Section 8 : Power of Court to appoint arbitrator or umpire
2002 YLR 2277 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ZILA COUNCIL, LAHORE VS REHM DIL KHAN
—-Ss. 8, 20 & 39—Appeal—Appointment of arbitrator without notice to appellant–Original record did not reveal that the service on appellant had been effected—Power of attorney filed on behalf of the appellant contained the date later than the one
2002 YLR 1560 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ZULIFQAR ALI SHAH VS MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN
—-Ss.8, 14 & 30—Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.33—Status of arbitrator or referee, determination of—Distinction had to be drawn by Courts on facts and circumstances of each case whether status of a person appointed with consent of parties to r
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 925 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS ALICON LIMITED
?
2001 CLC 289 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ALPHA INSURANCE CO. LIMITED VS NIZAM DIN & SONS
Arbitration Act 1940 S. 8—Appointment of arbitrator—Powers of Court—Provisions of S.8, Arbitration Act, 1940 are applied to such cases where the arbitrator of arbitrators are to be appointed by the consent of all parties and not to those where each party is to appoint his own arbitrator.
2001 MLD 18 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
SAJJAD HUSSAIN VS ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR-GENERAL, LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, LAHORE
Arbitration Act 1940 —-Ss. 8 & 20—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199—Constitutional petition—Alternate remedy—Arbitration clause, invoking of—Petitioner failed to invoke the arbitration clause before filing the Constitutional petition—Maintainability—Where alternate remedy of arbitration clause was available, the petition was not maintainable.
2000 PTD 478 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD ANSAR VS ADMINISTRATOR, TOWN COMMITTEE, KABIRWALA, DISTRICT
KHANEWAL
Arbitration Act 1940 —-Ss. 8 & 20—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199—Constitutional petition—Maintainability—Contractual liability—Arbitration clause being present in the agreement, Constitutional petition was not maintainable.
2000 YLR 219 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
CONSORTIUM OF PROGRESSIVE CONSULTANTS LZHAR LTD. VS PROVINCE OF PUNJAB
Arbitration Act 1940 –S.8(1)(b)–Appointment of new arbitrator–Conditions–Powers of Court-Scope—Court may appoint an arbitrator who shall have like powers to act in the reference and to make an award as if such new arbitrator has been appointed by consent of parties—Such a new arbitrator may be appointed when the appointed arbitrator refuses to act and arbitration agreement shows that it is intended that the vacancy should be filled and parties do not fill the vacancy.
2000 MLD 1564 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., MULTAN VS FAZAL COTTON INDUSTRY
Arbitration Act 1940 —-Ss. 8 & 39—Award, filing of—Appeal—Failure to frame issues on objections—Arbitrator filed the award in Trial Court, no objections were filed in the Court within the statutory period—Objections filed after the due date were dismissed by the Trial Court and the award was made rule of the Court—Contention raised by appellant was that Trial Court had rejected the same without framing of issues on the objections—Validity—Trial Court did not frame the issues for the reasons that firstly the objections were filed beyond limitation and there was no question of framing of issues on factual controversies, secondly, the objection regarding the jurisdiction of Trial Court was not relevant—Where no mentionable proposition of fact or of law was affirmed by the appellant which could give rise to an issue, order of Trial Court did not warrant interference on any account—Neither the alleged misconduct qua the proceedings or the award nor lack of proper opportunity having ever been alleged in clear terms could justify framing of issues in the , facts of the , case—Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.
1999 SCMR 121 SUPREME-COURT
PROJECT DIRECTOR, BALOCHISTAN MINOR IRRIGATION AND AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, QUETTA CANTT VS MURAD ALI & COMPANY
Arbitration Act 1940 Ss. 8 & 20 — Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3) — Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether there remained any dispute whatsoever which could, at all, be referred to arbitration notwithstanding payment to contractor of final bill under protest; payment of another huge amount in pursuance of subsequent settlement between parties out of Court and withdrawal of protest qua receipt of final bill and whether observation of High Court, that appellant having omitted to file appeal against earlier order of remand, proceedings before Trial Court under Ss. 8 & 20, Arbitration Act, 1940, were not open to challenge were misconceived.
1999 YLR 950 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD ANSAR VS ADMINISTRATOR, TOWN COMMITTEE, KABIRWALA, DISTRICT KHANEWAL
Arbitration Act 1940 —-Ss. 8 & 20—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199—Constitutional petition–Maintainability—Contractual liability–Arbitration clause being present in the agreement, Constitutional petition was not maintainable.
1999 MLD 3433 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
PHARMACHEM VS DADABHOY INSURANCE CO. LTD. (FORMERLY PAK RESOURCES INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.)
Arbitration Act 1940 —-S. 8—Dispute between insurer and insured—Application for appointment of Arbitrator by insured—Incident of burglary took place in the premises of the applicant—Such risk was covered by insurance policy issued by respondent–Applicant preferred a claim which was rejected by the respondent on the ground that suitable security measures were not adopted by applicant—Dispute of breach of terms of contract of insurance on the part of applicant—Such dispute could be resolved by the Civil Court and hot the Arbitrator on account of restricted jurisdiction of the latter—Application was dismissed.
1999 CLC 1005 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
ABDUL SALAM VS MUHAMMAD YAQOOB
Arbitration Act 1940 Ss. 8, 14 & 21—Appointment of arbitrator—During the pendency of arbitration proceedings the sole arbitrator had died—Petitioner filed an application for the appointment of another arbitrator, without issuance of notice to the other party—Maintainability—Issuance of a notice under S. 8, Arbitration Act, 1940, was a legal pre-condition to the arbitration proceedings— Held, petition under S. 8 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 in the special circumstances of the case was to be treated to be a notice—Objection to the maintainability of the petition on the ground of non-issuance of notice was overruled and the petition was _allowed in circumstances.
