Section 2 : Definitions
2003 YLR 1696 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
NATIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES PAKISTAN (PVT.) LTD VS STEEL MILL CORPORATION
—-S. 2(a)— “Arbitration agreement “–ÂDefinition—Definition as given in S. 2(a) of the Act postulates submission of present or future differences—Plural use of difference clearly indicates that there can be more than one differences that may aris
2003 YLR 1109 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Mrs. YASMEEN VS Messrs BEACH DEVELOPERS
—-S. 2(a)—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss. 2(e), 11, 14 & 29—Arbitration agreement- Essentials— Arbitration agreement or an arbitration clause in an agreement was like an agreement between parties, which required that same should be executed with co
2002 SCMR 1903 SUPREME-COURT
Messrs TRIBAL FRIENDS CO. VS PROVINCE OF BALOCHISTAN
Arbitration Act 1940 —-S.2(a)—Arbitration agreement—Essentials—Such agreement should be in writing and need not to be signed by both the parties—If intention to refer the dispute to arbitration is manifest from the documents, then that amounts to an arbitration agreement.
2002 SCMR 1694 SUPREME-COURT
SOCIETE GENERALE DE SURVEILLANCE S.A. VS PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Finance Revenue Division, Islamabad
Arbitration Act 1940 —-S. 2(a)—Arbitration agreement with a foreign company—Governing law— Principles—Seat of the arbitration being Islamabad (Pakistan) and part performance of the obligations of agreement was also to be made in the territory of Pakistan and the agreement having been executed in Pakistan, such factors were sufficient to determine that the parties intended that the governing law of the arbitration would be the law of Pakistan.
2002 YLR 2830 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
PAKISTAN VS Mrs. GULNAR SHER MUHAMMAD
—-O. VII, R.2—Arbitration Act (X of 1940), Ss. 2(a) (b), 8, 14 & 24—Suit for recovery of amount—Referring matter to referee–“Arbitrator” and “referee “—Distinction–Parties, during pendency of suit agreed to refer the matter to a referee and ma
2002 CLD 1191 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MEREDITH JONES & CO. LTD. VS QUETTA TEXTILE MILLS LTD
—-Ss. 2. 5 & 7—Arbitration Act (X of 1940). S.2(a)–Arbitration agreement—Enforcement o/’foreign award—Not necessary that an agreement containing arbitration clause should be signed by parties: it was sufficient if terms were recorded in writing a
2002 PLD 427 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Maj. (Retd.) HUMAYUN AKHTAR VS PAKISTAN DEFENCE OFFICERS HOUSING AUTHORITY
Arbitration Act 1940 —-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 not a decree of the Court within the meaning of S.2(2), C.P.C.—Award fell within the meaning of S.2(b) of the Arbitration. Act, 1940, and had to be construed as such—Sole arbitrator having filed the award for making the same rule of the Court, decree of Court as delivered under S.2(2), C.P.C. would only follow after the award was made rule of the Court—Mere use of the word “decree”, stood for the extent of claim allowed in the award and the same would not render the award illegal.
2002 YLR 1494 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
- IFTIKHAR & COMPANY (PVT.) LTD. VS PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS LTD.
—-Ss. 13, 8, 20, 23 & 2(a)—Jurisdiction of Arbitrator—Scope—Arbitrator has to act within the jurisdiction, scope of reference and arbitration agreement.
2002 CLC 1880 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
HANOVER CONTRACTORS VS PAKISTAN DEFENCE OFFICERS HOUSING AUTHORITY
Arbitration Act 1940 —-Ss. 2(a), 33 & 34—Arbitration agreement—Conditions mentioned in the agreement— Stay of proceedings before Civil Court—Contract of construction was awarded by defendants to the plaintiffs—Dispute arose between the parties regarding the contract and the matter was referred to the consultant as it was settled between the parties in the agreement–Consultant gave a decision in favour of the plaintiffs which was not challenged in the time period mentioned hr the agreement—Plaintiffs filed suit for recovery of their amount and filed application under S.33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, while the defendants sought stay of proceedings under S.34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, and wanted to invoke the arbitration clause mentioned in the agreement—Documents were prepared by the defendants and they themselves incorporated the condition of prior reference of the claim to the consultant and agreed to treat the decision as final in case it was not challenged within a period of 28 days—Effect—Where there was a pre-condition contained in the arbitration clause, the same was binding upon the parties—Parties were not allowed to turn around and disown the conditions laid down by them which had been-relied and acted upon—High Court declined to allow invoking of arbitration clause in circumstances—Both the applications filed by the parties were dismissed.
