Section 23 : Order of reference
2021 CLC 818 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
PROVINCE OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA VS TECHNICON ENGINEERS AND EPC CONTRACTOR GROUP
Ss.20 & 33—Arbitration agreement—Proceedings—Respondents / plaintiffs filed application for decision of their dispute through arbitration—Trial Court declined to reject proceedings initiated for settlement of dispute through arbitration proceedings— Validity— No one was named in arbitration agreement, therefore, respondents/plaintiffs were left with no option but to submit application under S.20 of Arbitration Act, 1940— Period of contract had already expired and there was a dispute which required resolution and that resolution could be made as per provisions of arbitration agreement, within which respondents/plaintiffs submitted their claim/dispute to Project Manager/Engineer but not fruitful result came out or no decision was made by Project Manager/Engineer—Petitioners / defendants through application under S.33 of Arbitration Act, 1940, intended to decide matter as the same could not be agitated before any forum—Administration of justice required that decision between parties pertaining to dispute should be decided on merits and after proper application of mind, in accordance with law, rather than to be decided on technical grounds—Petitioners/defendants had taken hyper-technical grounds in their application, which application was to be decided along with application under S.20 of Arbitration Act, 1940—Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.
2019 CLC 1096 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
Syed ABDUL MANAN VS Malik ASMATULLAH
Ss. 14, 17, 21, 23 & 47—Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 100 & 101—Balochistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), S.52—Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art.144 (since omitted)—Suit for declaration and possession—Limitation—Compromise by the attorney on behalf of his principal—Reference to arbitration without intervention of the Court—Possession on the suit property—Document more than thirty years old—Effect—Revenue entries—Presumption of truth—Contention of plaintiffs was that they were owner of suit property—Suit was dismissed by the Trial Court but Appellate Court decreed the same—Validity—Principal of attorney had not authorized him to refer the matter to the arbitrator or enter into compromise with the defendants—Attorney should have sought permission from the principal for such act, in circumstances—Act of attorney in absence of any such permission was misrepresentation and it had element of fraud—Purported award was not only undated but it also did not contain the names and signatures of arbitrators—Terms of said award could not be enforced, in circumstances—When parties to the suit had agreed that matter in question should be referred to arbitration then they might, before announcement of judgment, apply to the Court in writing for an order of reference—Where parties to the suit had agreed or consented to refer the matter to arbitration, Court could refer the same to arbitrator and specify the time for making the award—Parties who had agreed to refer matter to arbitrator would be bound by such award—Reference to arbitration and an award in the pending suit without intervention of the Court would be nullity and such award could not be made rule of the Court—Presumption could not be attached to the document more than thirty years old when defendant had denied the same—Parties should prove said document in accordance with law—Presumption of truth was attached to the revenue entries unless rebutted through cogent evidence—Longstanding impugned mutation in favour of a party could not be disturbed due to presumption of truth attached to such entries—Impugned mutation was not challenged by the vendor in his lifetime and defendants had no locus standi to assail the same—Possession was an incident of ownership and it could be transferred by the owner of an immovable property to another—Possession would be important when there was no title document and other relevant record—Once a document and record of title came before the Court then it was the title which had to be taken into consideration—Possession on suit property could not be considered in vacuum—Mere longstanding possession would not be good against the rightful owner and the assumption that he was in peaceful possession would not work and could not operate against the true lawful owner—Plaintiffs were owners of suit property and they had sought relief of possession—Evidence produced by defendants spoke about possession which could not work against the plaintiffs—Plaintiffs had adopted due course of law by filing suit for possession—Defendants while filing written statement had denied the title of plaintiffs and raised question of limitation—Limitation would run from the date when written statement was filed by the defendants, in circumstances—Defendants had no title document to continue their possession—Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.
