Section 16 : Power to remit award
2021 SCMR 1137 SUPREME-COURT
CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (CDA) through Chairman CDA, Headquarter, Islamabad VS HABIB RAFIQ (PVT.) LTD.
Ss. 14(2) & 16—Arbitration award filed in court by the arbitrator—Plea of petitioner-authority that award was not filed in court by the arbitrator but by the counsel for the respondent-company—Held, that from perusal of the record, it was evident that the award was signed, made and announced by the Sole Arbitrator after due notice in writing to the parties and in presence of the parties — Award along with all the deposition and annexures was filed in Court on, though it was disputed whether it was filed by the counsel for the respondent or by the Arbitrator, at the request of the respondent under S. 14(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940—On the objections raised by the petitioner on the ground that the award was not filed in accordance with S. 14(2) and should be returned to the Arbitrator, the Trial Court remitted/returned the award to the Arbitrator to resubmit the same within 30 days—Subsequently the Arbitrator filed a Statement before Trial Court with a request to treat said Statement as covering letter to the award that was already filed in court earlier—Said Statement recorded that the letter of respondent’s counsel, was in fact addressed to the Arbitrator requesting him, to file the award in Court, which letter of the counsel, was being treated as covering letter to the award—Arbitrator was bestowed authority to file the Award in Court at the request of any party or any person claiming through such authority—In the present case, the Sole Arbitrator, through his Statement, acknowledged that the Award was filed by him, at the request of respondent, which course was approved through the impugned judgment—In such circumstances the award was validly filed in terms of S. 14(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940—Supreme Court observed that court of plenary jurisdiction could remit the award on any ground as recognized under S. 16 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, however once the award was filed in Court and a dispute arose, whether it was filed by the Arbitrator or otherwise, could effectively be resolved by issuing notice to the Arbitrator seeking clarification rather than remitting the award, as was done in the present case—Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and dismissed.
2021 CLC 1465 ISLAMABAD
OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED VS ADMORE GAS (PVT.) LIMITED
Ss.7,16,14,17,39—Application to make arbitration award rule of court—Appointment of arbitrator(s)—Substitution of member of arbitration tribunal—Setting aside of arbitration award—Objections regarding appointment of members of arbitration tribunal—Estoppel—Scope—Appellant impugned order of Civil Court whereby appellant’s application for arbitration award to be made rule of court was dismissed and award was set aside, inter alia, on ground that one of the members of the arbitration tribunal was substituted with another member without any order to such effect being passed by the Civil Court—Validity—Contention of respondent that new member of the arbitration tribunal was not appointed by Civil Court suffered from manifest absurdity as there existed order for appointment of said member on application of the respondent itself and nothing on record showed that respondent had taken an objection to said member’s presence on the arbitration tribunal—Respondent would be deemed to have acquiesced to said member’s presence on the tribunal since it had participated in arbitration proceedings without any demur or reservation and in such circumstances, was estopped from objecting to said member’s inclusion and presence on the tribunal—Impugned order was passed by Civil Court erroneously solely on ground that said member had not been appointed as an arbitrator; and it had not identified any other invalidity in the same—Impugned order was set aside and matter was remanded to Civil Court for decision afresh on application of appellant to make arbitration award rule of court—Appeal was allowed, accordingly.
2018 YLR 1503 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUSJID HANFIA DEOBANDI MAJNOO WALI MUSJID VS AHMAD KHAN
Ss. 14 & 16—Suit for declaration and injunction—Report of referee—Objections, filing of—Scope—Referee was appointed with consent of both the parties who agreed to his decision—Petitioners were aggrieved of order passed by Lower Appellate Court allowing respondents to file objections to the report filed by referee—Validity—Referee appointed with the consent of both the parties, had committed no wrong, if he associated some other persons in the process of search of truth—Statement made by such referee in shape of his report could not be termed as an award of arbitration and such statement was not open to objection by either side, as originally at the time of appointment of such referee, parties consented not only such appointment but also bound themselves not to raise any objection on final report / statement of such appointed referee—Report / statement placed / made by referee was not open to any objection—High Court set aside the order passed by Lower Appellate Court, as the Court had committed an illegality by treating statement / report of referee as award of arbitrator permitting parties to raise their objections on such award—Revision was allowed in circumstances.