2001 PLD 239 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
SHAN MUHAMMAD VS NAWAB AND 3 OTHERS
Arbitration Act 1940 —-S. 2(a)—Arbitration agreement—Meaning—Arbitration agreement is written agreement to submit present or future differences to arbitration whether an arbitrator is named therein or not —Tehkeemnama is a arbitration. agreement within the meaning of the Arbitration Act, 1940 as the main ingredients in this behalf are that the agreement should be for this purpose of having present or future differences determined—Neither in the Arbitration Act, 1940 nor .in the Civil -Procedure Code, 1908 any format of the agreement for arbitration has been given—In order, to constitute an arbitration agreement, the same need not be formal in nature.
2001 CLC 702 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD AZAM VS TARIQ TRANSPORT COMPANY LTD., HEAD OFFICE THE MALL, LAHORE
Arbitration Act 1940 Ss. 2(c), 14, 20, 31 & 33—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Ss. 12(2) & 6—Making award rule of Court—Objection to—Jurisdiction of Court–Award, the value of which was Rs.30,000 was made rule of Court by Civil Judge 1st Class—Decree of award was objected to in application filed under S.12(2), C.P.C. and Ss.20 & 33 of Arbitration Act, 1940, alleging that same was a result of fraud and misrepresentation—Application was accepted by Civil Judge 3rd Class who had pecuniary limitation up to Rs.25,000–Validity—Held, since the value of the subject-matter of the reference, the award and the decree passed by Civil Judge 1st Class was beyond the pecuniary limits of Civil Judge 3rd Class, he lacked jurisdiction in the matter and could not decide the application as expression “Court” used in S.12(2), C.P.C. had to be construed as a Court having jurisdiction in the matter.
2001 YLR 758 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
ABDUL SATTAR MANDOKHAL VS PORT QASIM AUTHORITY
Arbitration Act 1940 —-S. 2(a)—Word ‘differences’ occurring in S. 2(a), Arbitration Act, 1940—Object and scope—Definition of arbitration agreement under S.2(a) of Arbitration Act, 1940, postulates submission of present or future differences to arbitration—Plural use of “difference” indicates that there can be more than one differences that may arise and if such is the case then each may be subjectmatter of separate reference which would, however, depend on the nature of the contract.
2000 CLC 27 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
INAYAT ALI VS DIWAN ALI
Ss. 2(a), 11 & 39—Agreement to appoint Referee—Revocation of appointment—Rejection of application —Appeal– -of amount, agreed to appoint Referee to decide the matter—Appellant/borrower filed application for revocation of appointment of Referee alleging that he had lost confidence in him as he was acting in a partisan manner—Said application was rejected on sole ground that one could not be allowed to approbate and reprobate—Validity—Decision to be bound by the statement of a Referee, was outcome of a contract and parties were at liberty to revoke it before it was acted upon—Appellant had applied for revocation of appointment of Referee before recording statement of Referee—Contention of respondent that once appellant had agreed to be bound by the decision/statement of Referee, he was bound by his own word and could not be allowed to retract, had no significance in circumstances as statement of Referee had not been recorded, before filing application for revocation of his appointment.
1999 YLR 978 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
ZIAUDDIN VS ROZE-UD-DIN
Arbitration Act 1940 —-S. 2— “Award “—Meaning—Award contemplated under Arbitration Act, 1940 is an award which is given following an arbitration—Where a decision or an award is given following certain negotiations or mediation and consultation then the same will not be an award under the provisions of Arbitration Act, 1940.
1998 SCMR 1618 SUPREME-COURT
HITACHI LIMITED VS RUPALI POLYESTER
Arbitration Act 1940 —S. 2(c)—Court, jurisdiction of—Same Court will have jurisdiction in respect of arbitration matter, which would have jurisdiction if the matter would not have been covered by the arbitration agreement. —[Jurisdiction].
1998 SCMR 1304 SUPREME-COURT
BIBI NAJMA VS ABDUL REHMAN
—-S. 42—Arbitration Act (X of 1940), S. 2(a)(b)—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)—Suit for declaration that plaintiff and defendant being real brothers had referred their dispute relating to ancestral immovable property and property in
1998 MLD 759 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ADMINISTRATOR, ZILA COUNCIL, LAHORE VS MUHAMMAD ZAMAN
—-R.19—Arbitration Act (X of 1940), S. 2(c)—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199—Constitutional petition—Dispute between Zila Council and lessee—Decision through arbitration—Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court—Dispute between Zil
1998 CLC 1610 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
TRADING CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN (PVT.) LTD. VS NIDERA HANDLES COMPAGNIE B.V
S.2(h)—Arbitration Act (X of 1940), S.2—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XLIII, R.1—Arbitration agreement in writing not signed b; parties–Effect—Arbitration agreement, although in writing, need not be signed by parties if circumstances were to establish that formalities notwithstanding, there in fact subsisted concluded arbitration agreement.