1997 CLC 503 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Q.M.R. EXPERT CONSULTANTS VS KARACHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, CIVIC CENTRE, KARACHI
Arbitration Act 1940 Ss.8. 5 & 11???Removal of arbitrator???Petitioner on whose suggestion arbitrator was appointed sought removal of arbitrator on two grounds viz. arbitrator had served in service of respondent and that he had not made award even after expiry of extended period???Petitioner having suggested appointment of arbitrator and having participated in proceedings could not turn around and say that he was not aware of the fact that arbitrator had served in service of respondent???Such ground being frivolous and baseless was not maintainable??Petitioner, however, had raised objection that arbitrator had not given award even after expire, of extended time
1996 PLD 16 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
NASRULLAH BALOCH VS EAST-WEST INSURANCE COMPANY
Ss. 8 & 20???Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art, 199????Constitutional petition ??? Reference for arbitration???Petitioner got his business stock i.e. cloth insured with respondent Insurance Company~??Business premises of petitioner caught fire, but business stock (cloth) which was insured by petitioner remained safe ??? Dispute having arisen with regard to determination of loss, petitioner filed application to refer dispute to arbitrator which application was accepted by trial Court, but was dismissed by Appellate Court holding that no dispute as per insurance policy existed between the parties for settlement of which arbitrator was required to be appointed ??? Fire policy explicitly ,mentioned about “stock of cloth” in business premises, thus articles or goods other than ‘cloth’ could not be deemed subject?matter of dispute ??
1996 CLC 69 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
PROVINCE OF PUNJAB VS RANA & SONS
Arbitration Act 1940 —-Ss. 8 & 20—Appointment of arbitrator in terms of agreement between parties—Jurisdiction—Respondent had applied to Court at L’for appointment of arbitrator on account of failure of appellant to appoint arbitrator in terms of S.8 of the Act—Objection to jurisdiction on the ground that agreement in question, had been executed at K’; work was also executed at `K’; therefore, Court at `L’had no jurisdiction to appoint arbitrators–Effect—Appointment of arbitrator in terms of S.8, Arbitration Act, 1940, if not made within 15 days after service of notice then Court on application of party, who gave such notice could make appointment of arbitrator/umpire—Service of notice for appointment under agreement between parties would be necessary—Application for appointment of arbitrator, if moved without service of such notice would be liable to be dismissed as premature or for want of cause of action—Part of cause of action, therefore, accrued to respondent at `L’on the failure of appellant to make appointment of arbitrator—Civil Court at `L’has thus, jurisdiction to decide application under Ss.8 & 20, Arbitration Act, 1940, filed by respondent.
1996 PLD 545 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
AKBAR HUSSAIN VS MUHAMMAD TAYYAB
Ss. 8 & 9 — Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S. 3 — Intra-Court Appeal — Appointment of arbitrator — Appointment of arbitrator under S.8 and under S.9 of the Arbitration Act — Distinction — Appellant in terms of S.8, Arbitration Act, 1940, appointed his sole arbitrator on failure of respondent to agree to such arbitrator — Appellant, however, had to serve notice on respondent in writing requiring him to concur in such appointment — Respondent’s failure to concur within fifteen days of such notice would, have entitled appellant to move Court seeking necessary appointment —- Even if it be assumed that all requirements of S.8, pursuant to S.3 alongwith para. 1 in First Schedule to Arbitration Act, 1940, were complied with by appellant, admitted position on record was that appellant never moved for seeking requisite appointment of sole arbitrator pursuant to S.8(2), Arbitration Act, 1940 — In view of such omission appointment of arbitrator was bad in law — Whereas under S.8, Arbitration Act, 1940, for want of concurrence in appointment of arbitrator, aid and attention of Court was necessary appointment in terms of S.9 of the Act by party not in default could ipso facto, upon requirements being met would become final and no recourse to Court was necessary — Requirements of S.8, Arbitration Act, 1940 having not been met, High Court was right not to refer case to arbitrator nominated by appellant.
1995 CLC 1877 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
HATTA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (PVT.)LTD. . VS FAISALABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, FAISALABAD~(
- XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2—Arbitration Act (X of 1940), Ss. 8, 20 & 41–Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 73—Entitlement to grant of interim injunction–Relations between parties being contractual in nature, alleged breach in the contract by petitioner was yet to be determined so also liability of parties inter se was still in issue—Trial Court had itself come to conclusion that dispute between parties was referable to arbitration in terms of arbitration clause contained in agreement between the parties—In absence of any determination by competent forum, question for determination would be whether amount claimed by respondents as damages was due and payable by petitioner—Such question having yet to be determined, petitioner had a prima facie case in his favour entitling him to grant of interim relief.
1995 PLD 452 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
AKBAR HUSSAIN VS MUHAMMAD TAYYEB
Arbitration Act 1940 —-Ss. 8 & 14(2)—Appointment of Arbitrators by parties—Party seeking arbitration must serve notice on the other party of its intention of appointing Arbitrator and requiring the other party to do likewise—Defendant was not proved to have been served with requisite notice on behalf of plaintiff–Defendant, thus, had no knowledge of appointment of Arbitrator and of proceedings conducted before that. Arbitrator—Proceedings conducted by Arbitrator without serving opposite-party requiring it to appoint its own Arbitrator were, thus, not warranted by law and order of Court making such award rule of the Court being invalid was set aside in circumstances.
