Section 22 : Appointment of arbitrator
2023 YLR 57 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Mst. NOORAN MAI VS SHAFQAT ALI
22—Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 33—Report of arbitrator—Opportunity to parties to file objections before making award rule of court—Suit for declaration filed by petitioner that the sale deed and mutation were result of fraud—Petitioners’ assertion was that she never alienated property to respondent—Respondent defended the transactions and asked for dismissal of suit—Parties agreed to refer the matter to the Lambardar of the village with undertaking that they would be bound by his decision—After seven days petitioner submitted an application to change the name of Lambardar for certain reasons—Petitioner placed three names and both the parties made consensus that no further application for change of arbitrator would be made—Petitioner filed another application for withdrawal of her offer for decision of case through arbitrator, which was turned down by Trial Court as well as revisional Court—Constitutional petition filed by petitioner was also dismissed by High Court—Arbitrator presented his report that version of petitioner was not correct and the property was rightly purchased by respondent—On basis of said report the suit of petitioner was dismissed—Said decision was assailed by the petitioners through an appeal which was also dismissed by Appellate Court—Held, that Art. 33 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, made it clear that statement of person expressly referred for information with regard to matter in dispute was an admission—If a dispute was forwarded, the same had to be decided by the person on the basis of information that was already in his knowledge but he could not inquire into the controversy , hear the parties and decide the same—Arbitrator had to simply make a statement about the fate of conflict on the basis of information, nothing more nothing less—Award could not be made a rule of court without first giving an opportunity to the parties to file the objections thereto and decision thereof—Such omission on part of Trial Court was ignored by Appellate Court—Civil revision was allowed, in circumstances—Case was remanded to the Trial Court with the direction that suit shall be deemed to be pending and will proceed from the stage when the award by arbitrator was filed.
2014 PLD 494 SUPREME-COURT
LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS ALICON LIMITED, LAHORE
22—Appointment of arbitrators, defect in—Effect—Defective appointment of arbitrators cannot necessarily lead to an invalid and no-binding award.
2013 CLD 522 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
FARMERS’ EQUITY PRIVATE LIMITED (FEP) VS MEHBOOB ALAM
Ss. 21, 22, 23, 24 & 25—Arbitration agreement entered into in a pending suit without leave of the court—Validity—Arbitration agreement without orders of a court in a pending suit being departure from mandatory provisions of Ss.21 to 25 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 could not be categorized to be lawful agreement and was not enforceable.
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 434 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
FARMERS’ EQUITY PRIVATE LIMITED (FEP) MULTAN VS MEHBOOB ALAM
Ss. 21, 22, 23, 24 & 25—Arbitration agreement entered into in a pending suit without leave of the court—Validity—Arbitration agreement without orders of a court in a pending suit being departure from mandatory provisions of Ss.21 to 25 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 could not be categorized to be lawful agreement and was not enforceable.
2012 CLD 827 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
SAEED AHMAD VS NIAZ AHMAD
Ss. 8, 21, 22 & 23—“Arbitrator” and “Referee”—Distinction—Referee was the one who would make statement according to his own knowledge, but the arbitrator, after obtaining the material and recording the statement of the parties, would draw his conclusion and on the basis of that material, he got his statement recorded; and he was also liable to cross-examination.
2012 CLC 1015 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
SAEED AHMAD VS NIAZ AHMAD
Ss. 8, 21, 22 & 23—“Arbitrator” and “Referee”—Distinction—Referee was the one who would make statement according to his own knowledge, but the arbitrator, after obtaining the material and recording the statement of the parties, would draw his conclusion and on the basis of that material, he got his statement recorded; and he was also liable to cross-examination.
2011 CLC 841 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
CHAIRMAN, WAPDA VS SYED BHAIS (PVT.) LTD.