1997 PLD 674 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD YOUSAF VS PROVINCE OF PUNJAB
Arbitration Act 1940 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 1177 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
HOHNSON AND PHILLIPS (PAKISTAN) LTD. VS MUHAMMAD AYAZ
Arbitration Act 1940 Ss. 2(a), 34 & 39—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 29—Application for stay of proceedings in civil suit and for reference of subject-matter of dispute in civil suit for arbitration—Essentials—Written agreement-to submit present or future dispute to arbitration must exist as prerequisite for such stay—Matter of dispute was referable only qua parties to arbitration agreement or any party claiming under any of such parties—Application under S.34 of the Act has to be made before filing written statement or taking any further steps in proceedings–Nature of dispute which was to be referred must have been specified or spelt out from arbitration agreement itself—Definite area of dispute must stand defined which parties had agreed to refer to arbitration—Arbitration agreement, which was uncertain, vague, indeterm:nate or indefinite could not be made basis for referring any dispute to arbitration—Agreement between parties did not specify as to what disputes were referable to arbitration —Abitration clause in agreement being uncertain, meaningless and vague as to its scope, same was not arbitration agreement at all—No exception could be taken to the view taken by Trial Court that arbitration clause in agreement was vague—Such agreement could not form basis for moving application under S. 34, Arbitration Act, 1940.
1997 MLD 2384 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD YOUSAF VS COMMISSIONER, FAISALABAD DIVISION, FAISALABAD
—-R.5—Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S. 3—Arbitration Act (X of 1940), Ss.2(a) & 12—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199—Scope–Contractual obligations are not to be determined in Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court—Where stat
1997 PLD 636 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
PORT QASIM AUTHORITY VS AL-GHURAIR GROUP OF CO.
—-Ss. 34 & 2-A— Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972). S.3— Intra-Court Appeal— Application for stay of suit and reference of proceedings to arbitration was rejected by High Court (Single Judge) holding that “effective date” of contract never came i
1996 PLD 831 SUPREME-COURT
AZIZULLAH VS QISMAT KHAN
Arbitration Act 1940 S. 2-A — Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3) — Arbitration agreement , or settling dispute between parties—Respondent denying execution of arbitration agreement — Trial Court found that there was no valid arbitration agreement or award between parties and on such finding dismissed petitioner’s application for making award rule of the Court — Appeal against such decision was dismissed — High Court revision, however, remanded case to Appellate Court — Appellate Court, in post remand proceedings found that it had no jurisdiction and returned file to petitioner for presenting the same in Court of competent jurisdiction — Revision against such order was dismissed by High Court — Validity — Existence of dispute is a precondition for reference of such dispute to be resolved through adjudication of such dispute by Arbitrator culminating in award — Dispute between parties having not been clearly stated in alleged arbitration agreement, and same being vague and denied by respondent, arbitration proceedings, even if taken, would be vitiated — There being no substance in petition for granting leave to appeal, same was dismissed— No valid arbitration agreement could be deemed to be in existence — Petitioner could, if he had any claim against respondents, if so advised, seek his redress from Civil Court, which would have jurisdiction to decide whether suit filed by petitioner was barred or not barred by limitation, if such plea was raised — Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
1996 CLC 503 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ALLAH DITTA VS MUHAMMAD GHAFFAR
Arbitration Act 1940 —-Ss. 2(a), 3 & para. 2 of First Sched.—Arbitration agreement —Umpire–Appointment of—Arbitration agreement according to which parties voluntarily opted to refer their dispute to arbitration of their own choice, was duly executed in writing between the parties and arbitrators were appointed who announced their award in pursuance of reference agreement—Plaintiff who though intentionally suppressed important matter of appointment of arbitrators and their award, but neither in his plaint nor in evidence had challenged reference agreement nor award of arbitrators—Existence of arbitration agreement between parties, thus, could not be denied by plaintiff—Award given by arbitrators being unanimous or at least being a majority award, appointment of umpire, was not necessary, because wisdom behind scheme of appointment of umpire was that in case of difference of opinion between two sets of arbitrators who were even in number, award would be invalid for being no executable and to avoid such situation, appointment of an umpire would become a statutory obligation–Unanimous or at least majority award given by arbitrators, thus suffered from no illegality and was valid award and parties who voluntarily opted to refer their dispute to arbitrators of their own choice, were bound by award given by those arbitrators.
1996 CLC 45 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
M.A. KHAN & CO. VS PAKISTAN RAILWAY EMPLOYEES’ COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.
Arbitration Act 1940 S.2(a)—“Arbitration agreement”—Connotation—-Arbitration agreement should be in writing and to be enforceable if agreed to, even without the signature of any party—To constitute arbitration agreement same should be in writing, such agreement need not be signed by the parties— Terms of agreement, however, must have been reduced in writing and consensus of parties should have been established.