2016 CLC 1655 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
SHABBIR AHMAD ZAFFAR VS MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE (CONSOLIDATION)
- 114—Arbitration Act (X of 1940), Ss. 21, 23 & 26-A—Review—Scope—Vires of arbitration award—Applicant filed review of order passed in writ petition decided earlier, in order to challenge award made by Arbitrator—Applicant argued that the award had been issued in violation of Ss.21, 23 & 26-A, Arbitration Act, 1940 as Arbitrator/Member Board of Revenue had gone beyond powers conferred upon him—Plea raised by respondents was that scope of review was limited and points not raised during hearing of writ petition (under review) could not be raised through review application being not competent—Validity—Provisions of S.114, C.P.C. did not apply to vires of award issued by Arbitrator or violation of certain provisions of Arbitration Act, 1940—No new horizon could be opened, or grounds which had not been urged at time of hearing of case could be allowed to be introduced or Agitated in review application—No apparent error or any new point or evidence was noticed which was not considered or taken into account at time of passing the judgment—Review application did not satisfy criterion and principles of review—Review could not be granted for re-appraisement of certain facts or re-examination of same arguments or re-arguing/rehearing case on merits and additional grounds—Impugned judgment being based on sound footing could not be interfered with—High Court dismissed application being based on misconception.
2016 MLD 1077 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
COCA COLA BEVERAGES PAKISTAN LIMITED VS ECHO WEST INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LTD.
Ss.20 & 33—Arbitration through court—Proceedings as civil suit—Scope—Although proceedings under provisions of Ss. 20 & 33 of Arbitration Act, 1940, are not suit in stricto sensu, yet the proceedings are to be treated as a civil suit—Though said proceedings are not full-fledged civil suit in stricto sensu, but these are legal proceedings with limited scope—Application under S. 20 of Arbitration Act, 1940, is treated as a suit and order directing filing of agreement and making reference to arbitration being final in circumstances amounts to a decree.
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 & 23—Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 9, 42 & 54— Suit for possession, declaration and permanent injunction—Appointment of referee—Rival parties had filed suits against each other—Plaintiffs had filed a suit for possession against the defendant and during pendency of said suit, the defendant had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction—Both rival suits were consolidated—On the appeal of the defendant, two persons were nominated for appointment as referees; and the Trial Court appointed a referee, who submitted his report in compliance of the order of the Trial Court—Trial Court, on the basis of said report, decreed the suit of plaintiffs and dismissed the suit of the defendant—Said judgment and decree was affected and Appellate Court, having dismissed the appeal, the defendant had assailed the said order—Grounds taken in the revision petition by the defendant could not be considered as the referee had been appointed with the consent of the parties; and High Court not only had approved the appointment of said referee, but had also issued the direction to decide the fate of the suit on the basis of the statement of the referee—Question arising during pendency of the suit which stood decided and settled under order of a Revisional Court, could not be allowed to be reagitated in appeal filed against the decree—Courts below had rightly passed the judgment and decree in accordance with the report of referee available on record— Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.
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.
2012 CLC 1015 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
SAEED AHMAD VS NIAZ AHMAD
Ss. 9, 42 & 54—Arbitration Act (X of 1940), Ss.8, 21 & 23—Suit for possession, declaration and permanent injunction—Appointment of referee—Rival parties had filed suits against each other—Plaintiffs had filed a suit for possession against the defendant; and during pendency of said suit, the defendant had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction—Both rival suits were consolidated—On the appeal of the defendant, two persons were nominated for appointment as referees; and the Trial Court appointed a referee, who submitted his report in compliance of the order of the Trial Court—Trial Court, on the basis of said report, decreed the suit of plaintiffs and dismissed the suit of the defendant—Said judgment and decree was effected and Appellate Court, having dismissed the appeal, the defendant had assailed the said order—Grounds taken in the revision petition by the defendant could not be considered as the referee had been appointed with the consent of the parties; and High Court not only had approved the appointment of said referee, but had also issued the direction to decide the fate of the suit on the basis of the statement of the referee—Question arising during pendency of the suit which stood decided and settled under order of a Revisional Court, could not be allowed to be reagitated in appeal filed against the decree—Courts below had rightly passed the judgment and decree in accordance with the report of referee available on record—Revision, was dismissed, in circumstances.
2010 PLD 707 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MARATHON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (PVT.) LTD. VS OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD.
Sched. I, Art.12 [as amended by Punjab Finance Act (XIX of 2004)]—Arbitration Act (X of 1940), Ss.20(4) & 23—Award—Stamp duty—Exemption, benefit of—Every award is subject to payment of stamp duty if it is made on a reference otherwise than by an order of court in the course of a suit—Any award pursuant to a reference made by an order of the court in the course of a suit is exempt from payment of stamp duty—Benefit of exemption from payment of stamp duty is available only when reference is made by an order of Court passed in the course of a suit—Such order can be passed by court under S.23 of Arbitration Act, 1940, during pendency of a suit, if the parties to the suit agree and apply to court for reference of their dispute to arbitration—Besides, an order of reference passed under section 20(4) of Arbitration Act, 1940, is also deemed to have been passed in the course of a suit as application under S.20 of Arbitration Act, 1940, is recognized as a suit.
