Section 19 : Power to supersede arbitration when award becomes void or is set aside
2017 PLD 497 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
NASIM AHMED VANA VS State
Chap. II, Ss. 3 to 19 & Chap. III, S.20—Reference to arbitration—Principle—Bar exists on invoking provisions of S.20 (Chap.III) of the Arbitration Act, 1940, when parties to arbitration agreement have invoked provisions of Chap. II (Ss. 3 to 19) of Arbitration Act, 1940.
2017 PLD 497 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
NASIM AHMED VANA VS State
Ss. 3 to 20 & 37(4)—Arbitration—Agreement fixed by time—Plaintiffs contended that parties had arbitration agreement between them and the matter be sent to arbitrator for decision—Validity—Agreement fixing time during which reference could be made to arbitration was impliedly considered valid by S.37(4) of Arbitration Act, 1940, which vested Court power to extend such time when it was of the view that some undue hardship was likely to be caused to parties by not extending same—Where agreement itself could not be acted upon having become inoperative due to invalidity, the Court was not entitled to appoint arbitrator of its own choice and substitute original agreement of parties—High Court declined to extend validity of arbitration agreement under S.37(4) of Arbitration Act, 1940, as circumstances did not warrant to do so nor any undue hardship would be caused to parties to arbitration agreement, who were pursuing their remedies in parallel legal proceedings which were more effective and expeditious—Suit was dismissed in circumstances.
2016 MLD 1157 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
HASSAN BAKHSH VS SULTAN
Ss. 19,20 & 21—-Parties to suit may apply for order of reference—Appointment of arbitrator—Order of reference—Arbitration is a bilateral arrangement for investigation and determination of a dispute or disputes between parties by one or more persons chosen by them, while avoiding the ordinary procedure for resolution of dispute—Arbitral tribunal derives jurisdiction either from arbitration agreement or reference transmitted to him with consent of litigating parties—Proceedings before arbitral tribunal are although not to be regulated in accordance with general principles provided under C.P.C., but such tribunal cannot be absolved from its liability to decide dispute in a just and fair manner.
2015 MLD 1332 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
CHIEF ENGINEER, BUILDING AND ROAD DEPARTMENT, QUETTA VS UMAR KHAN
Ss.19, 31 (4) & 39—Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.5—High Court appeal—Award making rule of the Court—Condonation of delay—Principle—Matter between the parties was referred to sole arbitrator and Trial Court made the award as rule of Court—Appeal filed by authorities was barred by limitation and application for condonation of delay was filed—Validity—To seek concession of condonation and discretion of High Court in such behalf, appellant was duty-bound to explain delay of each and every day—Only explanation given by appellant was that matter was reserved for judgment by Judge in Chambers of High Court when no order was passed or announced in presence of law officer—Later on when law officer came to know that order had been passed, he applied for certified copy and filed appeal along with his personal affidavit stating therein that order in question was not passed in his presence—High Court had inherent power to exercise its discretion for condoning the delay, provided merits of the case so demanded—Delay could be condoned only when sufficient and strong cause was shown to the Court explaining delay of each and every day—For exercising such discretion, the Court was required to look into the facts and circumstances of each case, which could vary in each case—Government and public functionaries/agencies were not entitled to any preferential treatment in the matter of condonation of delay and they were to be treated on equal footing with ordinary litigant—With passage of time, valuable rights accrued in favour of opposite party should not be disturbed and destroyed—High Court declined to condone the delay caused in filing of appeal—Intra court appeal was dismissed in circumstances.
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 MLD 667 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD GULZAR VS Rana ABDUL JABBAR
—-Ss.14, 19, 26-A & 37(5)—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.9–Remitting of award to arbitrator—Failure to state reasons by arbitrator in award—Death of arbitrator—Condonation of delay—Basic material for award was not submitted for scrutiny
1997 MLD 2419 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
AMANULLAH KHAN VS KOHAT CEMENT CO.
Arbitration Act 1940 —-S.19—Setting aside of award by Court—Circumstances whereunder arbitration agreement would be set aside by Court—Court would have discretion to specifically order after setting aside of award as to whether arbitration agreement would cease to exist or not—Court, however, must order supersession of arbitration agreement where arbitration agreement would itself contemplate that on particular contingency same would come to an end; on account of death or non-availability of arbitrator (who was chosen on account of his special knowledge) or non-availability of arbitrator it had become difficult to .refer matter back to that particular person; where arbitration agreement was found to be tainted with fraud, coercion, undue influence or its terms being unconscionable, against law or public policy; and where Court considered that dispute was dependent on intricate questions of law which could more authoritatively be decided by Court rather than by arbitrator.