1995 PLD 205 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ABDUL QAYYUM KHAN VS GOVT. OF PUNJAB
Arbitration Act 1940 S. 2 (c)—West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance (II of 1962), Ss. 3 & 10–Court competent to make reference and deal with arbitration matters–Jurisdiction to make reference and decide matters pertaining to all the three modes of arbitration stated.
1994 SCMR 384 SUPREME-COURT
BADSHAH VS BAHADUR SHAH
Arbitration Act 1940 —-S.2 (b)—Award—Parties referring their dispute for decision to Jirga in accordance with custom prevailing in the society—Decision of Jirga did not qualify to be an award within meaning of S. 2 (b), Arbitration Act, 1940.
1994 MLD 2348 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
KHALIDA MALIK VS FARIDA MALIK
Arbitration Act 1940 —-S.2(b)—Award—Meaning, scope and import of—Award means arbitration award; it is adjudication and decision by arbitrator/arbitrators upon the matter or issues as referred to in agreement—Award is final determination of lis between parties who according to their own concurrence authorised arbitrators to finally settle their dispute through arbitration—Award is not necessarily a reasoned judicial decision giving detailed reasons for arbitrator’s conclusions–Award, however, is an intelligible decision which defines rights of parties, in relation to the subject-matter of reference—Where award was found to be in consonance with reference and was intelligible decision of the terms of reference it could not be set aside—Mere fact that arbitrators concluded proceedings in presence of parties in one sitting only would not provide ground to set aside the same or to term it something else than an award.–[Award].
1994 PLD 525 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
RUPALI POLYESTER LTD VS NAEL G. BUNNI
–S. 2(b)—Award– -“Foreign Award”- = Domestic Award”– -Criteria for determination- –Basis for holding an ewer to be “domestic” or “foreign” is the governing law of the arbitration agreement—Question as to whether a particular award is a domestic or
1994 PLD 452 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
SARDAR BAKHSH VS MAQSOOD BIBI
—-S. 2(a)—Question whether agreement to refer the dispute to arbitration can be said to be a document involving financial and future obligations is not free from doubt.
1994 CLC 1135 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
WAZIR ALI VS ALLAH DITTA
Arbitration Act 1940 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 248 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
RELIANCE CONSTRUCTION CO. VS AGHA KHAN MEDICAL COLLEGE FOUNDATION, KARACHI
Arbitration Act 1940 —-S.2(a)—Arbitration agreement—Interest on damages—Validity—Umpire awarding interest on damages—Compensation for breach of contract qua the claim accepted by arbitrators/umpire as awarded, could not be subjected to further liability to pay interest thereon, in absence of express or implied contract to pay interest—Even plaintiff had not invoked principle of equalization of money although it could conveniently be made applicable to every money claim before arbitrators or umpire—Award in question, had nothing therein, to show that there was any implied contract or usage of trade to pay interest on breach of contract—Awarding of interest on damages (for breach of contract) being an error on the face of record, same to the extent of awarding of interest was struck down—Award minus interest was made rule of the Court.
1993 PLD 459 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
ASSOCIATED AGGENCIES LTD. VS INDUSTRIJA MASINA/TRACTORA
S.2(a)-.–Arbitration agreement— Arbitration clauses contained in original agreements whether continue to apply to protocol of subsequent date entered into between parties — Where. original contract for manufacture and supply of tractors and parts thereof contained provisions for arbitration in respect of disputes arising out of or in relation- to such agreements and there was no substitution of the original agreements by a new contract but there was only modification of the ‘original agreements (in respect of outstanding dues), the arbitration agreements and all other clauses were enforceable in law.
1992 MLD 215 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
THE NATIONAL SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY LTD VS MESSRS PAK ORIENTAL TAPIS
Arbitration Act 1940 —-Ss. 2 & 34—Suit for recovery of money—Defendant making application in Court that there being arbitration clause in agreement deed, suit should be stayed and dispute referred to arbitrators—Plaintiff claimed that defendant having denied the factum of loss, arbitration clause was not attracted—Trial Court rejected defendant’s application for stay of suit—Validity—Defendant’s rejection of the claim for the amount claimed by plaintiffs amounted to a dispute between the parties as to the quantum of loss, therefore, arbitrators ought to have been called upon to determine the amount of loss—Defendant’s application for stay of suit in view of arbitration clause in the agreement deed, was accepted and suit stayed.
