Section 17 Arbitration Act 1940

Section 17 : Judgment in terms of award

 

2013  MLD  689   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Syed FAQIR SHAH VS Haji INAYATULLAH KHAN

Ss. 14 & 17—Making award rule of court—Re-appriasal 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. 17 & 30—Making award rule of court—Powers of court—Scope—Court while examining correctness and legality of award could neither act as a court of appeal nor undertake reappraisal of evidence recorded by Arbitrator in order to discern error or infirmity therein.

2013  CLD  871   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

FAISALABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS ORIENT ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTS AND CONTRACTORS (PVT.) LIMITED, FAISALABAD

Ss. 17 & 30—Judgment in terms of Award—Power of court to remit award/set aside the Award—Scope—Award to be made rule of the Court—Essentials—Appellants impugned order of Trial Court whereby the arbitral award was made rule of the Court and objections filed thereagainst under S.30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 by the appellants were dismissed—Contention of the appellants was that the objections raised by them under S.30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 could not have been dismissed without the framing of issues and recourse to evidence—Validity—Award was to be made rule of the Court only if the court saw no reason to set it aside or to remit it; and therefore, it was incumbent upon the court to satisfy itself that the Award did not suffer from any illegality or defect necessitating either the setting aside of it or its remission to the Arbitrator—Even in absence of any objection, the court had inherent powers to set aside the Award which exceeded the Arbitrators’ jurisdiction or if a material irregularity had appeared on the face of the Award—Appellants, in the present case, had raised serious objections on the Award as well as the conduct of the Arbitrator along with jurisdictional defects and material irregularities—Respondent-company had filed written reply to such objections,  and  in  view  of  said  circumstances,  it was  not  the  case  where  such  objections  could  have been  repelled  without  the  framing  of  issues  and without having recourse to evidence—Impugned order of Trial Court making the Award rule of the Court was violative of law and principles of natural justice and was set aside—Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

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  CLC  1673   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

PAKISTAN AGRICULTURAL STORAGE AND SERVICES CORPORATION LIMITED, LAHORE VS AL-AAMIR CORPORATION

Ss. 17 & 30(a)—Award—Misconduct—Petitioner filed application for making award rule of court—Contention of respondent was that arbitrator committed misconduct—Application was accepted concurrently—Validity—Trial Court accepted the application and rejected the objections without framing of issues and recording of evidence—Petitioner had raised objection that the arbitrator committed misconduct—Objection could not be decided summarily and required thorough probe and recording of evidence– -Summary decision made by the Trial Court and upheld by the Appellate Court was violative of the mandatory provisions of law which suffered from material illegality and same was not sustainable in the eyes of law—Impugned judgments of both the courts below were set aside—Matter was remanded for decision afresh.

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  820   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

FAISALABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS ORIENT ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS AND CONTRACTORS (PVT.) LIMITED, FAISALABAD

Ss. 17 & 30—Judgment in terms of Award—Power of court to remit award/set aside the Award—Scope—Award to be made rule of the Court—Essentials—Appellants impugned order of Trial Court whereby the arbitral award was made Rule of the Court and objections filed thereagainst under S.30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 by the appellants were dismissed—Contention of the appellants was that the objections raised by them under S.30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 could not have been dismissed without the framing of issues and recourse to   evidence—Validity—Award was to be made Rule of the Court only if the court saw no reason to set it aside or to remit it; and therefore, it was incumbent upon the court to satisfy itself that the Award did not suffer from any illegality or defect necessitating either the setting aside of it or its remission to the Arbitrator—Even in absence of any objection, the court had inherent powers to set aside the Award which exceeded the Arbitrators’ jurisdiction or if a material irregularity had appeared on the face of the Award—Appellants, in the present case, had raised serious objections on the Award as well as the conduct of the Arbitrator along with jurisdictional defects and material Irregularities—Respondent-company had filed written reply to such objections, and in view of said circumstances, it was not the case where such objections could have been repelled without the framing of issues and without having recourse to evidence—Impugned order of Trial Court making the Award rule of the Court was violative of law and principles of natural justice and was set aside—Appeal was allowed, 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  CLC  606   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Ch. FAZAL MUHAMMAD VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Defence

1. 17—Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S. 3—Intra-Court Appeal—Arbitration award, setting aside of—Arbitrator appointed without authorization and consent of both parties—Effect—Appellant was aggrieved of judgment and decree passed by Single Judge of the High Court, whereby award passed by sole arbitrator against respondent was set aside—Validity—Respondent authority was neither competent nor authorized to appoint sole arbitrator or refer the matter to arbitration without consent of both the parties—Office memorandum in question could not give jurisdiction to sole arbitrator and as such award passed by him on an invalid reference by itself was void—Such award could not become valid merely by reason of knowledge of or appearance in arbitration proceedings—Sole arbitrator had no jurisdiction in the matter of invalid reference, therefore, subsequent proceedings resulting in award were of no legal effect and thus award itself was void having been passed without jurisdiction—Division Bench of High Court  declined  to  interfere  in  order  passed  by  Single Judge  of  High  Court,  whereby  award  passed  by  sole  arbitrator  was set aside—Judgment and decree passed by Single Judge of High Court was maintained—Intra-Court Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

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  CLC  316   QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Malik SARDAR MUHAMMAD QASIM VS Malik Haji ABDUL GHAFFAR

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

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  CLD  935   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Haji ABDUL RAHIM VS MUHAMMAD SHARIF (DECEASED)

Ss. 17 & 30—Award making rule of court—Umpire, role of—Scope—Misconduct—Parties agreed to get their dispute resolved through arbitration and for that purpose, four persons were appointed as arbitrators while fifth was appointed as umpire—Award was announced by umpire which was made rule of the court but the same was set aside by Lower Appellate Court—Validity—Umpire was a person who had to make award if two arbitrators disagreed—Where two or more arbitrators were appointed and arbitration agreement itself provided that in event of their disagreement, matter in dispute would be referred to decision of third person, umpire would act only when there existed difference between arbitrators themselves—Jurisdiction of umpire commenced only after difference of opinion between arbitrators and not before—If umpire acted and took part in deliberation before difference arose between the arbitrators then active participation of umpire in proceedings would be deemed to be an illegality—Award itself, in the present case, was void document having been announced by umpire (Sarpunch) who was not authorized  to  participate  in  the  arbitration proceedings—Even if arbitrators were authorized to appoint umpire, even then umpire had no role to play—No dispute existed between arbitrators and as such help of umpire was not required—Courts below were not courts of appeal of arbitration but court before making award as rule of court was bound to see whether arbitrator had mis-conducted himself and award was partial one—Arbitrators had mis-conducted, they involved an umpire (Sarpunch) who participated in proceedings, rather he influenced all arbitrators and did  not  hand  over  the  award  to  parties  but  he  kept  the  same  with  him  and  after  that  he  handed over the award to petitioners who filed application before court—No notice was issued to respondents before announcement of award—Lower Appellate Court had rightly set aside the award and dismissed application of petitioners—Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

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

S.17—Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 114—Arbitration, consent to—Principle of estoppel—Applicability—Principle of estoppel and acquiescence is applicable with full force to which parties have consented to arbitrate and participate in proceedings before Arbitrator.

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.

2010  MLD  1980   SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR

SAFDAR ALI KHAN VS AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE JAMMU AND KASHMIR through Chief Secretary

1. VII, R.2 & S.100—Arbitration Act (X of 1940), Ss.17 & 30—Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), S.42(11)(d)—Suit for recovery of amount—Arbitration proceedings—Defendants filed their written statement—Parties having agreed for appointment of an arbitrator, Trial Court appointed arbitrator who submitted his report in presence of counsel for the parties and none of them filed objections to report/award of the arbitrator—Trial Court passed judgment and decree in terms of award and dismissed the suit; however, it was found by Trial Court that an amount overpaid to the plaintiff; was recoverable from the plaintiff—High Court modified the judgment and decree in appeal to the extent of finding regarding overpayment to the plaintiff, while, rest of the judgment and decree was upheld—After filing award by arbitrator, plaintiff had not filed objections to said award within stipulated period of thirty days under Art.158 of Limitation Act, 1908, but filed beyond that period and none of the statutory grounds had been mentioned in said objections—Trial Court, in circumstances, had rightly made the award of arbitrator as decision of the court—Scope of second appeal was confined only to the grounds stated in S.100, C.P.C.-Plaintiff had failed to make out any valid ground according to statutory provisions—Factual points agitated on behalf of plaintiff had been concurrently resolved by two courts—Supreme Court declined to interfere with the concurrent finding recorded by subordinate courts.

2010  PLD  1   SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR

AMEEN GENERAL ENTERPRISES through Managing Director  VS AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR GOVENRMENT through Chief Secretary, Muzaffarabad

Preamble, Ss. 17, 30 & 31—Arbitrator, arbitration proceedings and award—Nature and object—Judgment in terms of award—Material essential to be considered by Court stated.

2010  YLR  913   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Pir MUHAMMAD SABIR SHAH VS Mst. HASINA BEGUM

Ss. 17 & 20—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199—Constitutional petition—Making award rule of the court—Application for—Application was dismissed by the Court—Validity—Two contradictory stands had been taken, one was that the award in question was torn and the other was that it was misplaced—No clear cut stand as to the fact that any award was given by the arbitrators was available—Existence of award being doubtful, the court could not act upon the same—No illegality, misreading or miscarriage of justice was found in the impugned order, judgment and decree—Constitutional petition filed against said judgment and decree and impugned order, was dismissed, in circumstances.

2010  PLD  452   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

FABNUS CONSTRUCTION (PVT.) LTD. through Chief Executive/Director VS IFTIKHAR AHMAD

1. 17—Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 158—Award making rule of court–Filing of objections—Limitation—Extension of time—Trial Court, powers of—Copy of award was delivered to respondent on 24-7-2007 and they entered appearance in Trial Court on 12-12-2007—Trial Court declined to make award rule of the Court on the basis of objections which were filed by respondent beyond the period of thirty days—Validity—Notice of filing of award was duly served on respondents, who were to file objections against the award till 11-1-2008, which was not done—Objections were filed on 29-1-2008, which were barred by time and no effort was made to explain the delay—No application for condonation of delay was filed, therefore, Trial Court had no power or jurisdiction to extend time for filing of objections—Findings of Trial Court that period of limitation for filing of objections would start running from the date that award was de-sealed, had no legal basis and was erroneous—Respondents had knowledge and notice of award since 24-7-2007, which was substantiated by the fact that they filed their objections on 29-1-2008, which was much before the award was de-sealed—Objections filed by respondents against the award were filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed by Art. 158 of Limitation Act, 1908—Delay could not have been condoned by Trial Court of its own motion and on equitable grounds—High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, set aside the order passed by Trial Court as the same was unlawful and without jurisdiction—Objections filed by respondents were rejected as the same were filed beyond the period of limitation—High Court directed the Trial Court to proceed with making award rule of the Court—Revision was allowed accordingly.

2010  YLR  3064   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MUHAMMAD IQBAL VS MUHAMMAD HANIF

1. 42—Arbitration Act (X of 1940), Ss.22 & 17—Suit for declaration—Suit land was exchanged between the parties and mutations were sanctioned on the basis of exchange deed in favour of both the parties in pursuance of order passed by Civil Judge—Trial Court appointed local commission for demarcation of suit property—Parties filed application for decision of disputed property through arbitration during pendency of litigation—Trial Court appointed five-member committee of arbitrators which announced award in the light whereof Trial Court dismissed the suit—Appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree and remanded the case to Trial Court with direction to frame issue to determine whether the parties were provided an opportunity to file their objections to the award—Validity—Trial Court referred the matter to the arbitrators without framing the issues and recording the statements of the parties—Plaintiffs were not provided any opportunity to file objections to the award and arbitrators summoned the plaintiffs only at the time of pronouncement of the award—Statements of parties were not recorded at the time of nominations of arbitrators which was a mandatory provision for the appointment of arbitrators—Appellate Court, therefore, had rightly remanded the case to the Trial Court—Impugned judgment and decree did not suffer from any illegality or irregularity—Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

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.