2018 CLC 827 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Hafiz MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH VS Hafiz MUHAMMAD ADNAN
Ss. 14, 16, 30 & 34—Award, setting aside of—Parties mutually agreed to resolve their dispute through arbitration in respect of their shares of inheritance in movable and immovable properties left behind by their predecessor-in-interest—Parties jointly signed salisnama (arbitration agreement) and appointed respondents as their arbitrators—Applicants assailed award given by arbitrators and sought same to be set aside on grounds that they did not receive award—Validity—Parties agreed to have their disputes adjudicated through salisnama and they agreed to be bound by award passed by arbitrators and not to approach courts even in case of any explanation—Where an award had already been made by duly appointed arbitrators and where no case was made out for remittal of award under S.16 of Arbitration Act, 1940 and award becoming a final adjudication by courts of parties’ own choice, was conclusive upon merits of controversy submitted by parties—Until and unless parties intended that award would not be final (such was not in the present case) award attained all elements of vitality and was competent to be relied upon in disputes between parties relating to the same subject matter—Such award could not be challenged or re-arbitrated in manner as desired by applicants—High Court declined to interfere in matter as Arbitral Tribunal had filed its award—Application was dismissed 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 MLD 897 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
TRADING CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN LTD. VS GENERAL INDUSTRIAL MACHINES
Ss.3, 16, 26-A & 30 [as inserted by Arbitration (Amendment) Ordinance (XV of 1981)]—Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S. 3—Arbitration—Intra-court appeal—Objection to award—Remission of case—Reasons not stated—Parties referred their dispute to arbitrator who unanimously appointed umpire and a unanimous award was given—Arbitrators filed the award in court and despite objections filed by appellant, single Judge of High Court made it rule of the Court—Appellant sought dismissal of award on the plea that arbitrators did not give reasons of award and after their death parties were not willing to appoint new arbitrator—Validity—Case fell under S. 16 (1)(c) of Arbitration Act, 1940, as objection raised by appellant to legality of award that it lacked reasons was apparent on the face of it—Such objection was also accepted by High Court when the matter was remitted to surviving arbitrator for reasons in sufficient details which order was upheld by Supreme Court—Surviving arbitrator failed to reconsider the award and to submit his decision and reasons in sufficient details within the stipulated period—Such award had become void under S. 16(3) of Arbitration Act, 1940—Arbitration agreement between parties ceased to have effect with respect to dispute referred thereunder and such reference was liable to be superseded under S. 19 of Arbitration Act, 1940—Parties were unwilling to appoint new arbitrators and the award could not be remitted to any other arbitrator—Award had become void and arbitration agreement between parties could not be given effect to and the same had become frustrated—Reference was superseded under S. 19 of Arbitration Act, 1940 and the arbitration agreement ceased to have effect with respect to differences/dispute referred in pursuance thereof to arbitrators and umpire—Division Bench of High Court set aside judgment and decree passed by single Judge of High Court resultantly award was set aside—Appeal was allowed 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.