Ss. 30, 33, 13, 15, 21 & 22—Reference to arbitrator—Powers of court—Scope—Trial Court dismissed appellant/defendant’s objection petition against award of the arbitrator—Appellant contended that the Trial Court could not reject the petition without framing the issues and providing them opportunity to lead evidence—Validity—Object of settlement of disputes through arbitration was to bypass the lengthy procedure involved in civil cases—Arbitration was a domestic tribunal controlled by chosen representatives of parties to do complete justice expeditiously without technicalities of procedural law—Trial Court did not prevent the parties from leading evidence, therefore, omission to frame issues was inconsequential—Court was not bound to frame issues and record evidence in all circumstances for decision of the suit—Function of court in arbitration cases was, principally, supervisory in nature under C.P.C.—Court had to give reasonable intendment in favour of the award leaning towards upholding rather than vitiating the same—Court would neither act as court of appeal nor override the award through its own judgment by scrutinizing the award to discover errors for the purpose of setting aside the same—Allegations of misconduct against the arbitrator were vague in nature–Arbitrator followed the procedure and answered all the pleas and objections of the parties accordingly without violating any principle of natural justice—Findings of the arbitrator were within the parameters of the submissions made by the parties before him—Possibility of a different view by appreciating the facts with a different angle was no ground for setting aside the award—Arbitrator, being the final judge on question of law and fact, his decision merited weightage unless misconduct against’ him stood proved—Not proper for the court to reappraise the evidence recorded by the arbitrator merely to discover errors or infirmities in the award—Appellant failed to point out any legal infirmity or lack of jurisdiction on the part of the arbitrator who dealt with the claims of parties minutely—Trial Court rightly dismissed the objection petition—Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.
2010 YLR 3064 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD IQBAL VS MUHAMMAD HANIF
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.
2008 CLC 572 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
CITY DISTRICT GOVERNMENT, KARACHI VS IFTIKHAR AND TAHA PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
37—Arbitration Act (X of 1940), S.22—Suit for performance of contract—Appointment of arbitrator—Counsel for plaintiff had stated that no arbitration clause existed in any of the documents relating to the alleged dispute between plaintiff and defendant; that alleged dispute was to be settled in accordance with the contract and that dispute, if any between the principal and the contractor, was to be decided by the competent Authority who, in the case, was Nazim of the City District—Counsel had further contended that contrary to the contract agreement, matter had been referred to arbitrator fraudulently with the collusion and connivance of the contractor and some of the unscrupulous officials against whom departmental action was in the offing and that an application before the Arbitrator had been made for stoppage of arbitration proceedings as such proceedings had already been questioned—Validity—Contention of the plaintiff needed consideration—Proceedings before Arbitrator were suspended till next date by the High Court.
2005 YLR 2709 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MUJTABA HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI VS SULTAN AHMED
—Preamble, Chaps.II [Ss.3 to 19], III [S.20] & IV [Ss.21 to 25]—Modes of arbitration–Perusal of Arbitration Act, 1940, reveals that there are three modes of arbitration: Arbitration without intervention of Court; Arbitration with intervention of Cour
2004 SCMR 1292 SUPREME-COURT
NAZIR AHMAD and others VS MUHAMMAD QASIM and others
—-Art. 33—Arbitration Act (X of 1940), Ss.21, 22, 23, 24 & 25–Admission by persons expressly referred to by party to suit—Arbitration in suits—Ingredients of Art. 33, Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984—Whenever a case is agreed upon to be decided on the st
2004 MLD 2002 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD IDREES VS MUHAMMAD YOUNUS
–S. 42—Arbitration Act (X of 1940), Ss. 21 & 22—Arbitration agreement—Parties executed an agreement for deciding their dispute through arbitration, when civil revision about the same dispute was pending in the High Court—Validity—Parties were o
2003 PLD 522 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
RASHIDA BEGUM VS Ch. MUHAMMAD ANWAR
—–Ss. 22—Appointment of arbitrator—Power of attorney—Attorney had been conferred the general powers to conduct the cases before the Courts and also to alienate the property, but there was no specific power given to him to enter into any arbitrati
2002 YLR 2479 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
CHIRAGH DIN VS MUHAMMAD SHAFI
—-Art. 33, illustration—Arbitration Act (X of 1940), Ss. 22 & 23—Statements which are admission—Principles—Admission may be made by party to the proceedings himself or by his agent which is binding upon the principal under Art.33 of Qanun-e-Shah
2001 CLC 365 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
ABDUL HAKEEM VS ABDUL RAHIM ARIF
Ss. 21, 22, 23 &.34—Arbitration—Referring the matter to arbitrator by Court—Scope—Where one of the parties was not ready and willing for the same, the matter could not be referred to arbitrator especially when the defendant failed to invoke the provisions of S.34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for the stay of said proceedings and to seek directions for reference to arbitration—Application was dismissed in circumstances.