2009  MLD  1418   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

GOVERNMENT OF N.-W.F.P. VS SHAHIN SHAH

Ss.17 & 39—Making award rule of the court—Scope—Appellant had challenged the judgment and decree whereby award was made rule of the court—Trial Court felt free to make award as rule of the court, in the case, the moment it found that the objection thereagainst had not been filed within the period of limitation—Court did not bother to cast even a. passing glance at the award before proceeding to make it rule of the court—Court seized of a proceeding for making award, as rule of the court, was not supposed to sit in judgment over it as a court of appeal—Court was also not required to make reappraisal of evidence recorded by the Arbitrator to discover any error or infirmity in the award, but it would not mean that it was to ditto or rubber stamp the award mechanically without much questioning about it—Legislature, did not envision the intervention of the court just for hack of it, it was rather purposive, meaningful and goal oriented—Jurisdiction of Court being supervisory was meant to check the excesses and over-doings in the conduct of Arbitrator in the arbitration proceedings—Role of court, was that of active dissenter rather than passive consenter—Trial Court, in the present case, considered itself just a plant meant for manufacturing the goods known as rule of the court on receipt of some raw material in the form of award—No part of its judgment reflected due or conscious application of mind—Judgment passed by the Trial Court, in circumstances, could not be maintained under any canons of law and propriety—Court was required to look at the award with a pronounced leaning towards upholding rather than vitiating it, but when the Trial Court did not care even to touch it before making it rule of the court, remand of the case would be imperative—Impugned judgment and decree of the court below were set aside and the case was sent back to the Trial Court for decision afresh in accordance with law after hearing the parties.

2009  MLD  1396   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Major General (Retd.) FAZLE GHAFOOR VS TOTAL PARCO PAKISTAN LTD.

Ss. 2(c), 17, 31, 34.& 39—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R.10—Arbitration agreement—Return of plaint—Territorial jurisdiction of Trial Court—Scope—Appellant had assailed order of Trial Court, whereby it returned his plaint for presentation in the proper forum—Relevant paragraph of agreement dealing with arbitration would reveal that it simply stipulated about the arbitration, place thereof and the application of provision of the Arbitration Act, 1940—Said clause despite stipulating that arbitration would be held at place `L’, did not stipulate the ousting of jurisdiction of the civil court at place `P’—Even S.2(c) of Arbitration Act, 1940 did not come in the way of the civil court at place `P’—What it required and laid stress on was that the court must be a civil court and it must have jurisdiction to entertain a suit vis-a-vis the dispute referred to arbitration—Civil court at place `P’ under no canons of interpretation would be shorn of jurisdiction, where the subject matter of dispute was situated and cause of action had arisen within its territorial jurisdiction—Section 31 of Arbitration Act, 1940, too, would not come in the way of the civil court, when all the questions enumerated therein could be decided by the said ‘court—Respondents could well move an application for the stay of proceedings under S.34 of Arbitration Act, 1940 in case they felt that appellant had not done something good by leaping over the arbitration clause and there was hardly any occasion to ask for the return of plaint in the case—Allowing appeal, impugned order was set aside and case was sent back to the Trial Court for decision afresh in accordance with law.

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  CLD  390   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Sh. MUHAMMAD SALEEM VS SAADAT ENTERPRISES

Ss.196, 212 & 283—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.10—Arbitration Act (X of 1940), Ss. 2(a), 4, 17 & 20—Arbitration agreement on behalf of company signed by a person not authorized through a resolution of Board of Directors—Validity—Such person could not refer dispute to arbitration on behalf of company—Participation of such person in arbitration proceedings would not validate proceedings and award passed therein could not be made rule of Court—Principles.

2009  CLC  291   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Sh. MUHAMMAD SALEEM VS SAADAT ENTERPRISES

Ss. 2(a), 4, 17 & 20—Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss.196, 212 & 283—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.10—Arbitration agreement on behalf of company signed by a person not authorized through a resolution of Board of Directors—Validity—Such person could not refer dispute to arbitration on behalf of company—Participation of such person in arbitration proceedings would not validate proceedings and award passed therein could not be made rule of Court—Principles.

2009  CLC  100   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS CORPORATION LIMITED VS PROGRESSIVE ENGINEERS ALLIANCE LIMITED

Ss. 17, 30 & 33—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.152—Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S.3—Intra-Court Appeal—Correction of error—Scope—After the award was made rule of the court, appellant filed application under S.152 C.P.C. for correction of mistake in judgment and decree whereby retention money was not ordered to be refunded—Validity—Once the court had pronounced judgment according to award making it rule of the court after hearing objections filed under Ss.30 and 33 of Arbitration Act, 1940 or even if objections were not filed in exercise of power under S.17 of Arbitration Act, 1940, not to set aside the award but made it rule of the court, any clerical error or accidental slip in the award after, the objection to award was rejected, could not reopen the same by invoking S.152 C.P.C.—Appellant filed objections to award under Ss.15, 16, 30 and 33 of Arbitration Act, 1940, and after taking into consideration objections filed by appellant award was made rule of the court—-Instead of filing appeal against the order, appellant filed application under S.152 C.P.C. for correction of findings recorded by sole arbitrator, who had taken into consideration all aspects of the matter and material available before him—Such findings recorded by sole arbitrator, which was made rule of the court after taking into consideration objections raised by appellant, could not be reopened in exercise of powers under S.152 C.P.C.—Division Bench of High Court declined to interfere with the order passed by Single Judge of High Court—Intra-Court Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

2009  PLD  54   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

TRACON SERVICES (PVT.) LTD. VS SUI SOUTHERN GAS CO. LTD.

Ss. 17, 29, 30 & 33—Award—Objections—Duty of Court—Misconduct by arbitrator—Plaintiff was awarded contract by defendant to transport certain quantity of pipes—Grievance of plaintiff was that defendant did not provide him the agreed number of pipes for transportation and due to such short supply, he suffered loss—Matter was referred to sole arbitrator for determination of loss if any and award was filed in court for making the same rule of the court—Defendant filed objections against the award including the plea of misconduct committed by arbitrator—Validity—Court, while examining validity of award could not act as a court of appeal—Court hearing objection to award could not undertake reappraisal of evidence recorded by arbitrator in order to discover error or infirmity in award—Error or infirmity in award which could render award invalid must appear on the face of the award and should be discovered by reading the award itself—Award of charges on account of deficit in transportation of pipes and award of man-month charges at the same time and award of interest without referring to any specific provision of agreement, were errors apparent on the face of award—High Court modified the award to the extent that plaintiff was only entitled to claim on account of extra man-months from 1-2-1996 to 30-6-1996, as there was no evidence on record that after June 1996, arrangements were there for transportation of pipes and plaintiff himself admitted that he did not transport pipes in August 1996—High Court reduced the amount of award and directed defendant to pay the same with, markup to plaintiff, within two months—Objections raised by defendant against award were rejected—Award was made rule of the Court.

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  1646   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

ANJUMAN JAMIYA CHIRAGIYA (REGD.) through Master Ali Nawaz VS ISRAN BAHAR SHAH

Ss. 12(2), 115 & O.I, R.10—Arbitration Act (X of 1940), S.17—Decree, setting aside of—Award—Rule of the Court—Necessary parties—Petitioner was a registered Anjuman managing the affairs of Madrisa and Masjid—Dispute regarding management of Madrisa and Masjid was decided through Arbitrators and award was made rule of the Court—Office-bearers of the petitioner assailed the award before Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court but remained unsuccessful—Later on decree making award rule of the Court was sought to be set aside under S.12(2), C.P.C. by the same office-bearers in the name of petitioner, which application was dismissed by Trial Court and the order was maintained by Lower Appellate Court—Plea raised by petitioner was that it was a necessary party but was not made party during arbitration proceedings—Validity—Issue with regard to non-joinder of necessary party had already been decided by the Courts below and therefore, petitioner was not an aggrieved party and had no locus standi to file revision petition—Petitioner was unable to point out any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by Lower Appellate Court—High Court declined to interfere in the order passed by Lower Appellate Court—Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

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.

2008  CLC  426   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

AWARD IN DISPUTE BETWEEN MRS. SUNBLE ZAREEN KHAN AND D.C.A.S. (ADMN.) VS

1. 17—Award—Powers of court—Scope—Court cannot act as appellate Court, its jurisdiction is supervisory in nature—Court, while examining validity of award, cannot undertake reappraisal of evidence recorded by Arbitrator in order to discover error or infirmity in award—Error or infirmity in award must appear on the face of the award and should be discovered by reading the award itself—When dispute is referred to Arbitrator it becomes duty of court to give every reasonable intendment in favour of award and lean towards holding same rather than vitiating it.

2008  CLC  426   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

AWARD IN DISPUTE BETWEEN MRS. SUNBLE ZAREEN KHAN AND D.C.A.S. (ADMN.) VS

Ss. 17 & 30—Award—Objections—Arbitrator filed award in the court and plaintiff objected to the same on the ground that it was manoeuvred document, passed ex parte and submissions of plaintiff were not considered—Validity—Arbitrator was Judge of all matters arising in dispute and it was not proper for the court to proceed to scrutinize the award in order only to discover error for the purpose of setting aside the same—Plaintiff failed’ to point out any perversity or illegality in award and had also failed to establish any misconduct on the part of Arbitrator—Arbitrator based his findings in view of terms of agreement of licence executed between parties—While directing plaintiff to vacate premises, Arbitrator did not commit any error and there was no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the award—Objections filed by plaintiff were set aside—Award was made rule of the court.

2007  YLR  2689   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MUHAMMAD KHALIL VS SHABINA SHEHZADI

S.17—Arbitration without intervention of Court—Award not made rule of Court—Evidentiary value—Any award made without intervention of Court has no legal existence nor it is capable of holding any right, title or interest to any party unless made rule of Court—Award not made rule of the Court is inadmissible in evidence—Award becomes decree only when the same is presented before Court of law and is made rule of the Court after inviting objections on the’ same by the Court—Any award not made rule of the Court cannot operate to create any right, title or interest for the purpose—Such award has no binding force and is of no legal effect and cannot be produced in evidence and if produced has no evidentiary value.

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  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  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  MLD  576   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Mst. BAKHAN VS Mst. SADAN

—S.2(a)(b)—Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.8—Suit for possession through partition-Defendants who were respectively mother, brothers and sisters of plaintiff asserted that estate of deceased had already been partitioned privately between parties

2007  CLC  148   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Ch. FAZAL MUHAMMAD through L.Rs. VS PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Defence

—S. 17—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.12(2)—Judgment making award rule of Court—Application under S.12(2), C.P.C., for setting aside such judgment on ground of fraud, misrepresentation or want of jurisdiction –Court finding such judgment to

2007  CLC  148   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Ch. FAZAL MUHAMMAD through L.Rs. VS PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Defence

—Ss. 14(2)(3) & 17—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.12(2)—Filing of award in Court by Arbitrator—Non-service of respondent on its wrongly described address—Non-issuance of notice to respondent on its proper address—Judgment making award rul

2007  CLC  148   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Ch. FAZAL MUHAMMAD through L.Rs. VS PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Defence

—Ss. 17, 39 & 41—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.12(2)—Making award rule of Court—Application under S.12(2), C.P.C. for setting aside such judgment on plea of fraud, misrepresentation or want of jurisdiction—Maintainability—Scope and objec

2006  SCMR  614   SUPREME-COURT

ALLAH DIN & COMPANY VS TRADING CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN

—Ss. 17 & 26-A—Making award rule of Court—Failure to give reasons for findings in award—Effect—Court not agreeing with findings of arbitrator—Damages were awarded by arbitrator solely on the basis of statement of purchaser—Trial Court disagr

2006  PLD  169   SUPREME-COURT

MIAN CORPORATION through Managing Partner VS Messrs LEVER BROTHERS OF PAKISTAN LTD. through General Sales Manager, Karachi—Respondent

——Ss. 14, 17 & 30—Award, setting aside of—Jurisdiction of court—
Scope—Arbitrator being final judge on questions of law and fact his decision is entitled to utmost respect and weight, unless misconduct was alleged and proved against him to the

2006  PLD  314   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, WAPDA HOUSE, LAHORE through Chairman VS Messrs GHULAM RASUL AND COMPANY (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE through Attorney

—-Ss.17, 30 & 39—Appeal—Misconduct, allegation of—Proof—Award rendered by arbitrators was made rule of the Court—Appellant sought the award to be set aside on the allegation of misconduct—Validity—Arbitrators had attended and adverted to a

2006  YLR  1968   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MUHAMMAD HANIF VS MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KHUSHAB

—-S.17—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss.186 & 188—Decree on basis of award after making same rule of Court, obtaining of—Reference of dispute to arbitration by attorney—Absence of specific power in Power of Attorney permitting attorney to enter int