2005 PLD 670 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
CHINA INTERNATIONAL WATER VS PAKISTAN WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
—S. 23—Reference to arbitration—Valid and legal reference is the pre-condition to give jurisdiction to Arbitrator to decide the dispute–If the reference is invalid or illegal then through that reference no jurisdiction can be conferred upon the Arb
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 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
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
2002 CLC 107 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
HAMID RAZI SARWAR VS ROHI SARWAR
—-Ss. 21, 23 & 47—Arbitration proceedings —Pendency of revision before High Court—Failure to file application under S.21 of Arbitration Act, 1940, for reference to Arbitrator—Respondents denied joining of any arbitration proceedings rather they
2002 CLD 624 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MST. SURIYA WASEEM USMANI VS L & M INIERNATIONAL (PVT.) LTD.
—-O. XXXVII, R.2—Arbitration Act (X of 1940), Ss.23 & 34–Summary suit—Reference to arbitrator—Application under S.34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, was filed during the proceedings of suit under O.XXXVII R.2, C.P.C.—Validity—Where suit was bas
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.
2001 MLD 1444 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, MANPOWER DIVISION, MINISTRY OF LABOUR VS ADAMJEE INSURANCE CO. LTD.
—-Ss. 14, 16, 20 & 23—Conclusion of proceedings and giving award by the arbitrat6t—Limitation—Arbitration were required to conclude the proceedings and to give award within 120 days after entering upon the reference—In case of any delay, arbitra
2001 MLD 99 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN, CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, KARACHI VS AL-FAROOQ BUILDERS
—-Ss. 15 & 23—Award making rule of Court—Reference of dispute to arbitrator of the choice of the parties—Effect—Duty of the Court in such cases was to give every reasonable intendment in favour of the award and lean towards upholding the same ra
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.
2000 YLR 253 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
GHEE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN LTD. VS MULTAN CHEMICALS LTD.
—-Ss. 21 & 23—Reference to arbitrator–Decision on question of law by arbitrator–Clear agreement existed between the parties that arbitrators would have full authority to decide all the questions of law and facts raised before them by the par-ties —
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
—-Ss:21, 23, 33 & 39—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.34—Award beyond the scope of reference made to the arbitrator–Grant of interest on disputed amount–Jurisdiction of arbitrator—Suit for rendition of accounts was filed by respondent–Prelim
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 1576 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
MUHAMMAD ZUFRAN VS NEHMAT
Arbitration Act 1940 —-Ss.23 & 34—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115—Reference by Appellate Court to arbitrators—Jurisdiction of Court—Extent—Cessation and resumption of jurisdiction—Appeal being continuation of original. suit, Appellate Court, has authority to exercise every power vested in Trial Court and thus matter in dispute could be referred to arbitrators by Appellate Court—Joint application of parties on file, was a complete and undisputed agreement for appointment of arbitrators—Reference to arbitrators in pursuance of such agreement was valid reference to arbitration and decision of such arbitrators was award within contemplation of S.23, Arbitration Act, 1940—Where matter was referred to arbitration after valid arbitration agreement, then jurisdiction of Court to decide the matter would remain ceased so long as such arbitration agreement was in the field—Court can only exercise jurisdiction with regard to matters arising out of award i.e. receipt of award; receipt of objections if any; examination of evidence pro .and contra; and examination -of arbitrator/arbitrators in order to see as to whether they had rightly acted in terms of reference or not—Jurisdiction of Court was not resumed until and unless arbitration was dropped by parties or award was declared invalid and no further arbitrators were appointed by the parties.
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.