1999 MLD 2773 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
PAKISTAN AGRICULTURAL STORAGE AND SERVICES CORPORATION VS SHEIKH MUHAMMAD LATIF
Arbitration Act 1940 —-Ss. 22 & 28—Award—Appointment of arbitrator by designation—Delivery of award after the retirement of the arbitrator beyond a period of four months–Validity—No application was moved by appellant before the Trial Court requesting therein that successor-in-office be nominated as the fresh sole arbitrator—Objection to award was raised by the appellant only after the arbitrator had decided against the appellant—Conduct of appellant in awaiting the award without raising any objection before the Court, would justify the extension of time spent beyond four months by the arbitrator under S. 28 of the Arbitration Act, 1940.
1999 CLC 319 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
QURBAN HUSSAIN VS MUGHAL KHAN
?
1997 CLC 1555 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
KAMALUDDIN VS MUHAMMAD SHAFI
Arbitration Act 1940 S. 22—Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.33—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199—Constitutional petition—Parties had appointed specified person as arbitrator to give award on disputes of parties after making inquiry–Such person made a statement in the Court on basis of which Court passed the impugned order—Such person had not made such statement purely on basis of his knowledge of facts of case; the moment he entered upon inquiry, so authorized under the arbitration agreement, he could not be termed as “referee”—Person so appointed, for all intents and purposes was “arbitrator” and not “referee” —District Judge__ had rightly set aside order based upon statement of such person and- had competently directed Court below to decide the same on merits.
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
1996 MLD 700 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD SHER VS STATE
—-Ss. 13 & 22—Order of referee— “Referee” and “arbitrator” —Distinction–Person appointed as “referee” is required to make a statement on his knowledge or belief before Court whereas an arbitrator has to decide dispute after hearing parties on the
1993 CLC 1875 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD ASHRAF VS ABDUR REHMAN
—-Art. 33—Arbitration Act (X of 1940), S. 22—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O:XXIII, R.3—Referee—Arbitrator—Distinction—Scope of enquiry by a referee and arbitrator—Referee’s function is to make a statement according to his knowledge or
1993 MLD 1474 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
KHAN MUHAMMAD VS ABDUL RASHID
Arbitration Act 1940 —-Ss.21 to 25—Reference to arbitration in pending suit—Mode of reference– Effect —Parties whose interests were involved in pending litigation could refer their differences to arbitration at any time before the pronouncement of judgment but with intervention of the Court and not otherwise—Parties were required to apply in writing to Court for an order of reference; appointment of arbitrator would be made in the manner, as agreed upon between the parties–Arbitrator would be given reasonable time for announcing the award, and so long as the matter remained with the arbitrator, Court would not deal with the same in any manner, save as permitted by the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1.940—Suit would however, continue so far as in relation to those parties who had not agreed to such reference, in the event of same being separable from the rest of the subject-matter of dispute and only those parties who had actually joined the exercise being bound by the award.