2006  YLR  881   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

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

—Ss. 17, 20, 30 & 31—Limitation Act (1X of 1908), S.5 & Art.158—Filing of objections to award—Limitation—Jurisdiction of Court—Specific time had been prescribed for purposes of filing of objections under Art.158 of Limitation Act, 1908—Court

2006  CLC  791   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Messrs JAM’S CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (PVT.) LIMITED through Managing Director VS PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Secretary to the Government of Punjab (Communication and Works) Department, Lahore

—Ss. 30, 17 & 26-A—Setting aside of award—“Personal misconduct” and “misconduct of proceedings”—Proof—Sufficient material was not available to prove that arbitrators had committed personal misconduct or that they misconducted the proceedings—M

2006  PLD  216   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Messrs AER RIANTA INTERNATIONAL PAKISTAN (PVT.) LTD. VS CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY

–Ss. 17, 30, 33 & 39—Appeal—Award making rule of the Court—Duty of Court—Setting aside of award—Principles—Matter between the parties was referred to two arbitrators but due to difference of opinion between them, umpire was appointed with the

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

2006  CLC  303   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

PORT SERVICES COMPANY LTD. VS PORT SERVICES (PVT.) LTD. Through Chief Executive

—O. VII, R.13, O.II, R.2 & S.11—Arbitration Act (X of 1940), S.17—When the earlier suit of the plaintiff which went into arbitration and was rejected by an award which was made rule of the Court and no appeal having been filed, as a matter of fact a

2005  SCMR  1724   SUPREME-COURT

PROVINCE OF PUNJAB VS Messrs SUFI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

-Ss. 17 & 30—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)—Award setting aside of—Misconduct of Arbitrators—Proof—Concurrent finding of facts by the Courts below—Award against the petitioners was made rule of the Court—Petitioners sought setti

2005  SCMR  1697   SUPREME-COURT

Mst. WILAYAT BIBI VS Mst. HAYAT BEVI

—Ss. 17, 30 & 33—Award in respect of property left by deceased having no male issue—Application for making award rule of Court—Signing of arbitration agreement and delivery of award by Arbitrator were alleged to have taken place on same day—No e

2005  SCMR  1515   SUPREME-COURT

MUHAMMAD MAROOF VS MUHAMMAD FAROOQ through L.Rs.

—Ss. 14 & 17—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)—Arbitration award—Non-signing of the award by all arbitrators—Out of three arbitrators, one disassociated himself from the proceedings—Award was passed by the remaining two arbitrators a

2005  SCMR  1511   SUPREME-COURT

INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE VS Dr. AFTAB AHMAD

—S. 17-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)–Award, making rule of Court—Non-payment of award money—Recommended amount was not paid by Police Department to the contractor who was made to run from pillar to post—Contractor was not only embr

2005  YLR  2680   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MUHAMMAD AYUB VS MUHAMMAD IQBAL

—Ss. 14 & 17—Arbitration agreement—Oral award—Sale—Payment of price—Non-reading of evidence—Plaintiff filed all application under Ss.14 & 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 that oral award be made as rule of the Court—Plaintiff had alleged th

2005  YLR  1590   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Secretary, Communication and Works Department VS SAKA ULLAH KHAN

—S.17—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXI, R.10—Making award as rule of Court—Final decree in terms of award, preparation of—Necessity—Execution of award—Scope—When award was upheld, then decree would be a necessary consequence and in

2005  YLR  1590   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Secretary, Communication and Works Department VS SAKA ULLAH KHAN

#NAME?

2005  YLR  1590   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Secretary, Communication and Works Department VS SAKA ULLAH KHAN

–S.17—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXI, R.10—Award made rule of Court, execution of—Amount of compensation not determined by Arbitrator in award—Judgment making award rule of Court was also silent as to such amount—Award remained upheld

2005  YLR  1458   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS Messrs FAISAL INTERNATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LTD.

—Ss. 17, 20, 30 & 39—Making award rule of Court—Objection to award—First appeal had been directed against judgment/order passed by Civil Judge whereby award made by arbitrator was made rule of the Court—Arbitrator, after recording evidence of bo

2005  PLD  670   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

CHINA INTERNATIONAL WATER VS PAKISTAN WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

—Ss. 23 & 17—Reference to arbitration—Invalid reference—Effect—With properly invoking the arbitration clause of the contract, no contrary finding could be given, and consequently no reference could have been made to the Arbitrator—Reference ma

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-­Constitution 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  SCMR  902   SUPREME-COURT

GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN VS Messrs Haji MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE

—-Ss. 17 & 30—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)—Making the award rule of Court—Objections—Contentions of the Government were that the High. Court had not considered objections filed by the Government against filing of award by the arbi

2004  SCMR  515   SUPREME-COURT

DOST MUHAMMAD VS GHAUS MUHAMMAD

—-Ss.17 & 21—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)—Award made rule of Court—Father (defendant) transferred suit-land by way of family settlement to all his heirs from both wives—Some children (plaintiffs) later on claiming suit-land to hav

2004  SCMR  384   SUPREME-COURT

PASSCO VS SIDDIQUI & COMPANY

—-Ss.17 & 33—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)—Objections to award—High Court remanded case for disposal of objections filed by respondents against award—Respondents decided not to press objections

2004  SCMR  76   SUPREME-COURT

MUHAMMAD RASHID VS ABDUL RASHID

—-Ss. 39 & 42—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII. R. 11—Arbitration Act (X of 1940), Ss. 14, 17, 32 & 33—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)—Suit for declaration and cancellation of award made rule of Court—Rejection of plaint–

2004  PLD  752   SUPREME-COURT

RAHIM JAN VS Mrs. Z. IKRAM GARDEZI

—-Ss. 17 & 39—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 114 & O.XLVII, R. 1–Review—No express provision for filing of review petition having been provided in the Arbitration Act, 1940, review petition was not maintainable—Principles.

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  YLR  2503   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

RAVI GLASS MILLS LIMITED VS I.C.I. PAKISTAN POWERGEN LIMITED

—-Ss. 14(2), 17, 3, & 33—Civil Procedure  Code (V of 1908), O. VII R. 10 — Approbate and reprobate,. waiver, estoppel, principles of –Application for return of plaint, dismissal of—Arbitrator was appointed in a dispute between petitioner and resp

2004  YLR  1961   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

CHIRAGH DIN VS JILAL DIN through Legal Heirs and others

—-Ss. 14, 17, 30 & 33—Award, setting aside of—Non-deciding of objection application—Effect—Concurrent findings of fact by the Courts below —Interference– Operative part of the award was preceded by the history of the issue and the rationale o

2004  YLR  1882   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MUHAMMAD SALEEM VS MUHAMMAD SHAFI

—-Ss.14, 17 & 21—Arbitration without intervention of Court—Scope—Award making rule of the Court—Proceedings were pending in the court and without intervention of the Court matter was referred to arbitrator for decision—Award given by the arbit

2004  YLR  626   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

SARDAR MUHAMMAD VS Mst. HASMAT BIBI

—- Ss. 14, 17 & 30—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.12(2)—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199—Constitutional petition—-Award, setting aside of –Plea of fraud and misrepresentation—Application under S.12(2), C. P.C. —Maintainability-

2004  YLR  274   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

KHALID ABBAS VS Hafiz MUHAMMAD FAROOQ

—-Ss. 17 & 30—Award, setting aside of–Agreement for construction of house–Claim of respondent-contractor was that petitioner had paid him less than the work done by him—Petitioner’s objection to award was that arbitrator had neither sent him notic

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  1158   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MANZOOR AHMAD VS MUHAMMAD SHAHBAZ and 2 others

—-S. 17—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115—Judgment in terms of the award—Evidence of the assistants appointed by the Arbitrators, validity of—Arbitration proceedings for settlement of dispute–Application to make the award as rule of the C

2004  MLD  2002   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MUHAMMAD IDREES VS MUHAMMAD YOUNUS

—Ss. 14, 17, 32, 33 & 39—Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.42–­Suit for declaration—Award—Rule of Court—Arbitration agreement–­Validity—Arbitration Act, 1940 is a complete code and award and judgments/orders passed thereunder, are appeala

2004  MLD  735   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

MUHAMMAD YOUSUF VS GUL ZAMAN

—-S.17—Judgment in terms of award—Court was duty bound ‘to examine and see whether any reason existed for modifying the award notwithstanding that any affected party had failed to file: objection to the award.

2003  PLD  522   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

RASHIDA BEGUM VS Ch. MUHAMMAD ANWAR

—-Ss. 17 & 39—Judgment in terms of away or refusal to set aside award—Appeal—Scope—Provisions of S.39, Arbitration Act, 1940 provide an appeal against the order refusing to set aside the award—Both the provisions of Ss. 17 & 39, Arbitration Ac

2003  CLC  1780   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

PROVINCE OF PUNJAB VS Sh. FAZALUL HUSSAIN

—-Ss. 17, 20 & 30—Award, setting aside of—Principles—Dispute between the parties was settled by arbitration and the award was made rule of the Court—Authorities assailed the award on the ground of misconduct but failed to point out any misconduc

2003  YLR  2494   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

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

#NAME?

2003  YLR  2377   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

FAISALABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS R.C.C. LIMITED

—-Ss. 17 & 30—Award, setting aside of–­Rule of Court—Scope—Parties had entered into different agreements for construction works—Agreements contained an arbitration clause—Dispute arose and the matter was referred to two arbitrators who prono

2003  CLC  1018   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

KHALID HUSSAIN VS MUHAMMAD SABIR JAVED

—-Ss. 14. 17, 30 & 33—Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.42—Suit for declaration—Arbitration proceedings—Objections to award—Dismissal of suit—During pendency of suit, parties agreed to appoint three arbitrators who submitted award in the Co

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

—-Ss. 14(2), 17, 30 & 33—Award, setting aside of—Jurisdiction of Civil Court—Scope—While making award rule of the Court, the Court has to examine the validity of award within a limited scope and from the contents of award itself, without going d

2003  YLR  2596   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Messrs IFTIKHAR ZAIDI ASSOCIATES VS Messrs PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS CORPORATION

—-S. 17—Court while examining the validity of award does not act as 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–­Supervisory role of the Court in the

2003  YLR  2040   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

GHEE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN (PVT.) LTD VS BROKENHILL PROPRIETARY CO. LTD

—Ss. 17 & 29—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXI, R.2 & S.151—Award made rule of Court by awarding interest–­Execution of decree—Objection of decree­-holder as to powers of arbitrators and Court to award such interest—Satisfaction of decr

2003  YLR  1535   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

AL-ABDULLAH CONSTRUCTION (PVT.) LTD. VS WAPDA

—-Ss. 17, 30 & 33—Examination of award did not show any finding therein which was based on import of any agreement which did not exist between the parties—Findings were based on construction of clauses and specifications of the agreement—Court, co

2003  YLR  592   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

SAADI CEMENT LTD. VS PIONEER CABLES LTD.

—-Ss. 14 & 17—Making award rule of Court—Opportunity of hearing—Award was filed in Court on 3-6-1999—Appellant after service of notice of filing ‘award appeared in Court through counsel on 28-10-1999 and on his request three weeks time was allow

2003  PLD  180   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

ADAMJEE CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. VS ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN

—-Ss. 16 & 17—Making of award rule of Court—Duty of Court–Non-filing of objections—Effect—Before making award rule of Court and pronouncing judgment in terms of the award, it is duty of the Court to see that there was no cause to remit the awar

2002  PLD  310   SUPREME-COURT

MESSRS JAMES CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (PVT.) LTD VS PROVINCE OF PUNJAB

Arbitration Act 1940 —-S. 17—Award cannot be legally enforced, until it is made rule of the Court—Award not made rule of the Court cannot be taken as legal award.

2002  SCMR  1903   SUPREME-COURT

Messrs TRIBAL FRIENDS CO. VS PROVINCE OF BALOCHISTAN

—-Ss.41,17 & 39—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115—Applicability of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 to arbitration proceedings has not been completely excluded—When remedy of appeal is within the frame-work of Arbitration Act, 1940, then revision

2002  SCMR  1662   SUPREME-COURT

ASCON ENGINEERS (PVT.) LTD. VS PROVINCE OF PUNJAB

Arbitration Act 1940 —-Ss. 17 & 30—Correction or modification of award by Court —Scope–Trial Court as well as Appellate Court enjoy limited jurisdiction to modify or correct an award keeping in view S.17 read with S.30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940.