1990 MLD 1937 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ALLAH BAKHSH VS SHAMSHAD BEGUM
—Ss. 47, 21 & 23—Any reference to arbitration without the intervention of the Court where the suit was pending with regard to the same subject matter would be violative of Ss. 21, 23 & 47 of the Act—Arbitration award, however, could be utilised as a
1990 MLD 106 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
FAIZ-UL-HAQ VS ABDUS SALAM
—Ss. 21 & 23—Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 33—Disputes between parties to suit—Reference to third person—Third person so appointed by Court with consent of parties whether a “referee” or an “arbitrator”—Test—Appointee’s status and effe
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 CLC 2359 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD KHALID VS A.T.M. CORPORATION LTD
Arbitration Act 1940 —S. 23–Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 33–Controversy between parties–Reference of dispute to person having no personal knowledge of dispute–Such person holding necessary enquiry to acquaint himself with controversy existing between parties and then giving his decision, could not be deemed to be a referee for resolution of parties’ dispute in terms of Art.33 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984–Decision given by such person in implementation of Award already existing between parties, would be an “Award”–Parties to the reference would have right to file objections against the same in accordance with provisions of Arbitration Act, 1940, unless such parties had otherwise waived their right or under general principles of law stand estopped to challenge that Award–Parties on account of their conduct and understanding stand estopped to challenge report of referee.
1987 CLC 1791 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MAHMOOD ALAM VS SHAHID ZAMAN
Arbitration Act 1940 —Ss. 23 & 16–Dispute over family property–Property partitioned under settlement deed, some units of property were to be awarded to plaintiff and some were to be retained by defendants–Units of property to be transferred to the plaintiff were to be delivered to him physically–Plaintiff, however, having remained out of possession of property awarded to him under Settlement deed, claiming compensation from defendants for their failure to deliver the property and keeping and utilising the same for their benefit for a long period–Controversy not capable of being settled in Court referred to arbitrator whose award challenged by plaintiff in instant suit–Arbitrator in his award observing “keeping in view the clear language used in the clauses of settlement deed, execution of the relinquishment deed by plaintiff is a condition for fulfilment of obligation on the part of opponents”-Opinion of Arbitrator not found to be justified because under settlement deed partition of property and consequent steps involving delivery of possession would be actual implementation of the agreement–Partition and delivery must follow documentation visualised in relevant clauses of settlement deed–Arbitrator, held, had fallen into an error by holding that performance of obligations under provisions of the deed by the defendants was dependent upon performance of obligations under the deed by the plaintiff and due to fallacy in his approach had relieved defendants from the obligations which they were bound to perform under deed of Settlement–Defendants must account for the profit and income of the property which belonged to plaintiff–One issue having been left undetermined and another issue decided under defective approach, case remanded to same arbitrator for fresh decision after hearing parties with consent of the counsel of the parties.
1984 CLC 546 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
ARBAB ABDUL QADIR VS BIBI FATIMA
— S. 23-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XLIII, r. 1-Arbitration-Reference-As soon as reference in a pending suit made to arbitration trial Court, held, becomes functus officio and cannot deal with such matter in suit except as provided under Arbitra
1984 CLC 1926 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
ASLAM SHAIQ VS HASAN ASKARI
— S. 100-Sind Co-operative Societies Act (VII of 1925), S. 23–Arbitration Act (X of 1940), 3. 23–Allotment of plot in favour of appellant without cancellation of previous allotment-Order of cancellation of plot in name of appellant made with condition
1983 CLC 3189 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
ALI MUHAMMAD VS BABOO
23-Reference to Arbitrator-Parties agreeing before Court for appointment of arbitrator and that they would abide by his decision-Order of reference made by Court correct and letter sent not vague-Opponent not submitting objection and went on adopting delaying tactics-Order of making award rule of Court, held, in consonance with law.-[Award].
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 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].
1976 PLD 882 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
NABI BUX VS MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM
23(2) Subject matter of pending suit referred to arbitration-Whether Court cannot deal with such matter as long as reference stands.
1968 PLD 629 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MST. UMAR BIBI AND OTHERS VS BASHIR AHMAD AND OTHERS
Ss. 21 & 23-Reference of “matter in difference”-Court referring whole case to arbitrators appointed by parries-Contention that “matter in dispute” not specifically mentioned in order of reference itself and, therefore, reference bad-Held : not tenable.
1956 PLD 596 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
FATEH MUHAMMAD KHAN VS BHAG BHARI
23 (1)-Agreement to refer only one point-Court referring entire suit to arbitration -Order of reference inaccurate.