1991 CLC 1023 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
INTERFORM DESIGN ASSOCIATES (PVT.) LTD. VS BAHRIA FOUNDATION
Arbitration Act 1940 S. 2(a) — Arbitration agreement — Successor to one of the parties to arbitration — Its liability — Agreement executed between plaintiff and predecessor of defendant was subsequently adopted by plaintiff and defendant — Parties fully participating in proceedings before arbitrator thereafter through defendant did raise objection as regards jurisdiction of arbitrator — In spite of objection by the defendant before arbitrator regarding his jurisdiction, which was considered and rejected, defendant being successor to one of the parties of agreement was bound by it.
1990 PLD 216 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
AHMED CONSTRUCTIO VS NEPTUNE TEXTILE MILLS
Ss. 30 & 33???Procedure before Arbitrator???Challenge to???Essentials???Where there was a challenge as to what happened before the Arbitrator and the procedure that he had adopted and whether evidence was taken by him or not, in such cases Arbitrator should have been called by objecting party to ascertain as to what had actually happened and what was actually done by the Arbitrator.
1989 MLD 2389 SUPREME-COURT-INDIA
MADHAO DESHPANDE VS MADHAV DHARMADHIKAREE
Arbitration Act 1940 —S. 2(c)–Award–Proper Court to entertain–Reference of dispute regarding properties located within jurisdiction of two Courts–One property located within jurisdiction of one of the Courts–Said Court has jurisdiction to entertain award.
1989 MLD 2137 SUPREME-COURT-INDIA
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA VS SURENDRA DEVENDRA AND MOHENDRA TRANSPORT CO.
Arbitration Act 1940 —Ss. 13 & 2 (a)–Transport contract–Provision in contract that liability of transporter to bear demurrage will be determined by specified authority–Court injunction restraining that authority from determining liability from certain date-Arbitrator could determine liability for subsequent period.
1989 PLD 1 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
TARIQ FAROOQ VS NASRUDDI
S.2(a)??Arbitration agreement??Meaning, scope and import of?Requirements??Agreement for referring dispute to arbitration to be necessarily executed in writing by parties themselves or through duly authorized agents??Concept of implied authority or other principles of general law regarding nature of agreement being in violation of definition in S.2(a) of Arbitration Act, were not acceptable for making reference to arbitration??Reference to arbitration by his agent, absence of any written agreement or express authorization by principal, would not be binding against such principal, especially when he had no notice of such reference.
1989 CLC 1666 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
NOOR SAHIB KHAN VS MIR JANANSON
Arbitration Act 1940 —S. 2(a)–Arbitration agreement–Submission to arbitration–Essentials-Essential ingredient to a valid submission to arbitration is that agreement to arbitrate should be contained in a written document agreed to by parties to such submission or by their agents duly authorised in that behalf–Arbitration award without any arbitration agreement in writing between the parties would carry no weight and would have to be ignored altogether.
1989 MLD 2010 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MUHAMMAD YASIN VS MUHAMMAD FAROOQ
Arbitration Act 1940 —Ss.2(e), 3, 5, 13 & 14–Jurisdiction of arbitrators–Objection to–Where a party to arbitration agreement allowed arbitrators to proceed with reference submitted to their jurisdiction without objection, led evidence, such party is estopped, from challenging jurisdiction of arbitrator: -[Estoppel].
1989 CLC 1825 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR
UNITED BUILDERS CORPORATION VS AZAD JAMMU & KASHMIR MINERAL & INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
—Ss.33 & 2(c)–“Court”–Meaning–Word “Court” appearing in S.33 read with S.2(c) would mean a Civil Court having jurisdiction to decide question forming the subject-matter of the reference if the same had been made the subject-matter of the suit–Only s
1988 PLD 39 SUPREME-COURT
COMBINED ENTERPRISES VS W.A.P.D.A. LAHORE
Ss. 30, 31, 32, 33, 23(2) & 41??Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)?Reference and award could only be interfered with in the manner laid down by Ss. 30, 31, 32 & 33 and to that extent the provisions of C . P . C . are expressly excluded??No Court other than that mentioned in said sections could deal with the matter.
1988 SCMR 723 SUPREME-COURT
CHIEF ENGINEER, BUILDING DEPARTMENT VS PAKISTAN NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION
#NAME?
1988 CLC 1472 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
AMANULLAH VS SIRAJ AHMED
- 3–Arbitration Act (X of 1940), Ss. 2(c) & 21–First appeal pending before High Court–During pendency of appeal, on application of parties, matter was referred to arbitration–Award was filed in Appellate Court and decree of Trial Court was modified in accordance with terms of award after dismissal of objections to award of appellant–l ntra-Court Appeal against dismissal of objections by Appellate Court (Single Judge of High Court)–Reference to arbitration at appellate stage whether misconceived–Competency of appeal, against dismissal of objection to award by Single Judge of High Court.