2002  CLD  61   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

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

Arbitration Act 1940 —-S.17—Award—Suo motu jurisdiction of Court —Scope–Where facts and dictates of justice demand, the Court may on its own, under S.17 of Arbitration Act, 1940, modify or set aside the award accordingly. [p. 73) F

2002  YLR  3103   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

JAHANA VS ALLAH YAR

#NAME?

2002  MLD  414   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

PROVINCE-OF PUNJAB VS MESSRS USMAN AND SONS

—-Ss. 14(2), 17’& 39—Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 158—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXVII, R.4—Filing award in Court for making the same rule of the Court—Objections to the award–Limitation—Objections were rejected by the Trial Cou

2002  MLD  185   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MIAN MOAZZAM-UD-DIN VS HAJI SADIQ JILANI

Arbitration Act 1940 —-S.17—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.12(2)—Challenge to award—Remedy—Proceedings of Trial Court making the award rule of the Court and the decree passed in consequence thereof could be challenged on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation by filing application under S.12(2), C.P.C.

2002  CLD  890   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

SUI SOUTHERN. GAS COMPANY

LTD.
VS STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY

—-S. 128—Arbitration Act (X of 1940), Ss. 17 & 20–Building construction contract—Mobilization advance and performance bond—Liability of surety Extent—Dispute was with regard to recovery of mobilization advance paid by the plaintiff to the contr

2002  PLD  427   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Maj. (Retd.) HUMAYUN AKHTAR VS PAKISTAN DEFENCE OFFICERS HOUSING AUTHORITY

—-Ss- 2(b), 17 & 30—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.2(2)—Award by sole arbitrator—Objection to the award was raised on the ground that the arbitrator had used the word “decree” in the award—Validity—Award given by the sole arbitrator was n

2002  PLD  420   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

ITEHAD CARGO SERVICES, NATIONAL HOTEL, LAHORE  VS Rana RAFAQAT ALI

Arbitration Act 1940 —-S. 17—Award not made rule of Court—Effect—Dispute between the parties was subjected to arbitrator but no efforts were made by either of the parties to make the, award rule of the Court—Plaintiff instituted the suit and Judge in Chambers of High Court issued interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff—Validity—Mere making of an award simpliciter was of no value and did not create, extinguish or pass any right, title or interest and no party, could be prejudiced by mere existence of the award—Award could only become effective when it was made rule of the Court—Till the decree was passed the award had no status in the eyes of law.

2002  YLR  1494   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

1. IFTIKHAR & COMPANY (PVT.) LTD. VS PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS LTD.

—-Ss. 14, 17, 30 & 33—Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Ss.5, 14(2) & Art. 158—Sindh Chief Court Rules (O.S.), Rr.280 & 282(1)–Objections to award, filing of —Limitation–Non-filing of objections, in time due to non-supply of copy of award by arbitrat

2001  SCMR  750   SUPREME-COURT

WAZIR KHAN VS SARDAR ALI

Arbitration Act 1940 —-Ss.26-A & 17—Award—Failure to record reasons for award—Effect–Provisions of S.26-A, Arbitration Act, 1940 were mandatory and if the award had been given without recording any reason; the Court would remit the same to the arbitrator—Award having been given without recording any reason, should have been remitted to the arbitrator to give reasons—Where mandatory provisions of Ss. 17 & 26-A of Arbitration Act, 1940, had not been complied with, the award was invalid and not maintainable.

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  YLR  1063   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

UMER DIN VS SHAKILA BIBI

Arbitration Act 1940 —-Ss. 14, 17, 26-A, 30 & 33—Award, setting aside of—Concurrent findings of facts by two Courts below—Application to set aside the award was filed by the petitioners—Both the Courts below refused to set aside the award–Plea raised by the petitioners was that the arbitrators failed to give reasons in favour of the award—Validity—Arbitrators had given reasons in the award, provided sufficient opportunity to the parties, heard them, examined their documents, their respective possessions, and thereafter declared the award—Such award was not without reasons as alleged—Where the concurrent findings of both the Courts below were based on proper assumption of law and facts, the same did not warrant interference.

2001  CLC  967   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MACDONALD LAYTON & COMPANY LIMITED  VS SAFDAR ALI SHAH & COMPANY

Ss. 14, 17, 30 & 39—Award, setting aside of—Award was sought to be set aside on the ground that as per agreement between the parties, the venue for the arbitration in the event of the dispute was agreed ‘to be “Karachi”. the proceedings of arbitration held by the arbitrator at Islamabad were wholly without jurisdiction and without lawful authority—Validity—Karachi, though vas agreed to be the venue of arbitration proceedings, but the arbitrator was appointed at Islamabad, the arbitration proceedings were completed at Islamabad and award was also made there and objector joined arbitration proceedings at Islamabad without any reservation and objection–Objector had himself suggested names of three persons and had also requested in writing to adjourn arbitration proceedings for two months–Throughout the proceedings of arbitration and till after making of the award by the arbitrator, objector did not raise any objection as to the venue of the arbitration proceedings–

2001  CLC  1216   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

KAURAL  VS MUHAMAD CHUTTAL

Arbitration Act 1940 —-Ss. 17, 21 & 30—Award—Allegation of—Misconduct on the part of arbitrator—Scope—Refusal to make award rule of Court—.Sole arbitrator was appointed by the Trial Court on the request of parties who submitted his award after providing opportunity to both the parties—Respondent alleged commission of misconduct by. the arbitrator and both the Courts below refused to make the award rule of the Court—Neither the arbitrator had committed any misconduct nor there was any tangible evidence to believe that the allegations forming the basis of objection against the award were admissible– -Orders of the two Courts below suffered from material illegalities and findings were perverse to the evidence on record—Both the Courts below had illegally refused to exercise jurisdiction to make the award rule of the Court—Orders passed by the two Courts below were set aside and the award was made rule of the Court accordingly.

2001  MLD  115   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

A.QUTABUDDIN KHAN  VS CHEC MILLWALA DREDGING CO. (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI

—-Ss. 14(2) & 17—Limitation Act (X of 1908), Art.152—Award—Filing objections to award—Limitation—Defendants filed their objections against the award beyond the prescribed period of 30 days—Validity—Objections filed to the award were time-b

2001  PLD  158   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT AGENCY LTD VS MESSRS M.Y. CORPORATION AND OTHERS

—-Ss. 14, 17, 30 & 33—Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 158—Objections to award—Limitation—Delay in filing the objections—No application was filed for condonation of delay—Effect—Objections to award had to be filed within thirty days and i

2000  PLD  314   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

PUNJAB PROVINCE VS CHAUHAN & COMPANY

Arbitration Act 1940 —-Ss. 17, 30 & 31—Award—Examination of—Question of misconduct and legal error—Jurisdiction of Trial Court—Scope—Arbitrator was a Judge of law and facts but that would not mean that the Trial Court was denuded of its jurisdiction to examine the question of misconduct and legal error apparent on the face of award—Court was not bound to provide blanket to any illegal, irrational or illegal award.

2000  YLR  386   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

NAEEM NAQI  VS SYED ZAMEER HAIDER

Arbitration Act 1940 —-S.17—Judgment, pronouncing of–Jurisdiction of Court—Scope—Provision of S.17, Arbitration Act, 1940 had cast duty on the Court to see if there was no cause to remit award or any of the matter referred to the arbitration for reconsideration or to set aside the award—Apart from the application which a party could make for either remission of the award or for its reversion Court could exercise such powers suo motu—Where award was nullity because of the invalidity of the arbitration agreement or for any of the reasons or such award was prima facie illegal and was not fit to be maintained, Court had ample power to set aside the same without waiting for any objection to such award being filed or without considering any application for setting aside the same.

2000  YLR  183   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

WAHEED AHMAD MALIK  VS MESSRS USMAN & SONS

#NAME?

2000  PLD  157   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

PAKISTAN VS RAJASTAN ALLOYAS AND STEEL (PRIVATE) LIMITED

Arbitration Act 1940 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  YLR  2021   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

1. ALTAF HUSSAIN VS DUTY FREE SHOPS (PVT.), LIMITED

#NAME?

2000  CLC  1239   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

MECHANISED CONTRACTORS OF PAKISTAN LTD. VS AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KARACHI

Ss. 14(2), 17 & 30???Making award rule of Court???Power of Court to look into legality or otherwise of award???Scope???Court while deliberating upon award under S.14(2), Arbitration Act, 1940, was competent to look into legality or otherwise of award even in absence of any objection being requirement of Ss. 17 & 30 of the Act.

1999  SCMR  2702   SUPREME-COURT

INAYATULLAH KHAN  VS OBAIDULLAH KHAN

Arbitration Act 1940 Art. 185 (2) (e) & (3)—Arbitration Act (X of 1940), Ss. 17& 20—Dispute between parties related to property of their common predecessor for which matter was referred to arbitrators and arbitrators suo motu without request of any party to arbitration, filed award in Court to make same the rule of Court–Trial Court and Appellate Court below refused to make award rule of Court–High Court in revision r.-versed concurrent judgments of two Courts below and made award rule of Court and passed decree in accordance with terms and conditions of award—Petitioner, another party to arbitration proceedings, filed petition for leave to appeal against judgment and decree passed by High Court to which preliminary objection was raised by respondent to the effect that property in dispute being of worth of one crore, appeal as of right was competent under Art. 185 (2) (e) of Constitution of Pakistan (1973) and no petition for leave to appeal could lie—Validity—Respondent had moved High Court in revision and relevant column of Form relating to valuation was left blank—If value for purpose of jurisdiction was admitted as rupees one crore, then first appeal was not competent before District Judge but could lie only in High Court—Objection of respondent for which there were no basis on record and which had not been raised earlier either before Courts below or High Court at any stage, could not be allowed to be pressed at Supreme Court level.

1999  CLC  1685   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. VS ADAMJEE PAPER AND BOARD MILLS LIMITED

Arbitration Act 1940 S. 17—Award to be made rule of Court—Where arbitration agreement was void for ambiguity, award did not furnish reasons for the decision made therein, an interested person was not made party to the arbitration proceedings and the same was not registered under Registration Act, 1908, such, an award could not be made rule of the Court.

1999  YLR  295   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MESSRS MILLAT TRACTORS LTD VS MESSRS MILLAT TRACTOR HOUSE, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, REGISTERED UNDER THE PARTNERSHIP ACT KUTCHERY ROAD

Arbitration Act 1940 —-S.17—Making award rule of the Court—Duty of Court—Where any error was apparent on the face of the award it was the duty of the Court to examine its validity and could refuse to make same rule of the Court in view of such error.

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  2829   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

PROVINCE OF PUNJAB  VS AMJAD AND ASSOCIATES

Arbitration Act 1940 —-Ss. 14, 17, 20 & 39—Filing of arbitration agreement in Court—Making award rule of Court—Appeal—Arbitration Committee was constituted in terms of arbitration clause in arbitration agreement by Court—Parties participated in proceedings before Arbitrators and award was made by Arbitrators—Award was filed in Court and parties were directed to file objection against said award—No objection having been filed by either party against said award, same was made rule of Court and Court passed judgment and decree in terms of award–Appellant (Department) had challenged judgment and decree passed by Court in terms of award, in hoplessly time-barred appeal—Validity—On filing award in Court, objections were invited by Court, but no objection to award was filed by either party and parties had participated in proceedings before Court—Contention of Appellant (Department) that no express extension for submission of -award was available on file, had no force—Where party had all along submitted to proceedings of arbitrators without any protest and without raising any objection that party could not turn round and object or insist that award was made out of statutory period.

1999  MLD  2773   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

PAKISTAN AGRICULTURAL STORAGE AND SERVICES CORPORATION  VS SHEIKH MUHAMMAD LATIF

Arbitration Act 1940 —-Ss. 17 & 30—Judgment in terms of award—Duty of Court—Provisions of S.17, Arbitration Act, 1940, impose a duty on Court to see that there was no cause to remit award or any of the matters referred to arbitration for reconsideration or to set aside the award—Court could exercise such powers sue motu, apart from the application which a party could make for either remission of the award or its reversal—Where award was found to be nullity because of the invalidity of the arbitration agreement or, for any other reason or such award was prima facie illegal and not fit to be maintained, the Court had powers under S.17, Arbitration Act, 1940 to set aside the same.