1997 CLC 243 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD FAZIL VS ABDUL QADIR
Ss.30, 33, 5 & 19—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XLIII, R.3–Arbitration proceedings—Rolling back of arbitration proceedings by compromise—Validity—Reference to arbitration was always made through compromise—Arbitration proceedings having once commenced could not be rolled back by superimposing another: compromise and that too, without revoking authority of arbitrators—Scheme of Arbitration Act, 1940 indicated that once award was made, same could be set aside only by determining objection petition in terms of Ss.30 & 33 of the Act or by superseding reference or by revoking authority of arbitrator or when proceedings become void under S.19 of the Act—Any other mode of decision could not be adopted unless authority of arbitrator had been revoked by Court—Judgment and decree of Trial Court on basis of statement of oath of party suffered from vitiative infirmity, therefore, was set aside—Case was remanded to Trial Court for decision in accordance with law.
1988 MLD 1351 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Messrs ELECTRIC & RADIO CORPORATION VS PAKISTAN STEEL
Arbitration Act 1940 —Ss.19 & 20–Reference to arbitrator–Suit by plaintiff against such reference on ground that claims being referred to arbitrator were barred by time–Nothing was on record to substantiate that such claims were barred by time–Defendant, hid, could raise such plea before arbitrator who would consider and adjudicate upon the same.
1983 CLC 1685 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
- A. JALIL VS SALAH-UD-DIN KHAN
- 115-Arbitration Act (X of 1940), Ss. 19 & 14-Objection that award submitted can at_ best be treated as award of one arbitrator, as other two arbitrators gave their decisions separately and have seriously differed with each other not gone into by Courts below Question whether in fact parties had named two persons as arbitrators or three not determined by Court below despite there was neither arbitration clause in contract indicating appointment of three arbitrators nor there was any document of referenceStatement of respondent not recorded which might have indicated as to how reference was made to three arbitrators-One arbitrator not joining other arbitrators in making award while second arbitrator not expressing agreement with all findings given by third
1982 PLD 414 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MEHAR COTTON FACTORY, RAHIMYARKHAN VS ABDUL SHAKOOR & BROTHERS KARACHI
- 19 read with Karachi Cotton Association Limited Bye Laws 39?I, 39=II, 157 & 159?Factory selection contract ? Arbitration award, setting aside of?Appellants admittedly refusing to appoint their Arbitrators, respondents consequently appointing arbitrators on behalf of appellants?Bye?Law 39?11 of Association providing appointment of two arbitrators from panels of sellers and buyers of Cotton by Association and not by parties themselves fact of respondents having invoked Bye?Law 39?I instead of 39?II in a case of factory selection contract, held,
1966 PLD 412 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
SHAIKH MUHAMMAD SADIQ MUHAMMAD AFZAL VS MINISTRY OF INDUSTRIES, DEPARTMENT OF SUPPLY AND DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, KARACHI
Arbitration Act 1940 -Ss. 19, 30 & 33-Objection to award on ground of “error of law apparent on face of record “Court whether and when competent to set aside award-Expression “error of law apparent on face of award”-Meaning.
1965 PLD 505 SUPREME-COURT
- COMPANY VS S. MAULA BUKHSH MUHAMMAD BASHIR
Arbitration Act 1940 S. 19-Court while setting aside award not indicating that it had thereby superseded reference Averment to arbitration, held, was not superseded.
1954 PLD 58 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
NAWAB DIN VS ABDUR RASHID
Arbitration Act 1940 Arbitration Act (X of 1940), Ss. 16 & 19-Award set aside by Court-Arbitrator could not give second award-Court has, however, power to ask arbitrator to give award a fresh.
1949 PLD 278 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
SARDAR ABDUL HALIM KHAN VS CHAIRMAN, LAHORE IMPROVEMENT TRUST
Arbitration Act 1940 (a) Arbitration Act (X of 1940), Ss. 19 and 20-Under terms of contract, a dispute was required to be referred to the arbitration of a certain person-Application under section 20 filed in civil suit-Matter referred to the arbitrator-Award made after four months-Award filed in Court, but set aside for not having been made within time-Court can supersede reference and direct that Arbitration agreement shall cease to have effect.