1988 MLD 1131 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Shaikh MUHAMMAD UMER VS ZAKARIA ADAMJEE CHARITABLE CORPORATION
Arbitration Act 1940 —-Ss.2(a) & 8–Reference of dispute to arbitrator, application for–Defendant taking plea that word “referee” having been used in a clause of deed of agreement same could not be referred to arbitrator–Construction of document-Although word `referee’was used in clause of document yet intention of parties, held, had to be gathered from wording used in entire para or clause–Plain reading of clause showed that dispute was to be referred to referee for decision and that decision was to be binding upon parties–Such referee was to decide dispute between parties and not only to hear or record evidence of parties for reference to other authority for decision–Arbitration, agreement was that , agreement whereby parties bound themselves to have their disputes arising out of transaction, to which such agreement was applicable, to be adjudicated upon and decided by a domestics Tribunal and not by resort to Court of law–In sue context clause of agreement whereby dispute was to be referred to referee would be deemed to be arbitration agreement and referee mentioned therein was in fact arbitrator.
1987 CLC 50 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
MUGHAL BAZ VS N.W.F.P.
Arbitration Act 1940 —Ss. 2 & 37–Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 152–Award, objection to–Limitation–Objection petition to award, held, was required to be filed within thirty days of gaining knowledge to such award—Objection filed beyond statutory period of thirty days would be barred by time.
1987 CLC 2509 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
HAJI ILYAS HAJI ISSA VS HAJI AHMAD
Arbitration Act 1940 S. 2 (a) –Constitution of an arbitration agreement–Requirements.
1987 CLC 83 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
RALLI BROTHERS & CONEY LTD. VS MUHAMMAD AMIN MUHAMMAD BASHIR LTD.
Arbitration Act 1940 S. 2(c)??Reference to arbitration??Requirement??For referring matte to arbitration, signature of parties on agreement not necessary??Such agreement however, was required to be in writing??Even if such agreement was not signed, parties would be bound thereby, and matte could be validly referred to arbitration.
1986 MLD 501 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB VS INDUSTRIAL MACHINES TOOLS GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS
—Ss.2(c) & 41(a)–Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.107-Term “Court”–Scope of–Term “Court”, held, would not exclude appellate Court–Appellate Court was empowered under Ss.16 t 21 of Arbitration Act, 1940 to remit award to arbitrator or umpire for
1985 CLC 2161 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
CARSTAIRS & CUMMING LTD. VS PAKISTAN
—S. 18(1) (e)(i)–Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894), S. 23(1)–Arbitration Act (X of 1940), S. 2(b)–Compensation for acquisition of property-Construction at seashore–Fixation of rate of such construction–Costs of laying foundation of such construction
1985 CLC 1355 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
ALEXANDER G. TSAVLIRIS & SONS VS RICE TRADERS
- 3(2)–Arbitration Act (X of 1940), Ss.20 & 2(c)–Admiralty jurisdiction–Court exercising admiralty jurisdiction not a Court within section 2(c) of Arbitration Act, 1940–Application under S. 20, Arbitration Act, 1940, held, could not be filed under admiralty jurisdiction of High Court.
1984 PLD 80 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
MUHAMMAD RAFIQ VS REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, BALUCHISTAN
- 43?Co?operative Societies (Bahawalpur, Khairpur, Quetta, Kalat) Rules, 1963, rr. 16 & 17?Arbitration Act (X of 1940), Ss. 2 & 14Decision of Registrar having force of decree, held, cannot be termed as award and cannot be sent for by Court under S. 14 of Arbitration Act, 1940.?[Award].
1984 PLD 515 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
PROVINCE OF PUNJAB VS DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE
- 2(c)?West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance (II of 1962), S. 18Reference??.Appeal??Revision?Valuation of subject?matter?Reference to be considered as identical to a suit?Amount or value of subject matter of “reference” furnish basis for fixation of forum, for hearing application and appeal??Value under S. 18, West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962 should enure for ascertainment of forum of appeal as well and on footing whereof forum competent to bear revision could be decided.?[Appeal (civil)? Revision (civil)].
1983 CLC 1685 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
- A. JALIL VS SALAH-UD-DIN KHAN
- 2(e) -Arbitration Act, 1940 provides complete Code in itself for valuation for purposes of jurisdiction–Provisions of S. 7(x)(d), Court Fees Act, 1870 and Schedule to Rules framed under S. 3, Suits Valuation Act, 1887, no longer applicable.
1983 CLC 1005 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
CONFORCE LTD. VS K. U. NAEEM MALIK
Ss. 2 & 20-“Arbitration agreement”-Requirements –Arbitration clause in contract, held, to be construed keeping in view intention of parties and setting in which its words are placed.-[Interpretation of documents].