1999  CLC  946   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

PROVINCE OF PUNJAB VS TARMIC CONSTRUCTION (PVT.) LIMITED

Arbitration Act 1940 Ss. 17, 30 & 33???Civil Court???Jurisdiction???Civil Court does not act as a Court of appeal???Arbitrator is a final Judge to give decision and efforts are to be made to give effect to the award???To ensure that the award does not suffer from any error of law or misconduct of the arbitrators, the Court is not denuded of its power in this regard.

1999  MLD  1738   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM  VS MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM

—-Ss. 14, 17, 33 & 39—Application for direction to file award arid for making the same as rule of Court—Respondents application raising objections against submission of award and making the same rule of Court was accepted and that of appellant for d

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  1018   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

CONTICOTTON S.A. CO. VS FAROOQ CORPORATION

Ss. 5, 6 & 7—Liverpool Cotton Association Rules, Rr.140 & 141–Arbitration Act (X of 1940), S.17—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.23—Foreign Arbitration Award—Enforcement—Principles—Making award rule of Court–Parties, which were members of Liverpool Cotton Association, entered into contract of sale of cotton subject to Liverpool Cotton Association Rules, whereby defendant/exporter agreed to supply 1050 bales of cotton to plaintiffs/importers—Defendant according to the agreement shipped 582 bales and parties agreed to the supply balance quantity up to specified date on condition that if defendant would fail to supply balance quantity in time, contract between parties would be closed on that day on basis of market difference—Defendant/exporter failed to make shipment of balance quantity of cotton up to specified date for reasons that Government of Pakistan had temporarily suspended export of cotton on account of poor crop of cotton–Plaintiffs refused to accept excuse of defendant, served formal notice on defendant of their intention to proceed to arbitration to close out unfulfilled part of contract as per Rules of Liverpool Cotton Association and appointed their arbitrator—Arbitrator appointed on behalf of defendant fully participated in arbitration proceedings and arbitrators gave their award whereby defendant was directed to pay difference of amount—Appeal of defendant against award of Arbitrators was dismissed for non-payment of requisite fee for filing appeal within time—Plaintiff filed award in Court to make it rule of Court —Validity–Award was objected to by defendant contending that due to suspension of export of cotton by Pakistan Government, it had no liability for non-delivery of balance quantity of cotton and that due to such prevention, force majeure clause in contract of sale had come into effect which had rendered contractual clause invalid including arbitration clauses—Legality—Suspension of export of cotton being temporary, it could not be said that contract between parties had become impossible for performance or it had become frustrated at relevant time—Public Notice whereby export of cotton was temporarily suspended, by no stretch of imagination could be construed as a declaration to the effect that export of cotton had become illegal—Reliance of defendant/exporter on S.23 of Contract Act, 1872, was misconceived—Objections raised by defendant/exporter to award being baseless, same was ordered to be made rule of Court—Courts ought not to entertain objections to foreign award, executable in Pakistan unless those strictly lay within four corners of S.7 of Arbitration (Protocol Convention) Act, 1937.

1998  SCMR  232   SUPREME-COURT

RASHIDA BEGUM  VS HAMEED AHMAD

Arbitration Act 1940 —-S. 17—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 12(2)—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)—Decree in terms of award—Petitioner’s application against award in terms of S. 12(2);’ C.P.C. was dismissed–Petitioner’s revision against dismissal of such application was also dismissed–Validity—Leave to appeal to Supreme Court. was granted to consider the question as to whether keeping in view the fact that there was no sale-deed and no entry in Revenue Record as to alleged sale and considering relationship between petitioners and respondents, transaction of alleged sale could be considered as bona fide transaction and award in respect thereof was not collusive.

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  15   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

MUHAMMAD HANIF ABBASI VS GHARIB NAWAZ CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (PVT.) LTD.

—-OIX, R.13—Arbitration Act (X of 1940), S. 17—Review—Contention was that application. being in shape of review application was not maintainable as the right to seek review was a right created by statute and that no such right was created in Arbit

1997  SCMR  1192   SUPREME-COURT

MANSAB ALI  VS MUHAMMAD SALAM

Arbitration Act 1940 —Ss. 17 & 39—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.2(2)—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)—Award—Application to make award rule of Court was dismissed and award set aside—Petitioners challenged order in question, through appeal and also through revision before High Court—Appeal was dismissed on the ground that petitioners did not, file decree sheet with memorandum of appeal—Revision was dismissed on the ground that order in question being appealable no revision was competent —Validity—Leave to appeal was granted to consider that award having beers rejected and .not made rule of Court the order had not been passed in terms of award, and as such whether same was appealable order and no decree was required to be prepared.

1997  SCMR  1849   SUPREME-COURT

ROAZI KHAN  VS NASIR

Arbitration Act 1940 —-S. 17—Award not made rule of Court but was acted upon—Effect—-Where arbitration award was not made rule of Court but same had been acted upon by mutual consent of parties, such award could be legitimately defended ‘ in proceedings wherever challenged—Irrespective of applicability of award amongst parties, same could not lawfully affect rights of respondents (plaintiffs), who were apparently not party to any such agreement—Terms of award thus, would not aversely affect rights of respondents (plaintiffs).

1997  PLD  674   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MUHAMMAD YOUSAF VS PROVINCE OF PUNJAB

Ss. 2(a), 17 & First Sched., para. 7—Punjab Zila Council (Export Tax) Rules, 1990, R. 19—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199—Constitutonal petition—Arbitration clause in an agreement—Petitioner himself invoking jurisdiction of Commissioner by invoking arbitration clause in agreement–Effect—Petitioner having himself invoked jurisdiction of Commissioner in terms of arbitration clause in agreement, could not turn round when award was announced against him except by taking appropriate proceedings against same in accordance with law–

1997  CLC  863   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

ABDUL RASHID VS MUHAMMAD AFZAL

Arbitration Act 1940 S.17—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.12(2)—Application under S.12(2), C.P.C. for recall of decree obtained on basis of arbitration awards–Dismissal of such application on the ground that S.12(2), C.P.C. was not applicable to decrees obtained on basis of arbitration award—Order in question, was maintained by Revisional Court—Validity—Applicability of S.12(2), C.P.C. having been settled by Supreme Court in Muhammad Yasin’s case (1993 SCMR 437), whereby it was declared that S.12(2), C.P.C. was equally applicable to arbitration decrees—High Court on basis of Supreme Court judgment declared impugned order of Trial Court as also of Appellate Court to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect—Application under S.12(2), C.P.C. would be deemed to be pending which would be expeditiously disposed of in accordance with law.

1997  MLD  2370   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

WASEEM CONSTRUCTION CO.  VS PROVINCE OF SINDH

Arbitration Act 1940 —-Ss. 17, 30 & 33—Partnership Act (IX of 1932), S.69—Objection to award–Neither any illegality nor any misreading in evidence was pointed out by defendant (objector)— Court would not sit in appeal in proceedings for making award rule of Court—Award given by Arbitrator was binding on parties—No infirmity or illegality was apparent on face of record so as to warrant interference therein—Award was, thus, made rule of the Court.

1997  MLD  418   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

MANAGING DIRECTOR, AKLASC  VS MUHAMMAD ASGHAR KHAN

—-S. 69—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VIII, R.2—Arbitration Act (X of 1940), S.17—Sindh Chief Court Rules (O.S.), R.282(2)—Objection against award—Defendant for the first time raising objection of non-registration of plaintiff-firm—Suc

1997  CLC  626   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

FRIENDS CORPORAION VS AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT AGENCY

Ss. 14, 17 & 30???Dispute between parties referred to Arbitrator by consent of parties???Award by Arbitrator???Defendant objected to making award rule of Court on the ground that award suffered from error of law patent on the face of award; that award was bad in law and without jurisdiction; that arbitrator had committed judicial misconduct; and that award had been improperly procured??Validity???While considering objections on award, Court would not act as Court of appeal???Court would interfere under circumstances mentioned in S.30, Arbitration Act, 1940 or if same was contrary to the record/evidence??Objections raised by defendant being without any basis, same were overruled and award was made rule of the Court???Decree was to be awarded in terms of award.

1997  CLC  212   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

WORLD CIRCLE LTD. VS STATE CEMENT CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN LTD.

—-Ss. 21, 22, 23, 30, 33 & 17—Award rendered by Arbitrator—Objections to award—No error or infirmity was apparent on the face of award—When matter was referred to Arbitrator, by consent of parties, reference was for deciding all matters in diffe

1997  MLD  745   CHIEF-COURT-GILGIT

SHAH ZAMAN  VS ZAMINDARAN BIRGAL

—-S.42—Arbitration’Act (X of 1940), S.17—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.47–Declaratory decree—Possession through execution of declaratory decree—Validity—Suit for declaration and consequential relief wherein no relief for possession of s

1996  MLD  1576   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

MUHAMMAD ZUFRAN  VS NEHMAT

Arbitration Act 1940 —-S.17—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XLI, Rr.23 & 115—Award was tendered in Appellate Court and objections on award were received by Court—Appellate Court failed to decide objections on award—Where objections were found to be of no substance, award was required to be made rule of the Court and judgment given accordingly—Appellate Court, however, did not make award rule of Court but relied upon it, as evidence in the case while giving its own judgment—Such course was material violation of law and Appellate Court could not proceed without first deciding objections over award—Appellate Court having not adopted such course, case was required to be remanded and thereafter its disposal in accordance with law.

1996  CLC  268   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

NOOR MUHAMMAD VS ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, NANKANA SAHIB

Arbitration Act 1940 —-S. 17—Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art.158—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199—Constitutional petition—Proceedings under S.17, Arbitration Act, 1940, for making award rule of Court—Essentials—Petitioner neither placing original award nor copy thereof, in Court so as to justify proceedings on his application for making the award rule of Court—Provision of S.17, Arbitration Act, 1940 deals with cases where award has been actually filed before Court either through party or by the arbitrator—Once award had been filed’before Court then Court would get jurisdiction to take further proceedings in accordance with law and pass decree thereon—Scheme of S:17, Arbitration Act, 1940, is that after filing of award in Court, opportunity is given to party challenging its legality or correctness to file objection petition for setting aside the award—Such petition has to be filed within 30 days under Art.158, Limitation Act, 1908, failing which party in whose favour award was made would be entitled to decree in terms of that award—Such exercise as contemplated under S.17, Arbitration Act, 1940, would be necessary only, if award had been filed in Court=–Where, however, award and its copy, though in possession of petitioner were never filed in Court, further proceedings under provisions of S.17, Arbitration Act, 1940, were merely exercise in futility–Where the existence of very award was denied by respondents and petitioner, despite having original award as well as copy thereof in his possession, never cared to file the same in Court, Court was justified to dismiss his application for making award the rule of Court.

1996  CLC  45   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

M.A. KHAN & CO. VS PAKISTAN RAILWAY EMPLOYEES’ COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.

Arbitration Act 1940 —-Ss. 17 & 33—Arbitration agreement between parties—Notice to defendant to nominate its arbitrator—Defendant failing to appoint its arbitrator within specified time—Arbitrator appointed by plaintiff proceeding as sole arbitrator in terms of arbitration agreement—Defendant did not participate in the proceedings despite notices issued by sole arbitrator—Award by such Arbitrator—Objection to award—Defendant deliberately remaining absent before arbitrator and even after receipt of notice through bailiff as also through registered post did not file any objection to award in time in Court–Objections filed by defendant being time-barred were not even fit to be considered—Plea that defendant came to know of the proceedings on specified date through postal service was not borne by record—Defendant’s contention that limitation be counted from the date of knowledge was also not tenable–Award itself appeared to have been made after observing necessary legal formalities, hearing parties and perusing and verifying relevant documents on record—Award was, thus made the rule of the court and objections relating thereto were dismissed in circumstances.