1994 MLD 560 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
FAZAL BIBI VS ABDUL HAMEED
Arbitration Act 1940 —-Ss.8 & 30—Statement made by referee—Objection to—Petitioner contended that person appointed in the case as referee had acted as an `arbitrator’ and not as `referee’ inasmuch as he had submitted his report on basis of collection of material, without giving opportunity to raise objection against such report/award given by that person, and thus Court could not have relied upon it and could not have passed judgment and decree in terms and on the basis of such report/award—With consent of parties case was remanded to be decided afresh after giving parties opportunity to raise objections against statement/award made by arbitrator/referee and after deciding objections, from stage when referee’s statement/award was recorded by Court which statement would be treated as award.
1994 MLD 543 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB VS MUHAMMAD SHARIF & CO.
Arbitration Act 1940 —-Ss.8 & 20—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115—Making the award rule of Court—Revision—Maintainability—Award amounting to Rs.60,000 given by Arbitrator appointed by Court, was accepted by respondent contractor, but was objected to by petitioner Department—Department having failed to establish its assertion that Arbitrator had misconducted himself or proceedings, Court allowed application of contractor filed by him under Ss. 8 & 20 of Arbitration Act, 1940 and ruled out objections raised on part of Department—On filing appeal by Department against decision of Trial Court, Appellate Court below returned memorandum of appeal to be filed in Court of competent jurisdiction, namely High Court in view of fact that at relevant time pecuniary jurisdiction of Appellate Court was upto Rs. 50,000 while amount involved in case was Rs.60,000—Department instead` of filing appeal before High Court as directed by Appellate Court below challenged order of Appellate Court in revision before High Court- -Pecuniary jurisdiction, of Appellate Court though later on had been expanded, but jurisdictional limits of Court concerned, has to be kept in view as were prescribed at relevant time and not in accordance with subsequent position–Department at later stage had prayed that revision be converted into appeal and that case be remanded for its decision afresh on merits—Even if revision was allowed to be taken as appeal as prayed for by Department, it would be deemed to have been filed now and not with effect from the time when it was preferred as a revision petition—Being time-barred, it was liable to be dismissed—Revision filed by Department with a plea and prayer in which it had originally been couched, had no merits and was not maintainable.
1994 MLD 248 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
RELIANCE CONSTRUCTION CO. VS AGHA KHAN MEDICAL COLLEGE FOUNDATION, KARACHI
Arbitration Act 1940 —-S.8—Appointment of umpire by arbitrators—Arbitrators, having once appointed umpire would, thereafter be divested of such power and would become functus officio—Arbitrators, thus, did not possess any power to fill in any vacancy unless such power was conferred by arbitration agreement—Such power had not been conferred on arbitrators under arbitration agreement–Where, however, parties had submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of subsequently appointed umpire by the arbitrators after the demise of the previous umpire and had been appearing along with their counsel in the proceedings before him without any objection to his jurisdiction, any one of the parties would be estopped from questioning jurisdiction of such umpire to enter into reference—Active participation of objectors (defendants) before umpire would tantamount to their acquiescence: –[Acquiescence–Estoppel].
1993 MLD 1359 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MUMTAZ AHMED VS BLASE D’SA
Arbitration Act 1940 —-Ss.8 & 20—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), OXXXIX, Rr.l & 2 and O.XL, R.1—Appointment of arbitrator—Interim relief, grant of–Appointment of receiver—During hearing of case parties agreed to appoint new sole arbitrator to adjudicate upon disputes between parties—Parties agreed that previous arbitrator would return case papers pertaining to earlier arbitration proceedings to newly-appointed arbitrator who, with or without assent of parties could adopt or take recourse to any such record or part thereof—While parties agreed for disposal of main application under Ss.8 & 20 in terms of agreement, they did not agree as regards interim relief sought by plaintiff in shape of interim injunction and appointment of a receiver in respect of disputed business—Plaintiff having approached Court somewhat belatedly for interim relief, whatever be the merits of controversy, injunction could not be issued and a receiver could not be appointed on such delayed application, particularly when it was claimed by defendant in defence that plaintiff was not currently and effectively participating in business—In view of fact that disputes between parties were continuing and arbitration proceedings were going on, none of parties was to be exposed to any hardship nor fruits of proceedings were to be denied to the person who ultimately benefited from such proceedings—Defendants were directed to submit weekly accounts up to date of the order.
1992 SCMR 65 SUPREME-COURT
AWAN INDUSTRIES LTD. VS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, LINED CHANNEL DIVISION
Arbitration Act 1940 —-S.8—Approbation and reprobation in the same breath not permitted–Where sole arbitrator was appointed by Deputy Martial Law Administrator, the setting aside of award made by such arbitrator, by the order of Martial Lave Administrator would be evenly considered—No party could treat order by one of such authorities as valid and the other invalid, by parity of reasons—In either case, either there was- no valid reference or there was no award in existence which could, be filed.
1992 PLD 99 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
INTERHOM (PVT.) LTD. VS PAK STEEL MILLS
- 8(2)— Appointment of arbitrator —Agreement between parties as also correspondence between them enjoined upon parties to appoint mutually a sole arbitrator ??? Sole arbitrator having been appointed by the parties, arbitration proceedings could not proceed as said arbitrator was transferred??Parties could not agree in the appointment of a sole arbitrator in place of former arbitrator appointed by them ??? Court was empowered under provision of S. 8(2), Arbitration Act, 194P to appoint an arbitrator where parties failed to agree.
