED VS Messrs EBRAHIM ALIBHAI CHARITABLE TRUST
Arbitration Act 1940 —Ss.15, 16 & 30–Award–Objection to findings of sole arbitrator-Where sole arbitrator after hearing parties and after disallowing counter-claim had come to conclusion that disputed amount was due and payable to plaintiffs by defendant, Court on application for making award rule of the Court, held, could not substitute its findings for findings of an arbitrator when Court had neither means nor material to disagree with findings of sole arbitrator.
1986 MLD 1753 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES VS SHAHEEN FOUNDATION P.A.F
—Ss.14, 15, 16 & 30–Limitation .Act (IX of 1908), S.5 Art.158–Award–Filing of objections to–Limitation–Plaintiff neither filing application for objection to award within time nor filing application for condonation of delay–A valuable right, held,
1986 CLC 254 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MUHAMMAD SALEEM BUTT VS TRADING CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN KARACHI
Arbitration Act 1940 —Ss.15, 16 & 30–Performance bond, forfeiture of–Question of breach of contract and consequent forfeiture of Performance Bond by defendant, held, squarely fell within arbitration agreement having arisen and referred to under contract.
1984 CLC 691 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ABDUL WARIS VS JAVED HANIF
–Ss. 15, 16 & 17-Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 152 Limitation-Award-Petition-r filing objection to award after expiry of period of limitation and trial Court pronounced judgment without consideration of objection-Existence of arbitration agreement be
1984 CLC 2060 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
BIRJIS SARFRAZ VS NUSRAT ARA
— Ss. 15 & 41-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 141-Award of arbitrator-Scope of authority of court to modify same in terms of compromise filed by parties in arbitration proceedings-Parties agreeing to award with regard to movable assets of deceased b
1983 CLC 513 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
PUNJAB PROVINCE VS ZAFAR IQBAL CHEEMA
—S. 15-Award, modifying of-Error on face of record-Court can modify or correct award where part of it is upon a matter not referred to arbitration-Such part, held, can be separated from other part which does not affect decision of matter referred.
1983 CLC 2006 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
TRUSTEES OF PORT OF KARACHI VS GHULAM ABBAS
- 15 read with Civil Procedure Code (V of 1.908), S. 107(2)-High_Court’s powers to modify award of arbitrator – Single Judge accepting award given by sole Arbitrator in favour of respondent and dismissing objections and counter-claim of appellant and making award rule of Court but not discussing propriety or legality of various items of claim set up by parties against each other-High Court itself scrutinizing each item of claim set up by one party against other and finding award needs to be modified-Obviously on face of record, some sums found wrongly awarded to respondent -Appellants claiming liquidated damages for delay in completion of work by respondent-Delay partly condoned and partly penalised for-Held, no justification for claiming any amount by way of liquidated damages from respondent and Arbitrator rightly disallowed this claim-Held further, High Court
1981 CLC 999 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
TRADING CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN LTD., KARACHI VS AL-EHSAN TRADING CO.
- 15-Award, modification of-Power of Court for modification of award, held, limited to obvious errors capable of correction without affecting decision of arbitrator-Conscious award of damages at two different rates for two different quantities, further held, not such error.-[Award].
1981 CLC 311 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
PREMIER INSURANCE CO. (PAKISTAN) LTD., KARACHI VS EJAZ AHMAD KHAWAJA
- 15-Award-Error apparent on face of award, held, must be discoverable by reading award itself and not by reference to other materials namely record and proceedings before Arbitrators or umpire.-[Award].
1980 CLC 1740 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR
FIRM CHIRAGH HASSAN VS KH. HABIB JOO
- 15 (b) & (c)-Modification of award-Objections put in b plaintiff not holding ground so as to bring them with mischief of S 15 (b) & (c) of Act-Neither error patent on face of record nor any incompletion in form of award found–No clerical mistake or art error arising from accidental slip or omission found attracting modification of award–Objections put in by parties, held, fail and as such award given by Arbitrator made a rule of Court.[Award].
1979 PLD 45 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
AMIR BUX VS SONO KHAN
Ss. 15 & 16?Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 5 read with Art. 158?Objections to Award?To be filed within 30 days from date of knowledge of award?Objections filed beyond such period of limitation?Time?barred?Time under S. 158, Limitation Act, 1908, held, cannot be extended under S. 5 of such Act.?[Award].
1965 PLD 505 SUPREME-COURT
- COMPANY VS S. MAULA BUKHSH MUHAMMAD BASHIR
Arbitration Act 1940 S. 15 – Award – (Setting aside of)-“Error on face of award”-Erroneous award of interest (on sum determined as damages for breach of contract of sale of goods) for period prior to date of award-Not an “error on face of award”-Question of interest not material in decision of matter referred to arbitration-Portion of award relating to such interest separable from rest of award can be struck off as mere surplusage Setting aside of award declined in circumstances of case.
1965 PLD 326 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
HAJI MUHAMMAD SULEMAN VS KADIR BUX
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.
1960 PLD 78 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
SULEMAN HAJI MUHAMMAD & CO. VS STATE BANK OF PAKISTAN
Arbitration Act 1940 S. 15-Court may modify award if through accidental mistake arbitrator awards a larger amount than claimed by party.