1996  CLC  840   CHIEF-COURT-GILGIT

ZAMINDARAN OF VILLAGE SOMAL GUPIS VS ZAMINDARAN OF VILLAGE RAUSHAN

Arbitration Act 1940 —-S. 17—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 12(2)—Dispute relating to demarcation of pasture area—Collector during pendency of appeal against such demarcation, appointed arbitrators with consent of parties and on submission of their award made it rule of the Court—Award and order making it rule of Court were challenged in Civil Court but to no effect—Appellate Court on admission of appeal filed by plaintiff ordered status quo—Appeal was, however, dismissed for non-prosecution—Plaintiffs challenged such dismissal through application under S. 12(2), C.P.C. about 8 years after the impugned judgment alongwith application for ad interim injunction against defendants (respondent)—Order of status quo was granted by Appellate Court which was later on clarified to the effect that defendants/respondents were entitled to graze their cattle in disputed pastures—Validity—Order in question, was very clear and correct—So far as legal and factual position of case was concerned appellants (plaintiffs) had no prima facie case, for all the decisions of Revenue Authorities and Courts below were against them—Respondents were enjoying disputed pastures since 1945, through valid judgments and decrees, therefore, conduct of appellants would disentitle them to get interim relief especially when they remained mum for 8 years to question judgment rendered by Appellate Court—Appellant in earlier round of litigation were being represented by their agent and counsel and, therefore, they were bound by the acts of their agents/counsel—Appellants could not put in plea of non-prosecution of appeal in earlier round of litigation on the shoulders of their agent/counsel—Order of Appellate Court entitling respondents to graze their cattle in pasture in question, was maintained in circumstances

1995  SCMR  73   SUPREME-COURT

MUHAMMAD TAYAB VS AKBAR HUSSAIN

Ss. 14(2), 17 & 30—Petition under S. 14(2), Arbitration Act, 1940 for making award rule of the Court—Objections were not filed within stipulated time—Party also took the plea that no prior notice of the arbitration proceedings was given to it by the sole arbitrator—High Court did not consider the objections on the ground that they were filed beyond stipulated period–Validity—Held, High Court should not have refused to go into the merits of the case on the ground that objections were filed beyond stipulated time particularly in view of the plea taken by the party that it was not served with notice in the arbitration proceedings—Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court wherein award was made rule of the Court and remanded the case to High Court to examine the record of the arbitration proceedings to find out whether the plea taken by the party about non-service of notice was Justified which could be done without going into the question of limitation.

1995  PLD  205   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

ABDUL QAYYUM KHAN VS GOVT. OF PUNJAB

Arbitration Act 1940 Ss. 20, 21, 33 & 17—Three modes of arbitration viz. arbitration with intervention of Court where there was no suit pending; arbitration in suit pending before Court; and arbitration without intervention of Court, outlined and illustrated.

1995  MLD  991   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

JEHANA  VS PARVEEN

—-S.12(2)—Arbitration Act (X of 1940), Ss.14 & 17—Stamp Act (II of 1899), Sched. I, Art.12—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199—Disposal of Constitutional petition on remanding the case on agreed terms of parties–Jurisdiction of Court makin

1995  MLD  187   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

SAEEDA BANO  VS MUHAMMAD AMIN

Arbitration Act 1940 —-S.17—Making award rule of the Court—Arbitrators are the domestic tribunals and are not bound to record evidence in detail—Sufficient for arbitrators to hear both the parties and consider their respective points of view and then pronounce the award on the basis of the conclusion arrived at by them—Courts would be justified in making the award rule of the Court in terms of S.17, if such condition had been fulfilled.

1994  SCMR  603   SUPREME-COURT

BINOD BIHARI SINGH  VS UNION OF INDIA

—-Ss. 14 & 17—Filing of award in Court–Only signed copy of award was handed over to the applicant—No implied authority for filing award in Court could be inferred—Letter of Arbitrator to applicant indicated that award sent to him was only for his

1994  SCMR  1893   SUPREME-COURT

GHULAM NABI  VS JAVAID IQBAL

Arbitration Act 1940 —-Ss.17’& 14—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)—Leave to appeal was granted to consider, whether ratio decidendi of the judgments of Supreme Court in the cases of Pakistan v. O.M.R. Expert Consultants PLD 1990 SC 800 and Awan Industries -Limited v. The Executive Engineer, Lined Channel Division 1992 SCMR 65 was applicable to the case.

1994  PLD  525   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

RUPALI POLYESTER LTD VS NAEL G. BUNNI

—-S. 17—Award rendered by an arbitrator is lifeless and is not capable of being executed till such time the fife is infused into it by the Court by passing a decree in accordance with the same.

1994  CLC  1135   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

WAZIR ALI VS ALLAH DITTA

Ss. 2(a) & 17—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.12(2)—Application under S.12(2), Civil Procedure Code, 1908, for setting aside agreement for reference to arbitration and award based on it on ground of fraud and misrepresentation, was competent.

1994  MLD  728   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

1. SAFDAR ALI & CO. VS PROVINCE OF PUNJAB

Arbitration Act 1940 —-S.17—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115—Revision—Judgment in terms of award passed by Trial Court, was set aside by Appellate Court–Validity—Arbitrator appointed in terms of agreement by both parties recording findings on merits—Trial Court, after hearing parties making the award rule of the Court—Appellate Court’s judgment of variance suffered not only from material irregularity and illegality, inasmuch as no finding was recorded by it ‘of any misconduct by arbitrator in respect of arbitration proceedings, but also amounted to exercising jurisdiction not vesting in it under law to interfere in the finding recorded by arbitrator on merits—Order passed by Appellate Court was set. aside while that of trial Court was restored.

1993  SCMR  437   SUPREME-COURT

MUHAMMAD YASIN  VS HANIF AHMED

Arbitration Act 1940 —-S.17—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.12(2)—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)—Decree in terms of Award—Setting aside of–Applicability of Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Extent—Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether High Court had correctly considered the question of applicability of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, in arbitration proceedings, particularly relating to setting aside the award; and whether the wrong nomenclature of proceedings before any Court which otherwise had jurisdiction to entertain the same and give verdict on merit thereof could at all be treated as real bar to grant of relief in accordance with law and jurisdiction; and further that if in case of bar in the description of provision relied upon by the appellant in application before First Appellate Court could same not be corrected by that Court or by the High Court and could it not be even converted into a proceeding as required by law.

1993  CLC  589   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

PROVINCE OF PUNJAB VS GHULAM QASIM

Arbitration Act 1940 S. 17—Decree in terms of award wherein plaintiff’s title to plot in question was recognised—Defendants’. contention that they being not party in said decree were not bound by it, was of no avail for they learnt about the said decree in 1992 but never came forward to challenge its validity.

1993  PLD  543   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

ASRAFI ABBASI ASSOCIATES VS NEW TOWN COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED.

S.17 — Judgment in termsof award — Dispute between parties was referred to arbitrators with the consent of parties—Arbitrators had announced consent award after effecting compromise between the parties — Defendant society filed objectionsio Award claiming that objectors had given no consent in the  Award and the arbitrators had colluded with plaintiffs in giving a fraudulent Award — Absence of notice on specified date (when consent Award was announced) was also pleaded by the objectors — All the- parties were present before the arbitrators on 2-4-1989, when proceedings were adjourned in their -presence to 6-4-1989; there was, thus, no necessity for )aotice for 6-4-1989– Arbitration proceedings were instituted on the joint request of the parties and 544 Karachi a specific claim was preferred to arbitration — Arbitrators had acted bona fide and made the Award in accordance with the compromise arrived at between the parties — Arbitrators were within their rights in accepting the compromise and b

1992  SCMR  911   SUPREME-COURT

MEHDI HASAN  VS MUHAMMAD SADIQ

—-Ss.14 & 17—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)—Award— Compromise—Parties entering into compromise after the arbitration award was filed in Court for making same rule of the Court—Leave to .appeal was granted to consider whether decre

1992  SCMR  699   SUPREME-COURT

ISMAIL MUHAMMAD BHAI  VS YOUNUS ALI GAZDAR

Arbitration Act 1940 —-S. 17—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)—Judgment in terms of award—Validity—Petitioner’s objection to such award was that Arbitrator had not decided all the disputes that were referred to the Arbitrator and instead he confined such award to only a few of the matters in dispute—Petitioner, in his objection to award, though dealt with each item referred to by the Arbitrator, and dealt with by him, yet he made no grievance of the fact that there was any aspect of the dispute between the parties which was left out of determination–Petitioner having not raised such an objection in writing when he was objecting to the award, could not be allowed to raise the same as an afterthought at a subsequent stage of proceedings—No question of law having been raised which required further examination, leave to appeal was refused.

1992  SCMR  65   SUPREME-COURT

AWAN INDUSTRIES LTD.  VS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, LINED CHANNEL DIVISION

Arbitration Act 1940 —-Ss.17 & 30—Judgment in terms of award—Duty of Court—Provisions of S.17, Arbitration Act, 1940, imposes a duty on Court to see that there was no cause to remit award or any of the matters referred to arbitration for reconsideration or to set aside the award—Court could exercise such powers suo motu, apart from the application which a party could make for either remission of the award or its reversal—Where award was found to be nullity because of the invalidity of arbitration agreement or, for any other reason or such award was prima facie illegal and not fit’to be maintained, Court had power under S.17 of the Act to set it aside without waiting for an objection to award being filed or without considering any application for setting it aside, if there be any, and -irrespective of the question whether or not any objection to the award was filed, or whether the objection, if filed was not within time–Provision of S.30(c), Arbitration Act was also attracted where a party had appointed a sole arbitrator without prior notice to the other party– Award by such arbitrator would be, prima facie, illegal and could be set aside.

1992  MLD  7   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

GHULAM KHAN VS MST. NAZAR JANA

Arbitration Act 1940 —-S. 17—Award—Award relating to house of deceased—Daughters of deceased owner being not parties to such award same was not binding on them–Concurrent finding of fact that such award was not binding on daughters of deceased/plaintiff was unexceptionable requiring no interference.

1992  CLC  2131   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

AL-FAROOQ BUILDERS VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN

Ss. 14, 17, 20, 28 & 30—Award — Objection to — Award given by arbitrator was objected to on ground that it was invalid as same was given by arbitrator beyond time fixed by Court without obtaining extension of time from Court–­Parties took part in arbitration proceedings without any objection being raised by defendant in that regard — Defendant did not inform arbitrator and other party that time fixed by Court had expired and that he would not be bound by such award — Defendant who appeared before arbitrator and took part in proceedings before him and allowed arbitrator to give award, could not say that award was invalid as same was given by arbitrator beyond time fixed by Court — Objection was repelled in circumstance and award made rule of Court with interest up to date.

1992  CLC  2124   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

IFTIKHAR BROTHERS VS TRUSTEES OF PORT OF KARACHI

Ss. 14, 17, 20 & 30 — Objection to making award rule of Court — Defendant had contended that arbitrator giving award was guilty of misconduct inasmuch as basis of claim of plaintiff before him was instructions issued by Government with regard to determination of his claim and that not only those instructions were misconstrued, but directive contained therein was also violated by arbitrator — No doubt plaintiff in support of his claim had referred before arbitrator those instructions, but arbitrator had not based his award on those instructions — Neither those instructions were referred or mentioned in award by arbitrator nor award was based on those instructions — In absence of a reference in award to those instructions, it could not be said that award was erroneous or’ was based on such instructions — Objections of defendant against award were rejected and award was confirmed and made rule of Court.

1992  CLC  1093   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

MEMON MEDICAL SOCIETY VS BANTVA HOUSING ENTERPRISES

Arbitration Act 1940 S. 17—Judgment in terms of award—Objection to—Improper reference–­Effect—Arbitration agreement envisaged `H’ to be the sole arbitrator in his personal capacity and not on behalf of Firm of `H’ Associates—Plaintiff’s letter seeking arbitration, however, was addressed to Firm of `H’ Associates and not to `H’ in his personal capacity—Arbitrator on basis of plaintiff’s such letter had initiated arbitration proceedings—Arbitrator’s letter addressed to defendants to appear before him was written on the letter head of `H’ Associates anti was signed on behalf of `H’ Associates—Such letters produced by the Arbitrator in Court showed that reference for arbitration was not made to the Arbitrator as agreed upon by the parties but to ‘H’ Associates, the’ Firm—Reference itself was, thus, bad in law—Judgment in terms of award, therefore, could not he passed in circumstances.

1991  SCMR  1928   SUPREME-COURT

ALI MUHAMMAD  VS BASHIR AHMAD

Arbitration Act 1940 —-S.17—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)—Judgment in terms of Award—In terms of agreement between parties to refer the matter to Arbitrator, subject-matter of criminal litigation, was specifically mentioned and made subject-matter of Arbitration—Validity of Award and of judgment in terms of Award—In arbitration agreement there was an explicit mention of criminal case, a reference of it to the Arbitrator and the Arbitrator directing its withdrawal as a part of the settlement of civil dispute—Such an Award was sought to be sanctified by the Court and enforced through the process of the Court whereby settlement of civil dispute was achieved directly by stifling the prosecution of a criminal case—Held, criminal pending matter cannot be referred to Arbitration, nor can the withdrawal of it be directed by the Arbitrator—Arbitrator’s jurisdiction does not extend over magisterial functions —Arbitration Act being a special Act is limited to civil disputes between the parties and matters pending in Civil Courts—Appellate Courts were thus, justified in concluding that the subject-matter of reference to the Arbitration, as well as of the Award, were opposed to public policy because they dealt with criminal case, its prosecution or non-prosecution and the Award directing the withdrawal of criminal case or its non-prosecution by one of the parties—Leave to appeal was refused.