1983 CLC 797 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
HABIB & SONS LTD. VS CHIRAGH DIN
– Ss. 2 & 14 -Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 96–Court-Trial Court, territorial jurisdiction of-Suit for recovery-Making of award rule of Court-Appellants-defendants neither residing nor carrying on business within territorial jurisdiction of Court
1982 CLC 2335 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, LINED CHANNEL DIVISION VS AWAN INDUSTRIES LTD.
- 96 read with Arbitration Act (X of 1940), Ss. 14(2) & 30 read with S. 2(e)= `Reference,” “arbitration”, “agreement” Definitions-Grounds for setting aside award-Appeal against modification of award giving interest on damages-Held, can be beard only if award otherwise considered to be effective-Main grounds of appeal against very award for want of proper reference to arbitration and Arbitrator having misconduct himself and proceedings on face of record-Held, going into merits of appeal against modification of award not necessary in circumstances of’ case-Appeal–allowed.-[Words and phrases].
1982 CLC 175 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
PROVINCE OF SIND VS ZAHEERUDDIN HUSSAIN
- 2(a)-Arbitration agreement-Agreement containing arbitration clause signed by both parties-Appellants contending substitution in agreement by another Arbitration Clause-Substituted agreement not signed by respondent-Held, in such dispute about arbitration agreement, Court will be inclined to accept agreement signed by both parties.
1981 PLD 28 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
SHEIKH HUSSAIN BUX & CO VS ZAIB TUN TEXTILE MILLS LTD.
- 2(a)?Arbitration agreement?Formal written agreement duly signed by parties?Not necessary for arbitration agreement?Arbitration agreement within ambit of S. 2(a), held, can be inferred inter alia from correspondence between parties, from standard terms of contract adopted by a Government Department or Corporation on basis of whicha tenderer submits his tender and from bye?laws or articles of association of an association or an institution providing compulsory arbitration for disputes between members.
1981 CLC 1667 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
GUL AHMED TEXTILE MILLS LTD., KARACHI VS STARKO LTD., KARACHI
- 2– (a)-Arbitration agreement-Need not be-signed by parties-Written agreement containing reference to rules, bye-laws, or regulations of Associations requiring reference being made to arbitration in case of dispute-Held, valid.
1981 CLC 638 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MESSRS NAWAB BROTHERS LTD, KARACHI–PLAINTIFF VS PROJECT DIRECTOR
- 2(b)-Arbitration agreement, requirements of-Such agreement to be in writing-Signatures of parties, held, not necessary.
1978 PLD 829 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
PROVINCE OF PUNJA VS MESSRS INDUSTRIAL MACHINE POOL, LAHORE
- 3-Reference to arbitration-Law of arbitration-Nothing but law of compromise within framework of agreement of parties if not opposed to public policy-Arbitration not different from conciliation-Open to parties to settle their differences through arbitration Parties have prerogative to enter into as many arbitrations as they deem fit.
1977 SCMR 409 SUPREME-COURT
SHAMIM AKHTAR VS NAJMA BAQAI
— S. 2(a)-Arbitration agreement-Means written agreement to submit present or future differences to arbitration-Naming of arbitrators-No requirement–Nor such written agreement be necessarily signed by parties as long as its terms and conditions readily a
1977 PLD 644 SUPREME-COURT
SHAMIM AKHTER VS NAJMA BAQAI
- 2(a)-Arbitration agreement-Written agreement of arbitration-Need not necessarily be signed by parties as long as its terms and conditions readily ascertainable and freely agreed to between parties-Letters unilaterally w1ritten by respective parties to Martial Law authorities appointing their arbitrators read together. held, constituted a “valid arbitration agreement” for purpose of reference of dispute to arbitration of two arbitrators thus appointed.-[Agreement;-Arbitration].
1977 PLD 37 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
PARACHA TEXTILE MILLS LTD., KARACHI VS NANIKRAM SHAMANDAS
- 2(a)??”Arbitration agreement”?Definition?Requirements for constituting an arbitration agreement in writing?Terms must be reduced to writing and agreement of parties thereto established Such agreement need not be signed by parties.
1977 PLD 21 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MUHAMMAD AZAM-MUHAMMAD FAZIL & CO. KARACHI VS M/S N.A. INDUSTRIES, KARACHI.
Ss. 20 & 33?Existence or validity of an arbitration clause-Objection to validity of arbitration clause to be decided by Court ? Challenge to arbitration clause founded on disputed question of interpretation of other terms of contract??Held, to be left to be adjudicated and decided by arbitrator.?[Arbitrator].