1991 CLC 1307 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
LAHORE IMPROVEMENT TRUST VS AL-AZAM LIMITED
- 11—Arbitration Act (X of 1940), Ss.8, 10, 20, 39 & 41 — Objection of appellant Authority to award which was made rule of Court, raised under S.10 of Act, was earlier rejected — Order of rejection of objection was appealable, but Authority did not challenge that order in appeal and as such same had become final for all purposes — Failure of Authority to file appeal against earlier order would preclude it to raise that objection once again in First Appeal against order in view of principle of res judicata which was applicable to proceedings under Arbitration Act.
1991 CLC 1023 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
INTERFORM DESIGN ASSOCIATES (PVT.) LTD. VS BAHRIA FOUNDATION
Arbitration Act 1940 S. 8 — Appointment of arbitrator by Court — Validity — Parties to arbitration agreement had nominated a certain person to be appointed as arbitrator in case of dispute — Court, with the consent of parties had appointed a different arbitrator — Effect — Defendants after having given their consent to the appointment of arbitrator could not be permitted to turn back and raise objection to such appointment.
1990 SCMR 446 SUPREME-COURT
MUHAMMAD RAMZAN VS PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB
Arbitration Act 1940 S.8—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)—Arbitration—Misconduct of arbitrator—Arbitrator while giving award though accepted claims of petitioner with regard to several items but rejected the claim for one item No. 3—Plea raised that arbitrator while rejecting the claim for said item had mis-conducted himself—After going through record and judgment of High Court, it was found that arbitrator had not mis-conducted himself—Neither any error of law was found nor any question of public importance arose which needed examination–Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
1990 SCMR 763 SUPREME-COURT
GHULAM FARID KHAN VS MUHAMMAD HANIF KHAN
Arbitration Act 1940 —Ss.8 & 14—Qanun-c-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 33—Dispute between parties referred to a `referee’by Court on consent of parties—Referee submitted his “faisla” to Court in respect of reference whereupon Court passed a decree in accordance with “faisla” of referee—“Faisla” of referee whether to be treated as a “statement furnishing information’within the meaning of Art. 33, Qanun-eShahadat, 1984 or an “award” within the meaning of S.14, Arbitration Act–Referee by his “faisla” not only divided the disputed property but even awarded cash amount to some of the parties by way of compensation on equitable considerations—Referee’s “faisala”, therefore, could hardly be treated as a “statement furnishing information” within the meaning of Art. 33, Qanun-eShahadat, 1984—Referee, quite clearly understood his role as that. of an “arbitator” and proceeded accordingly even though in keeping with the statements made by the parties, he described himself as a referee—Referee’s “faisla”, was thus clearly an award which could not be made rule of Court without giving an opportunity to parties, to file objections thereto.
1990 MLD 2010 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
DESIGN GROUP OF PAKISTAN VS CLIFTON CANTONMENT BOARD
Arbitration Act 1940 —-S. 8(b)—Court can appoint an arbitrator or umpire when an arbitrator appointed by the parties “neglects or refuses to act or is incapable of acting or dies”—Such power of the Court does not empower it to substitute the original agreement of the parties by an entirely new agreement of its choice.
1990 MLD 261 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
DESIGN GROUP OF PAKISTAN VS CLIFTON CANTONMENT BOARD
Arbitration Act 1940 —Ss.8, 11 & 12–Removal of arbitrator and substitution thereof–Once award was made and filed in Court, proceedings for removal of arbitrator and for substitution thereof, if pending in Court, must lie dormant–Such proceedings could be revived and taken up again if and when, award was set aside.
1989 MLD 3131 SUPREME-COURT-INDIA
INDER SINGH REKHI VS DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Arbitration Act 1940 —Ss.20 & 8–Application for reference–Limitation–Contract for building houses–Dispute–Reference–Limitation–Period of limitation has to be computed from date claim is asserted and payment is denied.
1989 MLD 3040 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ASLAM KHAN AND SONS VS GAMMON PAKISTAN LTD
Arbitration Act 1940 —Ss.8, 31 & 34–Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Ss.9 and Arts. 149 & 181–Appointment of arbitrator–Application for–Point of limitation–Agreement containing arbitration clause–Petitioner served respondent with notice to agree to appointment of arbitrator–No response from respondent–Petitioner after more than three years from expiry of fifteen days’ notice, filed application before Court to appoint arbitrator–Application, held, was barred by time and period of three years prescribed for making such application, once started running, could not be stopped by subsequent or supervening event like filing of application under S.34 of Arbitration Act.
1989 PLD 261 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB VS SYED SHAFIQUE AHMAD
Reference to arbitration??Scope??Nature of dispute between parties specifically spelt out in application for appointment and reference of dispute to arbitrators??Arbitrators’ jurisdiction was thus limited to determine the disputes as mentioned in that application??Arbitrators could not proceed to decide or determine any other dispute which would be beyond the scope of reference.
1989 MLD 54 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE VS MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH
—Ss. 5, 8 & 11–Referee–Determination of position–Position of referee, held, was not to be determined with reference to statement he made rather it was agreement of parties which primarily was to determine his position–Referee admittedly was appointe
1989 MLD 1304 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
ABDUL HAKIM K. KHAN VS BEGUM KHANUM JAN
Arbitration Act 1940 —S.8–Provisions of S.8(1)(a) are applicable in respect of initial appointment of arbitrators by consent of parties and not in respect of their refusal to act.