1991  MLD  686   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

PROJECT DIRECTOR, WORKERS WELFARE BOARD  VS AWAMI CONSTRUCTION CO.

Arbitration Act 1940 —-Ss. 17 & 39—Award made rule of Court—Appeal against judgment and order of Court—Sole arbitrator having been appointed at the instance of appellant, respondent had not challenged such appointment—Arbitrator entered into arbitration with consent of parties and after consideration of entire evidence made his award—Evidence on record showed that petitioners did not challenge the award, rather directions were issued that award amount be paid—No objection petition was filed to challenge the award—Mere filing of written statement in reply to application could not in any manner dispense with the requirement of law—Judgment and decree of Trial Court to the extent of interest at the specified rate was, however, modified and interest was reduced—Except for the modification of interest, appeal was dismissed.

1991  CLC  1374   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

ABDUL RAZAQ VS MUHAMMAD ISHAQ

Arbitration Act 1940 S.17 — Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199 — Judgment in terms of award— Validity — Petitioners claimed that due to their arrest in criminal cases they could not appear before Authority and thus were proceeded against ex parte and that such proceedings were liable to be set aside — Contesting respondent in his written statement had stated that appropriate remedy would be to remand the case for decision afresh —- Judgment in terms of award was declared to have been passed without lawful authority and of no legal effect — Case was remanded to Authority for decision afresh after hearing parties.

1991  CLC  842   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

IMAM BAKHSH VS ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

Ss. 14 & 17 — Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199—Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of — During pendency of application for making award rule of Court, application moved by respondent for sending thumb-impressions of marginal witnesses of arbitration agreement and award to Finger Print Expert for comparison and report, was accepted by Trial Court and order of Court was upheld in appeal — Concurrent orders of Courts below based on cogent reasons, could not be interfered with in Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court when discretion exercised by Courts below was neither arbitrary nor violative of any provisions of law.

1991  PLD  377   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

ZAFARUL ISLAM VS AZRA MALIK

Ss.17, 30 & 33???Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.12(2)???Award becoming rule of Court???Plea of fraud, misrepresentation and want of jurisdiction??Competency and scope of application under provision of S.12(2), Civil Procedure Code, 1908???Award could be challenged under Ss.30 & 33, Arbitration Act, 1940, among others on grounds of fraud, misrepresentation and want of jurisdiction, which grounds could not be re?agitated after passing of decree???Events stemming in between, dates of award and its becoming rule of Court, could however, furnish.

1991  MLD  1438   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

FAKIR MUHAMMAD BEHLIM  VS EXXON CHEMICALS PAK. LTD.

Arbitration Act 1940 —-Ss. 14, 17, 18 & 30—Award—Objections to—Order referring matter to arbitrator under. agreement between parties, was not challenged by plaintiff/appellant, but had nominated his arbitrator and subsequently had been participating in arbitration proceedings throughout—Appellant had thus waived his right of raising any objection thereto and was estopped from raising such objection.

1990  SCMR  1038   SUPREME-COURT

MERAJ DIN VS MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE KHAN

—-Ss. 186 & 187—Arbitration Act (X of 1940), Ss. 17 & 30—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), .Art. 185(3)—Plaintiffs’predecessor-in-interest having appointed defendant as his attorney, the latter alienated property in question on basis of that agency

1990  CLC  293   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

NADIR KHAN VS ZEENAT BIBI

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

1989  SCMR  1407   SUPREME-COURT

FINE ELECTRIC CORPORATION  VS PROVINCE OF PUNJAB

—S.17–Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185–Award made rule of Court by Trial Court–High Court in appeal reversed the order with direction to Trial Court to dispose of objections to the award filed by respondent–Appellant’s contentions which were

1989  MLD  1277   SUPREME-COURT-INDIA

BAKHTAWAR SINGH BALKRISHAN  VS UNION OF INDIA

—S.20–Arbitration Act (X of 1940), Ss.l4 & 17–Institution of suit–Military contract entered into in U.P.-Work executed in U.P.–Award passed by Arbitrator–Proceedings instituted in Delhi High Court for making award a rule of Court–Held Delhi High C

1989  PLD  1   QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

TARIQ FAROOQ VS NASRUDDI

S.17??Judgment in terms of award??Requirements??Decree in terms of award could be passed only when Court finds no cause to remit the award??Before making award rule of the Court, it would be obligatory to examine basic and inherent infirmities of award apparent on record and after satisfying itself about its legality and propriety to pass final order.

1989  PLD  485   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MUHAMMAD YOUSAF VS NAZIR AHMAD

Ss. 14, 17, 33 & 39??Sole arbitrator’s award filed in Court?Petitioners’ objection applications to such award having been dismissed, award was made rule of Court??Two appeals were filed against making award rule of Court??One appeal was dismissed on the ground that the appellants had not filed any application under S.33 of Arbitration Act and that they were thus precluded from filing such appeal against the ‘order’ and ‘decree’??

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  241   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

RAFAQAT ALI  VS MUBARAK ALI

Arbitration Act 1940 —S.17–Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 158–Making award rule of Court-Limitation–Application opposing arbitrators move for getting award made rule of Court was filed by objector within one month from date of restoration of arbitrators’ application which was dismissed about one month prior to its restoration–Excluding time between dismissal and restoration of application of arbitrators’ application of objectors, held, would be taken to be within time.

1989  MLD  54   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE  VS MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH

Arbitration Act 1940 —Ss. 17 & 39–Order refusing to set aside award–Appeal against–Affixation of court-fee–No appeal being competent against decree passed on judgment pronounced on award, except on ground that it was in excess of or not otherwise in accordance with award–Appeal filed against rejection of objections against award and refusal of prayer for setting aside award was an appeal against order-Court-fee on such appeal, held, was not to be affixed according to amount granted in award which was made rule of Court.

1989  MLD  2010   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

MUHAMMAD YASIN  VS MUHAMMAD FAROOQ

Arbitration Act 1940 —Ss.17 & 31–Jurisdiction of Court to deal with award–Where award was once filed in Court to be made rule of Court, it would be duty of Court to deal with it and Court would not be precluded from dealing with such award under provisions of S.17 of Arbitration Act, 1940.

1988  CLC  1805   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

PROVINCE OF PUNJAB VS SHEIKH MIR HASSAN-HAJI MARDAN KHAN

Arbitration Act 1940 S. 17—Award made rule of Court??Appeal??Misconduct of arbitrator alleged in appeal??Proof??Evidence produced by appellant supported case of respondent, stating therein that arbitrator heard the case properly, gave parties full opportunity to produce evidence and inspected the spot??Arbitrator himself in his evidence before Court made it clear that he gave full opportunity to parties to adduce evidence and that he inspected the spot in their presence-Evidence on record clearly proved that arbitrator made the award after conducting proceedings in a proper and just manner??Held, arbitrator being nominee of parties would be a sole Judge or the questions referred to him and those questions which arose during proceedings? .Arbitrator appointed by parties was a sole Judge of questions of fact and also of questions of law??Appeal against judgment making award rule of Court being incompetent would not be maintainable

1988  CLC  1872   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

ELITE BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS (PRIVATE) LTD. VS ABDUL MAJEED

Arbitration Act 1940 —S. 17–Award, objection to–Where award in a dispute between shareholders of a company was made rule of Court, private limited company, held, would have no locus standi to file any objection to such award.

1988  CLC  1709   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS CORPORATION LTD. VS PROGRESSIVE ENGINEERS ALLIANCE LTD.

1. 3–Arbitration Act (X of 1940), S.17–Award made rule of Court–Arithmetical error committed by arbitrator in award–Effect-Where Arbitrator had committed arithmetical error by awarding amount of retention money separately in addition to the total figure arrived at by him, Division Bench of High Court (Appellate Court), for ends of justice, remanded case to Single Judge (Original Jurisdiction) to rehear the same permitting parties to refer to arbitration record.

1988  CLC  1174   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

NASIRA SULTANA VS MANZOOR AHMED RAWAL

Arbitration Act 1940 —S.17–Making award rule of Court–Objections to–Award given by sole Arbitrator was made rule of Court by Single Judge of High Court on the date when appellant /objector and her counsel failed to appear in Court without showing any reason for such nonappearance–Division Bench, however, keeping in view the big amount involved in award, gave opportutnity in interest of justice to appellant to argue her objections before Single Judge subject to payment of heavy costs.

1988  CLC  564   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

ELITE BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS LTD. VS NOORUDDIN MOOSA HEMANI

Arbitration Act 1940 —S.17–Objections to award not made within stipulated time-Subsequent objection, after award was made rule of Court, held, was not sustainable on ground of being time-barred especially where such objection had already been repelled by larger Bench of the Court in previous litigation.

1988  CLC  430   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

ORIENT BUILDERS VS CHIEF ENGINEER HIGHWAYS

—Ss. 14 & 17–Award–Award filed by arbitrator in Court–Findings of arbitrator on all claims of plaintiffs, excepting one, based on evidence led before him by respective parties–High Court accepting and declaring award as valid and making same as rule

1987  SCMR  1391   SUPREME-COURT

PROVINCE OF PUNJAB  VS BASHIR AHMAD

—Ss.14 & 17–Arbitration (Amendment) Ordinance (XV of 1981), S.3 (1)–Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)–Arbitration awards–Belated objections rejected on ground of limitation–Plea that Arbitrator not having; given reasons in support of his

1987  PLD  33   QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

PROVINCE OF BALUCHISTAN VS MUHAMMAD USMAN KHAN

1. 17-Judgment in terms of award-Effect-Where Court found no reason to remit award submitted to it for making rule of Court, or in absence or application to set aside such award or if such application had been refused, such Court, held, would give judgment according to award-Such judgment. however, would be followed by a decree.

1987  CLC  50   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

MUGHAL BAZ VS N.W.F.P.

Arbitration Act 1940 —S. 17–Cross-objections, validity of–Cross-objections against award relating to points not covered by S.17 of Arbitration Act, held, could not be urged and would be deemed without substance.

1987  CLC  651   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

PROVINCE OF PUNJAB VS BASHIR AHMAD

Arbitration Act 1940 S. 17–Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115–Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 3 & Art. 158–Filing objections to award–Limitation for–Duty of Court–Bounden duty of Court is to see suo motu, if objections to award had been filed by opposing party in time and to see that nothing beyond prescribed limitation period was brought before it–Objections to award, filed in Court by opposing party beyond period of 30 days prescribed under Art.158 of Limitation Act 1908, held, could not be entertained–Courts below rightly overruled objections–Order of Court to make award rule of Court was unexceptionable and could not be set aside in revisional jurisdiction.

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  923   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

HABIB & SONS LTD.  VS CHIRAGH DIN

Arbitration Act 1940 —S.17–Arbitration–Award–Territorial jurisdiction of civil Court at V to, entertain petition and to make award rule of Court-Arbitration agreement to refer to Arbitrator executed at K Arbitration proceedings conducted at K and appellants-defendants carrying on business at K-No cause of action wholly or partly, held, having arisen at civil Court at V, held, had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain petition and make award rule of Court.

1986  CLC  1999   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

TRADING CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN LTD VS GENERAL INDUSTRIAL MACHINES

Ss. 39 & 17–Scopes of Ss.39 & 17 are quite different and in any case S.17 does not take away right of appeal given against order refusing to set aside award.

1986  PLD  21   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

HASSAN BROTHERS & C VS MAQBOOL COTTON GINNING AND PRESSING FACTORY

Ss. 17 & 30?Objection to award?Arbitrator awarding future interest from date of award till date of payment?Validity of?Such objection being legal objection to award though not taken in main objections to award, High Court, held, could entertain such objection as error was apparent on face of the award.?[Award].