1971 PLD 292 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
VS
Arbitration Act 1940 S. 2(a) read with Evidence Act (I of 1872), Ss. 91 & 92-Arbitration agreement-Only substantive part of agreement, i.e. to refer dispute to arbitration required to be in writing-Agreement may be wholly silent on every other matter concerning arbitration and yet be valid-Sanctity afforded by Ss. 91 & 92, Evidence Act, 1872, to agreements reduced into writing under requirement of law-Does not extend to subsidiary provisions incorporated in arbitration agreement—Agreement concerning mode or machinery for appointment of arbitrator-Does not enjoy such sanctity-Oral evidence as to consent of parties indicating course different from terms of agreement, held, admissible in evidence.
1966 PLD 197 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MESSRS HAFIZ ABDUL AZIZ COTTON GINNING FACTORY VS MESSRS HAJI ALI MUHAMMHD ABDULLAH & CO. AND ANOTHER
Arbitration Act 1940 S. 2(a)-Term “written agreement”-Interpretation.
1966 PLD 19 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR
AZAD J & K GOVERNMENT VS KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD USMAN & CO.
- 12 read with. S. 2(a)Arbitration agreement-Court revoking authority of named arbitrator and calling upon parties to furnish panel of names for appointment of new arbitrator-Furnishing of such panel of names-Cannot be said to be execution of fresh arbitration agreement between parties.
1964 PLD 490 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD AKRAM VS CH. MUHAMMAD SALIM
Document-Construction-Permissible to take into consideration other documents and evidence in order to discover intention of parties at time of execution-Mere description of document in title-Cannot determine nature of document-Court to study substance of proceedings and not to confine its attention to mere form-Two different constructions possible-Construction making document valid to be adopted-Document described as award but in reality only an agreement to sell–Held, not award and being not compulsorily registrable admitted in evidence–Arbitration Act (X of 1940), Ss. 2 (b), 32 & 47 – Registration Act (XVI of 1908), S. 17 (3).
1963 PLD 813 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MESSRS VALIKA TEXTILE MILLS LTD. VS MESSRS. SH. MIAN MAHOMED ALLAH BAKHSH
Arbitration – (“Factory Selection Contract”) – Arbitration held in accordance with Bye-law 39-1 instead o/’ Bye-law 39-11, Pakistan Cotton Association-Party, on request of other party, agreeing by letters to appoint arbitrator on its own behalf in accordance with Bye-law 39-1-Arbitrators and umpire, held, had jurisdiction to arbitrate or give award-Formal agreement in regard to modified procedure in arbitration not necessary-Arbitration Act (X of 1940), S. 2-[Messrs Faridsons Ltd. v. Messrs S. M, Fazail & Co. P L D 1954 Sind 247 distinguished; Messrs Munawar & Co. v. Messrs S. A. Rauf & Co. P L D 1959 Kar. 325, considered].
1959 PLD 325 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MUNAWAR & CO. VS M/S. S. A. RAUF & CO.
-Appointment of arbitrator or umpire-Alteration of agreement relating to-Must be in writing-Mere submission to alteration not enough-Award by umpire appointed tinder altered agreement which was not in writing, held invalid-Arbitration Act (X of 1940), S.
1958 PLD 44 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
THE LAHORE-FEROZEPUR TRANSPORT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED AND 4 OTHERS VS MALIK MUHAMMAD SADIQ
Arbitration Act 1940 Ss. 2 (c) & 33–Validity of award challenged by application under S. 33–Pecuniary Jurisdiction of Court how to be determined.
1957 PLD 245 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MESSRS. HABIB & SONS VS MESSRS. VIRAK CO.
Arbitration Act 1940 S. 2 (a)- Arbitration agreement”-Originally oral but subsequently confirmed by writing-Satisfies definition.
1955 PLD 72 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD USAF VS NORTH-WEST FRONTIER PROVINCE
Arbitration Act 1940 Ss. 2 and 34-“Director of Civil Supplies” named as arbitrator in submission clause of agreement-Clause, held, not ambiguous-“Director” intended is one at time of dispute-Proceedings in suit, however, not stayed, as the relevant Director had already been taking decisions on behalf of Government to prejudice of plaintiff.
1954 PLD 56 SINDH-CHIEF-COURT
MESSRS. FRIENDS TRADING CO VS MESSRS. MUHAMMAD USMAN-MOULA BUX
Arbitration Act 1940 —-S. 2 (a)-Arbitration agreement-Essence of–Existence of dispute. An existing dispute is an essential condition for reference to an arbitration. This condition is as essential as a cause of action in a civil suit.
1954 PLD 241 SINDH-CHIEF-COURT
MESSRS OVERSEAS COTTON CO. VS MESSRS S. M. FAZAIL & CO.
Arbitration Act 1940 ——S. 3 and Sched. 1, S. 2 Para. 2-Time limit as to appointment of umpire may be modified by agreement to refer.