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 MLD 1131 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Shaikh MUHAMMAD UMER VS ZAKARIA ADAMJEE CHARITABLE CORPORATION
Arbitration Act 1940 —Ss.8 & 20–Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.62–Application for reference of dispute to arbitrator–Contention in said application that defendant had illegally and dishonestly charged specified amount as maintenance charges non-refundable, repelled–Plaintiff having agreed to pay such specified amount towards non-refundable maintenance charges under terms of agreement, such payment, held, could not be considered as dispute between parties.
1987 PLD 33 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
PROVINCE OF BALUCHISTAN VS MUHAMMAD USMAN KHAN
Ss. 8 & 20?Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Ss. 15 & 96 Arbitration proceedings initiated before District Judge as civil Court having jurisdiction in matter was not functioning when application for appointment of arbitrator was made?District Judge appointing arbitrator and subsequently entertaining award, making same rule of Court?Appeal against orders of District Judge exercising original jurisdiction held, would lie to High Court and not to successor District Court.?? S. 20?Arbitration agreement, filing of?Validity?Procedure???? Ss. 17, 20 & 39?Arbitration agreement?Powers and duties of Court.
1987 MLD 3001 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Messrs ASCONS ENGINEERS and CONTRACTOR VS Messrs PAK STEEL MILLS CORPORATION
Arbitration Act 1940 —S.8(1)(a)–Appointment of arbitrator–Power of Court–Arbitration agreement between parties provided that disputes between parties would be settled under arbitration procedure and that arbitrator would be nominated by particular party–In case such particular party failed to nominate arbitrator in accordance with arbitration agreement, Court, held, could appoint an arbitrator.
1987 PLD 575 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
WASEEM CONSTRUCTION CO VS GOVT. OF SIND
Ss. 20, 30 s 33??Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Ss. 4 & 5 and Sched. Art. 158??Award??Filing of objections to award??Limitation?Objections not filed within. 30 days of filing of award as provided under Art. 158, Limitation Act, 1908 due to closure of Court for summer vacations??Period of limitation having expired during summer vacations of the High Court whether defendants were entitled to file objections on the date when Court reopened??Contention of plaintiff’s counsel that objections filed in the case were barred by time appearing to be well?founded??Law on point, however, being somewhat unsettled, objections dealt with on merits.
1987 MLD 2863 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
GOVERNMENT OF SIND VS Syed ZAHIR HUSSAIN
Arbitration Act 1940 —S.8–Arbitration–Arbitration clause existing in contract reached by parties for appointment of arbitrators for settlement of claim–On failure of appellant to appoint arbitrator, respondent moving Court for appointment of arbitrator–Court asking appellant to appoint arbitrator but he failed to do so–Court appointing a sole arbitrator-Appellant raising objection to appointment of sole arbitrator by Court–Held, appellant having failed to appoint arbitrator and dispute being pending since long, Court had acted in best interest of justice in appointing sole arbitrator and since appellant himself failed to appoint arbitrator he could not take position that anything wrong had been done by order of the Court.
1987 MLD 2147 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION VS Messrs SARHAD CONSTRUCTION Co.
—Ss.5 & 8(2)–Arbitrator–Appointment by Court–Dispute over execution of contracted construction work–Court by consent order appointing arbitrators of parties–Arbitrators entering upon reference but same was delayed and no progress made on account of
1987 CLC 83 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
RALLI BROTHERS & CONEY LTD. VS MUHAMMAD AMIN MUHAMMAD BASHIR LTD.
Arbitration Act 1940 Ss. 7 & 8??Appointment of arbitrator/ umpire in terms of contract?Validity of??Appointment of arbitrator/ umpire in accordance with terms of contract between parties, held, would not be violative of English Arbitration Act, 1950.
1986 PLD 321 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
PROVINCE OF BALUCHISTAN VS TRIBAL FRIENDS COMPANY LORALAI
Ss. 16, 17, 30 & 32?Limitation Act (IX of 1940), S. 3?AwardQuestion of limitation for filing objection petition?Trial Court only mechanically dealing with question of limitation and deciding issue of limitation without affording opportunity of leading evidence to petitioner?Question of limitation being a mixed question of law and fact, trial Court, held, acted erroneously and illegally?Decree passed consequently was rendered defective on that score.
1986 MLD 1980 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
PROVINCE OF PUNJAB VS AKHTAR SALEEM
Arbitration Act 1940 —S.8–Appointment of sole arbitrator by Court–Requirements–Where Court intended to appoint nominee of one party as sole arbitrator due to failure of other party to appoint their arbitrator, it would be incumbent on such Court to give a notice of fifteen clear days to defaulting party of its intention for appointment thereof–Violation of legal requirement, held, would render reference to sole arbitrator as invalid.
1986 CLC 359 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
AZHAR FAROOQUI VS PERVEZ ANWAR
Arbitration Act 1940 Ss. 8 & 9–Appointment of arbitrator by parties–One party failing to appoint arbitrator within specified time–Effect–Failure of one party to appoint arbitrator on his behalf within specified time, held, would justify arbitrator appointed by other party to act as sole arbitrator.
1986 CLC 312 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, LAHORE VS METROPOLITAN STEEL CORPORATION LTD
Ss. 33, 5, 8 & 9–Arbitration–Respondent main contractors of petitioner for construction of main Civil Engineering Works of project under contract–Another respondent entering into sub-contract with first respondent for supply of Reinforced Steel on terms given in an agreement according to which, in case of dispute, matter was to be referred to arbitration–Petitioner having not signed said agreement thus was not a party thereto–Mere fact that some references had been made to petitioner in a clause of agreement, held, would not make him a party to agreement.