1986  MLD  1   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

RICE EXPORT CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN  VS M. A. AGENCIES

—Ss. 14(2) & 17–Sind Chief Court Rules (O.S.), R. 282(1)–Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 47–Filing of award in Court–Prayer to make Award rule of Court not objected to by parties within time allowed by law–Decree passed by Court in terms of Aw

1986  CLC  254   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

MUHAMMAD SALEEM BUTT VS TRADING CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN KARACHI

Arbitration Act 1940 —Ss. 17 & 29–Interest on awarded amount–Arbitrator, held, could award interest only up-to-date of decree–Court however, held, had jurisdiction to award interest after date of decree–Awarding of interest after date of decree by arbitrator could be separated and such error could be corrected–Award modified and made rule of Court accordingly in circumstances.

1985  SCMR  1215   SUPREME-COURT

PROVINCE OF PUNJAB  VS MUHAMMAD SALEEM

—Art. 185(3)–Arbitration Act (X of 1940), S. 17–Award made rule of Court–Plea that Arbitrator had misconducted himself not sustained as no case of misconduct was made out–Award, held, not liable to interference by Court–No question of law requiring

1984  CLC  2375   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MUHAMMAD LQBAL VS RIAZ SABIR

— S. 17-Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 158-Making award rule of Court-Application for setting aside award not made within period specified by Alt. 158-Application if made refused, Court, held, could proceed to announce judgment in terms of award-Appli

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  3023   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

ABDUL UHAFFAR VS MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN

—O. XLIII, r. 1 & O. IX, r. 13-Arbitration Act (X of 1940), Ss. 17 & 39(vi)-Contention that order under O. IX, r. 13, C.P.C. came to be passed in arbitration proceedings and decree was passed in terms of award as such S. 17 was a bar to any challenge to

1983  SCMR  718   SUPREME-COURT

LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY  VS KHALID JAVED CO.

— Ss. 14, .17 & 20-Arbitration award-Contracts entered into by Government Departments and on their behest clause inserted therein for decision of disputes arising there from through arbitration rather than by ordinary courts usually stipulate that arbitr

1983  SCMR  716   SUPREME-COURT

ABDUL WARIS  VS JAVED HANIF

— Art. 185 (3) read with Arbitration Act (X of 1940), Ss. 14, 17 & 20-Arbitration award-Arbitration sought by parties on basis of written agreement and award filed in Court-Objection to award not filed by petitioner within prescribed period and award mad

1983  CLC  1792   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

WAPDA  VS MUHAMMAD ABDUL HAQ KHAN KHATAK & CO .

Ss. 14 & 17-Application for objection-Application filed by person having regular power of attorney duly executed by partners of respondent firm in his favour authorising him to act on behalf of partners of firm-Objection as to his authority to file application not raised throughout proceedings before trial Court-No such objection, held, could be taken at appellate stage when there is no denial of fact that power of attorney was executed by partner of firm.

1983  CLC  926   SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR

AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR VS GHULAM RASUL LONE

Ss. 17 & 39-Appeal-Arbitrator-Composite order refusing to set aside award and pronouncing judgment, held, would not take away right to challenge validity of award on ground of misconduct of arbitrator.-[Arbitrator].

1982  CLC  2393   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

APOLLO TEXTILE MILLS LTD.  VS MUGHAL LTD.

Ss. 17 & 39 (1) (vi) read with Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), Sched.II. Art. 11-Court-fee-Jurisdictional value-Appeal filed not under S. 17 of Act X of 1940 against decree but under S. 39 (1) (vi) against composite order dealing with objections filed by both parties against award-Court-fee as such would be as provided under Art. 11 of Sched. II of Act VII of 1870 and jurisdictional value would be same as mentioned in suit-Appeal against setting aside of award, held, lies before District Judge according to jurisdictional value.-[Jurisdiction].

1982  CLC  750   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

PAKISTAN REFINERY LTD., KARACHI  VS INDUS SHIPPING AND TRADING CO. LTD. KARACHI

_.– S. 17, Sched. I, r. 5 -Umpire, duty of-Umpire to use all reasonable dispatch in entering on and proceeding with reference and making award-Umpire acting in such manner cannot be held to have shown interest in matter in absence of any proof.

1980  CLC  1577   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MUHAMMAD KHAN VS SHOBRA HOTEL LAHORE LTD.

— S. 17 and Registration Act (XVI of 1908), S. 17(l)(e)-Award- Objection as to non-registration-Award not registered and made rule of Court-Suit for perpetual injunction maintainable if terms of award as incorporated in decree violated and same could not

1980  CLC  967   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

HASHMAT BIBI VS MUHAMMAD RAFI

— Ss. 14, 17, 21, 25 & 47, proviso-Compromise-Compliance with provisions of Ss. 21 to 25-Necessary for decision of suit through arbitration-Reference to arbitration and award procured in a pending suit without intervention of Court-Nullity-Such award can

1980  CLC  553   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MASUD-UL-HAQ VS FATEH MUHAMMAD

— Ss. 17 & .39(1)(vi)-Award-Appeal-Trial Court passing composite order refusing to set aside award as well as pronouncing judgment making award rule of Court-Such order, held, appealable.-[Award Appeal (civil)].

1979  CLC  95   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MUHAMMAD RAMZAN VS NAZIR AHMAD

1. 35-Agreement of Association-Agreement not showing presentation or admission of same by petitioner, before Settlement Authorities nor satisfaction of Authorities about its genuineness appearing-Mere filing of agreement not sufficient-Dispute about execution-Satisfaction of Settlement Authorities before acceptance necessary-Such steps not taken and petitioner. disowning agreement- Agreement, held, not enforceable.

1979  CLC  685   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

ZAMAN TEXTILE MILLS LTD., KARACHI VS MESSRS ANWAR & CO.,KARACHI

1. 30 read with S. 17-Objection to award-Application for setting aside award pending and entertainable upon furnishing security on re-opening of Court after vacations, and meanwhile second proviso to S. 30 preventing such application from being entertained omitted by Legislature – Defendants having right on re-opening of Court to be heard in support of their objections, award could not automatically become rule of Court –~-Section 30 being remedial enactment, had to be construed so as to advance reedy and prevent ends of justice from being defeated-Held, order for automatic confirmation of award did not come into operation on account of amendment of law and by removal of embargo application for setting aside could be entertained in circumstances of case.-[Award].

1978  PLD  1253   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MALIK UMAR HAYAT TIWANA VS MALKANI SAHIBZADI TIWANA

Ss. 17 & 32-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, r. 11–Civil suit-Bar to-Fraud vitiates all proceedings and if proved renders decree null and void-Decree passed as a result of proceedings under Arbitration Act, 1940-Not immune from challenge in civil Court if challenged on ground of fraud-Civil suit, in circumstances, held, competent and mere fact of decree purporting to follow award does not attract provisions of S. 32 so as to bar suit and plaint not liable to be rejected under O. VII, r. II on ground of any legal bar.-[Fraud-Civil suit].

1978  PLD  205   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

YOUSAF AZIZ VS AQEELA BEGUM

S.96 read with S. 47 and Arbitration Act (X of 1940), Ss. 17 & 39?Executing Court cannot go behind decree to examine validity or inexecutability of decree?Arbitration award made rule of Court with consent of parties and order riot challenged by appeal under S. 39. Arbitration Act?No appeal lies from such decree except on ground that it is in excess of, or not otherwise in accordance with, award.?[Appeal (civil)].

1973  PLD  413   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

MESSRS HUSSAIN TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED, KARACHI VS MESSRS DADA SONS LIMITED, KARACHI

Ss. 17 & 33 read with Limitation Act (IX of 1908). Art. 158—Award, objection to -Rights and liabilities of parties already determined and award remitted to umpire merely to work out compensation—Party complaining making no protest at hearing before umpire—Award being otherwise valid, held, could not be interfered with or reviewed– Application under Ss. 17 & 33 having been filed after 30 days of service of notice of earlier award, held, time-barred and rightly dismissed.

1972  PLD  265   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

MESSRS ALPHA INSURANCE CO. LTD. KARACHI AND ANOTHER VS MESSRS M. A. NAWAZ & CO.

Arbitration Act 1940 S. 17-Insurance policy against fire loss-Clause in insurance policy providing that dispute arising between parties relating to amount of any loss or damage should be referred to arbitration and that no action could be taken or suit filed without first obtaining award of such amount of loss or damage – Arbitration – Umpire in giving award confining himself to determining quantum of loss incurred but otherwise expressly refraining from determining liability to pay the loss-Award made rule of Court but Judge inserting in decree “that the defendants do pay to the plaintiff Rs. 3,61,290” and thus fixing liability as well-Held, there being no intention of parties to arbitration to get the liability determined, the determination of liability in the decree was outside the scope and in excess of the award and not enforceable within framework of Arbitration Act, 1940.

1972  PLD  70   SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR

AZAD JAMMU & KASHMIR GOVERNMENT VS BRIG. MUHAMMAD ASLAM KHAN

Ss. 14, 17 & 20—Award not made a rule of Court—Held, would not operate to create any right, title or interest in property subject-matter of award.

1969  SCMR  196   SUPREME-COURT

JUMMA  VS WEST PAKISTAN LAND COMMISSIONER

–Ss. 14 & 17-Award given by arbitrators filed in Court-Pending proceedings parties filing compromise deed and Court passing decree on basis of compromise without any reference to award-Questions : (i) whether decree made on compromise invalid, (ii) wheth

1969  PLD  203   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

KHAWAR ALI SHAH VS SYED MURTAZA SHAH, SUB-INSPECTOR, POLICE

S.115 & O. XLI, r. 22IRevision against appealable decree-Not competent remedy by appeal exhausted-Civil Judge passing decree in terms of arbitrator’s award-Petitioner failing either to appeal to District Judge under section 17 or 39 (1) (vi), Arbitration Act, 1940 or to file cross-objection challenging such decree in appeal filed by plaintiff-decree-holder challenging such decree in matter of costs-Revision petition filed under S. 115, C. P. C., held, not competent-Arbitration Act (X of 1940), Ss. 17 & 39(1)(vi).

1967  PLD  508   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

1. MUHAMMAD YOUSUF VS KH. ABDUR RASHID AND OTHERS

Arbitration Act 1940 —— Ss. 14, 17 & 30-Ae-ard based on compromise arrived at between parties-Valid. Where grievance was made that the arbitrator himself did not give an award but by his award gave effect to what was agreed upon between the parties themselves and so it was bad:

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.

1964  PLD  66   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

ABDUL QAYUM KHAN VS M. A. QUDUS KHAN

Ss. 14(2) & 17-S. 14(2) applies only where arbitrator called upon to file award-Provision whether applicable where party suo motu files award-Doubtful—Filing of award by party-Does not deprive Court of jurisdiction under S. 17.

1964  PLD  166   DHAKA-HIGH-COURT

ABDUL KHALEQ VS PROVINCE OF EAST PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER

Ss. 9 (b) & 17-Party appointing sole arbitrator without prior notice to other party-Proceedings by such arbitrator held without jurisdiction and void-Court, bound under S. 17, to see suo moto whether award is legal before giving effect to it.

1962  PLD  386   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

PROVINCE OF WEST PAKISTAN VS MESSRS FAKIR SPINNING MILLS LTD. AND ANOTHER

Arbitration Act 1940  Ss. 14, 17 & 33-Validity of award can be challenged even though award not filed in Court.

1960  PLD  601   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

1. MAHBOOB ALAM VS SH. MUMTAZ AHMAD

Arbitration Act 1940 —-S. 17-Court can deliver judge ment even if notice of filing of award has not been served.

1959  PLD  146   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MRS. KEAYS BYRNE VS M. OBAIDULLAH KHAN

Arbitration Act 1940 Ss. 14 (2), 17, 38-Party may file award and a decree may follow on it under S. 17-S. 14 not the only provision under which award may be filed to make it rule of Court-Rules framed by Lahore High Court under S. 44, Arbitration Act, r. 10-Intra-vires.

1956  PLD  494   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

BALAWAL KHAN  VS MUHAMMAD ALAM KHAN

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.

1953  PLD  59   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

SAYED HUSSAIN SHAH VS HAJI GHULAM HASSAN KHAN

Arbitration Act 1940 Ss. 17, 39-Court should record a distinct order either setting aside or refusing to set aside. an award before proceeding to pass decree in accordance with award.

1952  PLD  30   BAGHDAD-UL-JADID

HAJI SARDAR ALI VS GHULAM MUHAMMAD

——– O. XLI, r. 25-One of two issues referred to arbitration.-Decree according to award –Other issue also material-No finding on that issue-Remand -Appeal whether incompetent-Arbitration Act (X of 1940), S. 17.