2008 CLC 429 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Malik MUHAMMAD ASLAM VS Sh. MUHAMMAD AMJAD
Ss. 33, 35 & 38—Arbitration Act (X of 1940), Ss.16 & 17—Application for making award rule of court—Respondent filed application for making award rule of court—Petitioner raised objection that award was insufficiently stamped—Record proved that respondent was twice granted opportunity to make good the deficiency in the stamp duty required to be affixed on the award, but direction to that effect was not complied with—Reason given for non-compliance of said direction before the Trial Court was not convincing and application for making award rule of court was rejected by the Trial Court—Appellate Court proceeded to condone that omission without proper judicial application of mind and without taking into account the contumacious attitude of respondent who had twice ignored a clear direction of the Trial Court—Appellate Court also did not care to peruse and examine Ss.35 & 38 of Stamp Act, 1899 wherein it had been clearly stipulated that an insufficiently stamped document was inadmissible in evidence—Appellate Court below, which had failed to examine mandatory provisions as contained in Ss.35 & 38 of Stamp Act, 1899, had committed a material illegality–Impugned judgment and decree passed by Appellate Court below were set aside and proceedings were remitted to the court below to re-consider the relevant law on the subject.
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.
2006 YLR 589 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
ABDULLAH CONTRACTORS VS WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
—S. 16—Power to remit award—Scope.
2006 CLC 888 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
FALCON ENTERPRISES VS NATIONAL REFINERY LTD.
—Ss. 2(a)(b), 16, 17, 20, 30 & 33–7Making award rule of Court–Object of settlement of dispute through arbitration—Power to remit award—Objections to award—Object of settlement of dispute through arbitration was to avoid lengthy procedure by invo
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
2003 YLR 2494 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS ICE PAK INTERNATIONAL CONSULTING ENGINEERS OF PAKISTAN
#NAME?
2003 PLD 208 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
HAJI MUHAMMAD VS Syed MANZOOR HUSSAIN SHAH
—-Ss. 14, 16 & 17—Award—Making award rule of Court—Compulsory registration—Award which was not presented before any Court for making same rule of Court, could not operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in
2003 CLC 419 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
S.M.I. BROTHERS VS MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, MURREE
Arbitration Act 1940 —-Ss. 16, 30 & 33—Award, setting aside of—Grounds enumerated.
2003 YLR 3321 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
AL-ABDULLAH CONSTRUCTORS (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI VS PAKISTAN WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
#NAME?
2003 YLR 2596 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Messrs IFTIKHAR ZAIDI ASSOCIATES VS Messrs PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS CORPORATION
—-Ss.16 & 17—Court is empowered to remit the award to the arbitrator for reconsideration—Where, however, the Court sees no cause to remit the award or any of the matters referred to arbitration for reconsideration or to set aside the award, the Cour
2003 PLD 180 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
ADAMJEE CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. VS ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN
Arbitration Act 1940 —-S. 16—Award, validity of—Power of Court—Scope—Court while examining validity of an award does not act as a Court of Appeal and is not vested with the powers to undertake reappraisal of evidence in order to discover any error or infirmity in the award:
2002 SCMR 1903 SUPREME-COURT
Messrs TRIBAL FRIENDS CO. VS PROVINCE OF BALOCHISTAN
Arbitration Act 1940 —-Ss.16 & 26-A—Power to remit award—Scope—Court can remit the award to arbitrator, where award does not state the reason or where the illegality appearing on its face is so obvious and prominent that one may point it out by reading the award without referring to any other document or evidence.
2002 PLD 427 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Maj. (Retd.) HUMAYUN AKHTAR VS PAKISTAN DEFENCE OFFICERS HOUSING AUTHORITY
Arbitration Act 1940 —-S. 16—Remitting of award —Pre-conditions—Award may be remitted under S.16 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, if the award leaves any of the matter which were referred to arbitration, undetermined; a part of the award is upon a matter which was not referred to arbitration and that part cannot be separated from the remaining part without affecting the decision of the matter which was referred to arbitration- the award is so indefinite as to be capable of execution and there is an objection to the legality of the award and such objection is apparent upon the face of it.
2001 CLC 1878 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
PRIVATIZATION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN CONSTITUTION AVENUE,
ISLAMABAD
VS MESSRS PETROSIN PRODUCTS (PVT.) LIMITED
—-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
2001 MLD 1444 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, MANPOWER DIVISION, MINISTRY OF LABOUR VS ADAMJEE INSURANCE CO. LTD.