1985 PLD 48 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
PROVINCE OF BALUCHISTAN VS SALEEM BROTHERS
- 30-Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 180 & S. 8-Application for appointment of arbitrator-Limitation-Party in application under S. 30, Arbitration Act, 1940 stating that entire claim before Arbitrator was time-barred-No evidence led by such party to prove his contention-No objection about limitation taken before Arbitrator which was competent forum to make investigation -Held, such objection could have been raised before Arbitrator being sole Judge of fact and law in regard to matters falling within aroitration clause of agreement and enquiry could only be conducted by him and only then it could be determined whether claim of party was barred by time.
1985 CLC 2799 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
FAUJI FOUNDATION VS YOUSUF
—Ss.8 & 20–Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Ss.20 & 120-Appointment of arbitrator–Jurisdiction of Court–Application under Ss.8 & 20, Arbitration Act can be filed at place where contract should have been performed in whole or in part.
1985 MLD 1505 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
ALI HUSSAIN VS EASTERN FILM STUDIO LTD
Arbitration Act 1940 —S.8—Arbitration Tribunal–Constitution—Chairman of Arbitration Tribunal–Appointment of–Appointment of person as Chairman of Arbitration Tribunal other than one named in arbitration agreement, held, rendered constitution of such Arbitration Tribunal illegal with result that not only arbitration proceedings but award made by him was invalid and void.
1985 MLD 397 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
VASEEM CONSTRUCTION COMPANY VS PROVINCE OF SIND
Arbitration Act 1940 —-Ss. 11 & 8–Removal of umpire–Failure to enter upon reference within, period prescribed for making award–No allegation of moral turpitude–Delay constituting neglect or refusal to act within meaning of S. 8 of Act–Authority of umpire :evoked by Court.
1984 PLD 515 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
PROVINCE OF PUNJAB VS DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE
Ss. 2(c) & 8?”Court”??Defined with a particular meaning?Word `’means” used in definition clause, held, was in contradistinction to word “includes” thus reflecting that definition was hard and fast and no other meaning could be assigned to word “Court” than the one given in definition clause?No indication available that word “Court” was used to convey a different sense in S. 8, Arbitration Act, 1940?Interpretation Clause could not, therefore, be ignored and same measure other than amount or value of subject?matter of application, adopted for finding out forum vested with power to hear same?West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance (II of 1962), S. 18.?[Words and phrases].
1984 CLC 3458 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
ALPHA CONTRACTING COMPANY VS NATIONAL MOTORS LTD
–S. 8 read with Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 181-LimitationAppointment of arbitrator-Application for-Contract of construction-Where under arbitration clause resort to arbitration proceedings could be had only after completion of work or after actual
1984 CLC 2690 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
ZARINA VS AHMED RAZA
—-Ss.8 & 20–Appointment of arbitrator by Court– Non-co-operation of parties with arbitrator –Parties to arbitration agreement appointing A as their arbitrator–A making no award due to non-co-operative attitude of parties–Applicant giving notice to
1984 MLD 523 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MUQEET FATIMA VS FOUL FRIENDS CORPORATION
Arbitration Act 1940 —Ss. 8 & 20–Application for appointment of arbitrator and filing of arbitration agreement in Court–Arbitration clause in agreement providing that all disputes will first be decided and settled by parties with majority decision and only in case of tie matter be referred to arbitrator–Condition precedent not fulfilled–Plaintiff failed to establish arbitration agreement–Suit dismissed.
1984 CLC 613 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
TRADING CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN LTD. : IN RE VS TRADING CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN LTD. : IN RE
— S. 8 (1) & (2)-Application for appointment of sole arbitrator by Court in place of existing arbitrator neglecting/refusing to work-Notice to concur in appointment of arbitrator was not served on other party before filing application as required by S. 8
1983 CLC 1685 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
- A. JALIL VS SALAH-UD-DIN KHAN
Ss. 5, 8 & 9-Application under S. 5, 8 or 9 to be filed in Court which has jurisdiction to decide question forming subject-matter of reference if same had been subject-matter of a suit.
1983 CLC 264 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
PUNJAB PROVINCE VS FAQIR SAIN
— S. 8-Arbitrator, appointment of-Parties for a long time not agreeing to appointment of any person as arbitrator-Both parties apparently aggreeing to appointment of a retired Judge of superior Court to prevent abuse of process of law caused by inordinat
1982 CLC 2107 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
TALIB HUSSAIN VS MUHAMMAD LQBAL KHAN
Art. 199 read with Arbitration Act (X of 1940), S. 8-Arbitration-Parties agreeing that in first instance case be remanded to trial Court for deciding preliminary objection as to maintainability of petition for referring matter to arbitration and deciding same .by taking proceedings under S. 8 of Act-Order passed accordingly.
1982 CLC 175 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
PROVINCE OF SIND VS ZAHEERUDDIN HUSSAIN
- 8-Appointment of arbitrator-Appellants failing to appoint arbitrator in spite of reminders-Single Judge appointing sole arbitrator with consent of parties-Appellant not challenging appointment-Held, trial Court competent to appoint arbitrator even without consent of parties and such order became final and binding on appellant.