1993 MLD 439 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
GHULAM NABI VS SARFRAZ
Arbitration Act 1940 —-S. 22—Appointment of arbitrator—Arbitrator or Referee, determination of—During pendency of suit for recovery of amount, parties made statement before Trial Court that they had agreed to appoint a person as arbitrator and undertook to be bound by his decision—Person appointed as arbitrator by parties, appeared before Court and stated that plaintiff was entitled to recover disputed amount from defendants—Both Courts below concurrently decreed suit of plaintiff and turned down request of defendants to file objections on statement of arbitrator observing that arbitrator was appointed with consent of both parties and his statement was binding upon parties—Defendants who filed revision before High Court against judgments of Courts below, had contended that person making statement in Court, was appointed by parties as an arbitrator and not as `Referee’and Courts below had misconstrued and misinterpreted statement made by him—Parties’statement with regard to appointment of person to settle their dispute, specifically mentioned him as an arbitrator—Besides said statement parties further made their intention clear by stating that they were willing to have their dispute decided by that person whose “decision” would be binding on them—Use of word `decision’twice ire statement of parties was quite significant—Contention of petitioner that sine,„ it was mentioned in the statement that dispute would be decided without recording any further evidence, intention of parties was to appoint that person as referee, was based upon misconstruction of statement as parties in fact had stated that they would not lead any further evidence and not that even evidence already led should be ignored and dispute be settled on basis of own knowledge of the parson so appointed—It having fully been proved that party contemplated to appoint person as an at arbitrator and not referee as contend by petitioner, decision rendered by both Courts below were not sustainable circumstances.
1990 MLD 106 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
FAIZ-UL-HAQ VS ABDUS SALAM
Arbitration Act 1940 —S..22—Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 33—Words “referee” and “arbitrator”—Distinction.—[Words and phrases].
1984 SCMR 1543 SUPREME-COURT
J.V. KOCKS K G /RIST VS GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN
–Art. 185 (3)– Arbitration Act (X of 1940), S. 22– Umpire-Appointment and removal–Parties, their lawyers and umpire, agreeing to dispose of petition in certain given terms–Petition converted into appeal and allowed in such terms.
1982 CLC 2377 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
HASHMAT ALI VS MUHAMMAD ALI
Ss. 21 to 25 8c 47, proviso–Arbitration–Contention that person named in agreement was to act as mediator and not arbitrator-Documents showing .that parties appointed such persons as arbitrator to give award–Contention repelled.
1980 CLC 967 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
HASHMAT BIBI VS MUHAMMAD RAFI
—- Ss. 21 to 25 read with Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXIII, r. 3-Compromise-No bar on parties to get their case decided by mutual agreement at any time prior to final adjudication-Existence of lawful agreement or compromise adjusting suit whol
1978 PLD 362 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
PAKISTAN VS CHAUDHRY BROS. LTD., LAHORE
Ss. 21, 22 & 23 read with Civil ‘Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XX, r.17?Arbitration, reference to?Order merely disposing of an application under O. XX, r. 17 ? of Code of Civil Procedure, 1938, pending before Court and recording consent and intention of parties to have fresh arbitration of outstanding disputes fn terms of bate contract”??”Basic contract” an arbitration agreement very wide in scope and embracing all undecided disputes arising under first arid second contracts?Ore award made thereunder yet arbitration agreement not exhausted and undecided disputes existing on date of Court’s order covered by basic contract?Undecided disputes, held, could be referred to arbitration and not incumbent upon Court to specify precise disputes in its consent order and Court’s order could not be said to be vague and indefinite?Court’s order not being an order of reference in a suit, question of contravention of Ss.21, 22 & 23 of Arbitration Act, 1940, held, did not arise. [Arbitration].
1970 PLD 379 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
KARACHI CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETIES
UNION LTD.
VS SAFIA BAI AND 12 OTHERS
Ss. 3 & 22 —-Arbitration—-Agreement for arbitration-Law does not require drawing up of agreement informal manner.