—-Ss. 14, 16, 20 & 23—Conclusion of proceedings and giving award by the arbitrat6t—Limitation—Arbitration were required to conclude the proceedings and to give award within 120 days after entering upon the reference—In case of any delay, arbitra
2000 CLC 628 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
PHARMAX PAKISTAN (PVT.) LTD. VS GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN
—-S. 16—Arbitration—Once a party has agreed to resolve the controversy through arbitration, Arbitrator shall be fully competent to render decision relating to the rights flowing from the contract by attending to all the claims/objections of the resp
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.
2000 CLC 1239 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MECHANISED CONTRACTORS OF PAKISTAN LTD. VS AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KARACHI
Ss. 14, 16(3) & 26?A???Making award rule of Court???Delay in filing award ???Condonation???Arbitrator filed award after delay of two and a half months without any explanation for the delay???Award, in circumstances, would be treated to be void and could not be made rule of Court.
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
Arbitration Act 1940 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 CLC 1638 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
PROGRESSIVE METHODS (PVT.) LIMITED VS SHAHEEN AIR PORT SERVICES
—-Ss.20, 16 & 39—Arbitration proceedings—Counterclaim of defendant was dismissed due to one default of non-appearance by him and non-production of evidence to that effect on target date—Validity—Defendant could not be non-suited due to one defau
1998 PLD 79 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
TURNER MORRISON GARAHAMS GROUP OF COMPANIES VS RICE EXPORT CORPN. PAK. LTD.
Arbitration Act 1940 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–
1990 MLD 2010 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
DESIGN GROUP OF PAKISTAN VS CLIFTON CANTONMENT BOARD
—-Ss. 13 & 16—Arbitrator becomes functus officio after the award has been given by him—Arbitrator cannot act as arbitrator except as provided under S. 13(d) or if the award is remitted by Court to him under S.16—Arbitrator can be re-appointed so l
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 563 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN VS ANWAR KHAN
Ss. 16, 20 a 30?Award??Objections??None of the parties taking objection to jurisdiction of Arbitrator or maintainability of the claims which were admittedly beyond the scope of the agreement and not within jurisdiction of the Arbitrator in terms of arbitration agreement but Arbitrator taking objection suo motu and refusing to adjudicate upon those disputes??Arbitrator, held, should have seen that the parties had willingly and without any objection submitted their dispute beyond the scope of agreement and had proceeded till the end and, therefore, he ought not to have refused to adjudicate upon such dispute??Defendants having not objected to the findings and part of award of Arbitrator given in favour of plaintiffs, such part of award directed to remain valid and enforceable??Award remitted to Arbitrator to decide unadjudicated claim of plaintiffs and counter?claim of defendants.
1987 CLC 1791 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MAHMOOD ALAM VS SHAHID ZAMAN
—Ss. 23 & 16–Dispute over family property–Property partitioned under settlement deed, some units of property were to be awarded to plaintiff and some were to be retained by defendants–Units of property to be transferred to the plaintiff were to be de
1987 MLD 308 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
S.S.A. MOEED VS Messrs EBRAHIM ALIBHAI CHARITABLE TRUST
—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 applica
1987 MLD 146 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Mst. VIQAR BANO VS Syed SHER ALI SHAH
—Ss. 14 to 16–Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 158–Filing objections to arbitration award–Starting point for limitation–Starting point for prescribed thirty days for filing objections to arbitration award, in case where defendants were served throu
1986 PLD 321 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
PROVINCE OF BALUCHISTAN VS TRIBAL FRIENDS COMPANY LORALAI
Ss. 16, 17, 30 & 32?Limitation Act (IX of 1940), S. 3?AwardQuestion of limitation for filing objection petition?Trial Court only mechanically dealing with question of limitation and deciding issue of limitation without affording opportunity of leading evidence to petitioner?Question of limitation being a mixed question of law and fact, trial Court, held, acted erroneously and illegally?Decree passed consequently was rendered defective on that score.