1982 PLD 13 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
JUNA BUNDER JOINT VENTURE, KARACHI VS BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF PORT OF KARACHI
Ss. 8 & 9?Arbitrator?Challenge to appointment of??Relevant articles of contract as well as arbitration clause clearly showing word “works” as defined in arbitration clause not expressly excluding interpretation of word having been used in divisible sense?Language of arbitration clause also not showing intention of parties being not to make reference 7o arbitration until after completion or alleged completion of entire works named in contract in totality?”Work” in contract hence divided into two parts, firstly to cover completion of ..four berths and secondly to cover completion of two transit sheds Work relating to construction of four berths allegedly completed and even issuance of completion certificate applied for?Invocation of arbitration clause at such stage, held, competent?Jurisdiction of. arbitrator as such having not been challenged and challenge to arbitration clause being founded on disputed question of interpretation of another term of contract, such question (whether work completed or not) to be
1981 CLC 1667 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
GUL AHMED TEXTILE MILLS LTD., KARACHI VS STARKO LTD., KARACHI
- 8-Arbitration-Alleged settlement only a claim under original contract-Does not get substituted in place of original contract–Proceedings for arbitration, in circumstances, held, started under original contract on breach of alleged settlement and therefore competent.
1981 CLC 379 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
ZAHIR HUSSAIN VS PROVINCE OF SIND
Ss. 8 & 30-Arbitration-Defendants having consented to appointment of arbitrator, having taken part in proceedings before such arbitrator and having taken a chance for a favourable decision, held, estopped from challenging award on ground of having not been appointed in accordance with S. 8.-[Estoppel].
1980 PLD 305 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB VS PERFECT ELECTRICT CONCERN
- 20-Agreement to refer to arbitration-Failure to file-Appellant in possession of agreement, ordered to file same in Court but failing to file original agreement and filing arbitration clause admittedly correct-Sufficient compliance of S. 20, held, made. —-Ss. 20(4), 30 & 39-Appeal-Order of appointment of arbitrator follows order for filing of award and not included in former-order of appointment of arbitrator, held, not appealable but order for filing award appealable.–.[Appeal (civil)].
1980 CLC 556 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
TRANSOCEAN ASIA LTD., KARACHI VS PRICE EXPORT CORPORATION PAKISTAN LTD.
- 8-Appointment of arbitrator-A, one of parties to arbitration agreement, calling upon other party B to nominate ‘sole arbitrator as per relevant clause of arbitration agreement and on intimation being given by B that action for appointment of sale arbitrator was being taken, instead of waiting for appointment of sole arbitrator by B serving notice calling upon B to nominate its arbitrator within 15 days from receipt of notice and also informing B of an arbitrator having been appointed by them (A)-Alleged failure on part of B to appoint a sole arbitrator within 15 days from receipt of notice, held, entitled A to invoke S.8 and to approach comp.-tent Court for appointment of sole arbitrator as per arbitration clause but did not confer a right on A to substitute arbitration clause unilaterally and failure of B to appoint sole arbitrator in circumstances, did not amount to waiver of its right to appoint sole arbitrator.-[Arbitrator].
1980 CLC 346 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
SHAUKAT & RAZA LTD., KARACHI VS KARACHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KARACHI
— Ss. 8, 20, 37 & 41 and Sched., cl. (14) read with Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) O. XXXIX, rr. 1 & 2- Injunction-Words and phrases-“Proceeding”-Meaning-No proceedings can there be without an arbitrator or Court or authority in existence to decide it
1979 CLC 32 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN VS MORIS JACOB & CO.
- 8 (I) (b) -Appointment of arbitrator-Notice to other party regarding appointment of arbitrator or supplying vacancy on his death – Sole arbitrator appointed without following provision of S. 8 (1) (b) and despite fact that other party had already appointed its arbitrator-Held. appointment of sole arbitrator invalid–Award given by such sole arbitrator prejudicing other party-Sole arbitrator found not to have conducted proceedings in accordance with settled norms-Award set aside.-[Award—Arbitrator].
1979 PLD 635 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
KARACHI SHIPYARD AND ENGINEERING WORKS LTD VS MUHAMMAD ASLAM KHAN
- 8 read with Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 181?LimitationAppointment of arbitrator, application for?Article 181 being in nature of a residuary Article necessarily extends to all kinds of applications for which no specific period of limitation provided either in Schedule to Limitation Act, 1908 or in any other statute?No specific period of limitation having been provided for application under S. 8 of Arbitration Act, 1940, Art. 181, held, would be attracted to such application.?[Limitation]. ? S. 8?Arbitrator, appointment of?Question as to which Article of Limitation Act (IX of 1908) applied to case??A mixed question of law and fact, not determinable without inquiry into facts?Arbitrator being sole Judge of fact and law in regard to matters falling within arbitration clause, question, held; to be left to be determined by arbitrator upon evidence produced by parties.?[Mixed question of law and fact].
1978 SCMR 278 SUPREME-COURT
OIL & GAS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS KARACHI BUILDERS
— S. 8-Arbitrator-Appointment–One condition of contract as laid down in standard agreement form being to refer any dispute between parties to arbitration of Chief Engineer of petitioner-Corporation but by special condition entered in tender form term ”
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].
1976 PLD 496 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
INTERTRADE LTD KARACHI VS TRADING CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN LTD
- 20(4) ?Filing of agreement and reference to arbitrator?Provision of S. 20(4) refers to arbitrator appointed in agreement?Interpretation that relevant time for agreement of parties to appointment of particular arbitrator is when order of filing of agreement made?Held, inconsistent with express language of provision.[Arbitrator].
1976 PLD 1152 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
U.K. CONSTRUCTION CO KARACHI VS CHIEF ENGINEER HIGHWAYS DEPARTMENT HYDERABAD
Ss. 8, 9 & 20?Government Officer appointed as arbitrator urging his Head of Department feasibility of appointing some other officer, as arbitrator?Such officer, however, not having been relieved of duties as arbitrator taking steps to enter upon reference and issuing notices to parties?Held, arbitrator did not act negligently or carelessly for entering upon reference, in circumstances of case.[Arbitrator].