1986 MLD 501 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB VS INDUSTRIAL MACHINES TOOLS GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS
#NAME?
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
Ss. 14, 15, 16 & 30–Scope and application of Ss. 14, 15, 16 & 30–Objections to award–Such objections could be taken under Ss. 15, 16 & 30, Arbitration Act, 1940–Objections filed under S. 14 which contains no provisions for remission reference of award or setting aside same, Court, held, would treat such objection as filed under relevant provisions of Act as Court always looks to substance of matter rather than to form or title of pleadings and then applies relevant law.
1985 SCMR 597 SUPREME-COURT
ASHFAQ ALI QURAISHI VS MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, MULTAN
—Ss.l6 & 30–Award–Remittance of –Duty of Court to give every reasonable intendment in favour of award and lean towards upholding rather than ‘vitiating same–Arbitrator Judge of all matters arising in dispute whether of facts or law–Court not to act
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
1983 CLC 513 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
PUNJAB PROVINCE VS ZAFAR IQBAL CHEEMA
Ss. 30 & 16-Award-Mistake patent on record-Award suffering from such a mistake, held, can be remitted to arbitrator for reconsideration.
1982 SCMR 243 SUPREME-COURT
PROVINCE OF PUNJAB VS HABIB ULLAH
Ss. 16 & 30-Award, setting aside of-Reasons given for award by arbitrator-Decision must be based upon evidence produced before him and law applicable thereto-Arbitrator having not done so, award, held, liable to be set aside-[Award].
1982 PLD 52 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
PROVINCE OF BALUCHISTAN VS GUL HASSAN
Ss. 16 & 30?Transgressing limits of reference?Not by itself a ground enough to vitiate award?Lower Court separating illegal part of award striking it down and making rest of award rule of Court Procedure adopted, held, perfectly legal.
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].
1979 CLC 32 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN VS MORIS JACOB & CO.
- 16-Award remitted by Court to umpire for reconsideration but before suc1h reconsideration umpire dying-Award neither becoming void nor set aside by Court-Held, fresh arbitration proceedings could not be started by any party in circumstances of case.-[Award]
1978 PLD 827 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN MINISTRY OF INDUSTRIES VS NATIONAL AGENCIES KARACHI
Ss. 16 & 30?Award, setting aside of????Disputed questions of fact–Necessity of proof of?Arbitrator though sole Judge on facts and law and High Court would not interfere with his finding unless some error of law apparent on face of record nor will Court interfere on ground of evidence produced before Arbitrator being insufficient to arrive at a particular finding but Court can competently interfere with award if based on no evidence?Defendants pointing out to Arbitrator documents filed by plaintiff being not reliable and requesting for examination of officers concerned and also stating that alleged loss suffered by plaintiff should be established by them before they could succeed in getting award for such amount but Arbitrator giving award in plaintiff’s favour without having such documents proved?Held, incumbent on party relying upon documents to prove same through formal witnesses?Unproved documents cannot become admissible before Arbitrator on ground of Arbitrator being not bound to follow rules of Evidenc
1976 PLD 31 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
CREASCENT JUET PRODUCTS LTD KARACHI VS GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN
- 16?Calculation of price of goods in dispute left to parties themselves according to given formula?Award, held, cannot be remitted for being vague or uncertain on that account.
1974 PLD 155 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
PAKISTAN VS ASIAN ASSOCIATED AGENCIES
Ss. 30 & 16?Words “arbitrator or umpire has misconducted himself or the proceeding” in S. 30?Meaning?Expression wide enough to include all irregularities resulting in miscarriage of justice?Portion in award within jurisdiction and portion beyond jurisdiction of arbitrators?Court can ignore portion without jurisdiction and pass decree in terms of award within jurisdiction.
1970 PLD 840 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
TAJ DIN AND ANOTHER VS MUHAMMAD SHARIF
Arbitration Act 1940 S. 16–Remission of award—Dispute regarding goodwill of shop in suit for dissolution of farm and rendition of account-Arbitrator not determining money value of goodwill of firm in his award-Court, in circumstances, held, empowered to remit award to arbitrator for determining money value of goodwill.
1967 PLD 445 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MESSRS TRANSOCEAN ASIA VS SECRETARY TO GOVERN-LENT OF PAKISTAN, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AUTO WORKS
Arbitration Act 1940 —— Ss. 16 & 33-ArbitrationQuestion of law specifically referred to arbitrator-Court not competent to interfere with award even if it itself is inclined to take different view-Question of law incidentally material to question referred-Court may set aside award.
1967 PLD 797 DHAKA-HIGH-COURT
GOVERNMENT OF EAST PAKISTAN VS MESSRS A. RAB & SONS AND ANOTHER
Arbitration Act 1940 Ss. 16(1) & 39(1)(vi)–A ward remitted under S. 16 for reconsideration by arbitrator–Order appeal-able under S. 39(I) (vi)-[Mst. Zaralbibi and others v. Shamsuddin Khan-Abdul Kadir Khan and others A I R 1946 Sind 141 and Santa Singh Govind Ram v. Khan Singh-Buta Singh A I R 1933 Lah. 530 dissented from]
1966 PLD 513 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
- M. NAQI VS S. M. YUNUS
Arbitration Act 1940 Ss. 16 & 33-Remission of award-Court, on consent of parties, remitting award for clarification on certain points -Arbitrator not bound to hear parties afresh nor under obligation to afford them fresh opportunity to adduce additional evidence.
1965 PLD 258 DHAKA-HIGH-COURT
MESSRS NASEEM BHAI & CO VS MESSRS PAK JUTE BALERS LTD
Arbitration Act 1940 S. 16-Adjudication made behind back of parties-No adjudication in eye of law-Remitting of award back to Tribunal of Arbitration-Held, permissible in circumstances of case.
1964 PLD 527 DHAKA-HIGH-COURT
MESSRS M. P. ALI MIA & SONS VS MESSRS GREEN & WHITE LTD.
Arbitration Act 1940 Ss. 16 (c) & 30 (c)–Mere reference to certain contract, without incorporating same, in award-Does not entitle Court to discover error of law on face of award.
1964 PLD 166 DHAKA-HIGH-COURT
ABDUL KHALEQ VS PROVINCE OF EAST PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER
Arbitration Act 1940 S. 16-Objection to validity of award to be taken within 30 days-Limitation Act (IX of 1908), ‘Art. 158.
1963 PLD 269 DHAKA-HIGH-COURT
- B. KHALILOR RAHMAN VS BIJOY RANJAN KANUNGOE AND OTHERS
Arbitration Act 1940 S. 16 (1) (b)–” Incapable of execution” means unenforceable, does not mean invalid.
1961 PLD 454 DHAKA-HIGH-COURT
M/S. ALHAJ MUHAMMAD KERAMAT ALI & CO. LTD. VS M/S AMIN JUTE MILLS, LTD., CHITTAGONG-
Arbitration Act 1940 —— S. 16 (1) (6)-Award is sufficiently certain if “that is sufficiently certain which can be made certain”-Mere fact that amount was not actually ascertained by arbitrators not sufficient justification for holding award to be uncertain.
1956 PLD 494 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
BALAWAL KHAN VS MUHAMMAD ALAM KHAN
Arbitration Act 1940 Ss. 16, 17 and 30-Remitting award for re-consideration under S. 16 discretionary-Award not remitted for re-consideration-Court not bound to pass decree in accordance with award-Arbitrators not deciding points in dispute but passing a kind of compromise order, and giving decision on an extraneous matter not referred to arbitration -Award to be set aside.