1971 PLD 693 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD SHARIF VS TAJ DIN
Arbitration Act 1940 S. 8-Interpretation and application-Provisions attracted only where agreement provides for appointment of arbitrator or arbitrators with consent of “all parties”-Section 8 not attracted where arbitrator whose vacancy required to be filled up was appointed by one party alone and was arbitrator of one side only-Whether provisions of S. 3 have reference to a sole arbitrator or cover also cases where more than one arbitrator to be appointed [Quaere]-[Taj Din and another v. Muhammad Sharif and another P L D 1970 Lah. 840 dissented from].
1970 SCMR 319 SUPREME-COURT
PROVINCE OF EAST PAKISTAN VS ABDUR RASHID
Arbitration Act (X of 1940), Ss. 11 & 8(1)(b)-Arbitrator not raking any steps from date he was called to enter upon reference till only four days left In expiry of period of four months for making award-Provision of S. 11 (1) and not S. 8(1)(b) attracted-Court, held, right in removing arbitrator under S. 11.
1970 PLD 840 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
TAJ DIN AND ANOTHER VS MUHAMMAD SHARIF
Arbitration Act 1940 S. 8(1)(b)-Arbitration—Incapability of arbitrator to act-Vacancy must be supplied by Court-Agreement of reference to two Arbitrators and in case of difference of opinion matter to be decided by Sarpanch (Umpire)-One Arbitrator informing Court that he was not capable of acting as such-Court, without supplying vacancy referring matter to Sarpanch who had not been appointed to act as sole Arbitrator—Sarpanch, in circumstances, held, could not give ar, award-Award given by Sarpanch, in circuanstances, held, vitiated for non-compliance of provisions of S. 8(l)(b).
1970 PLD 398 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
THE WEST PAKISTAN WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, LAHORE VS MESSRS OMAR SONS LTD.
Arbitration Act 1940 S. 8 read with Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115-Order under S. 8, Arbitration Act-Not appealable-Revision, however, would be competent to correct jurisdictional error or material irregularity-Appeal treated as revision.
1968 PLD 847 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MESSRS M. A. AZIZ & SONS VS (1) LT.-.COL. M. DAUD KHAN (2) PAKISTAN THROUGH C. M. E. S.
Ss. 39, 8, 11 & 41-Expression “superseding an arbitration” in S. 39(1)(i)-Does not include order “refusing to supersede arbitration”-Matters of appointment and revocation of arbitrators under Ss. 8 & 9-Not included in word “arbitration” in S. S9(1)(i)-Application under S. 11, seeking revocation of arbitrator, dismissed by Court-No .appeal lies against such order-Provisions of S. 41 subject to those of S. 39-Revision under S. 115, C. P. C., however, competent Appeal treated as revision-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115.
1968 PLD 712 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ALI MUHAMMAD VS MIRZA MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN BEG
- 69 (3)-Words “other proceeding”-Interpretation-Words not ejusdem generis with immediately preceding words “a claim of set-of”-Words “other proceeding” to be construed as of wide application untrammelled by the other words “a claim of set-off ” so as to cover all proceedings in Court of law which are not suits in generic sense of word, to enforce a right arising from partnership contract Proceedings under S. 8, Arbitration Act, 1940 covered by words “other proceeding” in S. 89 (3), Partnership Act, 1932-Arbitratiorp Act (X of 1940), Ss. 8 & 34.
1968 PLD 23 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MESSERS MALICK BROS VS UNITED COTTON AND WOOL TRADERS
Arbitration Act 1940 Ss. 8(2) & 28-ArbitrationCourt’s refusal to enlarge time under S. 28 or to appoint arbitrator under S. 8(2)-Does not result in supersession of arbitration agreement.
1967 PLD 175 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
HAROON OIL MILLS VS KOHINOOR COTTON GINNING FACTORY
Arbitration Act 1940 —— Ss. 8, 9, 5 & 11-Appointment of substitute of previously appointed arbitrator-Provision of S. 8 applicable only in case of agreement under which arbitrators are appointed by consent of both parties-Agreement under which each party to appoint its own arbitrator-Attracts provision of S. 9-Appointment of new arbitrator under S. 9-Recourse to Court not necessary-Provision of S. S, no bar to appointment of arbitrator in terms of S. 9(a)-Justification for appointment under S. 9(a)–Death, incapacity, refusal or omission to act should be satisfactorily established-“Neglecting to act” different from “acting negligently”-Arbitrator acting negligently and causing delay-Remedy lies in applying to Court for his removal under S. 11 (1) or for leave under S. S to revoke his authority.
1966 PLD 19 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR
AZAD J & K GOVERNMENT VS KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD USMAN & CO.
- 20(4). read with Ss. 8 & 9Arbitration agreement-Sole arbitrator named-Authority of such arbitrator revoked by Court–Power to fill vacancy available to Court under S. 20(4) and not under S. 8 or S. 9-[Yar Muhammad v. Ghulam Sarwar P L D 1952 Lah. 563 dissented from].
1958 PLD 378 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
HAJI SATTAR HAJI MUHAMMAD AND 9 OTHERS- VS ABDUL KARIM HAJI ISSA AND 3 OTHERS
Arbitration Act 1940 Ss. .3, & 8 and First Schedule para 2-Omission to appoint umpire-remedy for aggrieved party -Failure to invoke aid of S. 8 amounts to waiver of non-appointment of umpire.
1956 PLD 202 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD ANWAR KHAN VS WALI MUHAMMAD
—–S. 8 and Sch. I para. 2 -Failure to appoint Umpire-Proceedings not invalidated.
1955 PLD 23 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ANJUMAN-I-AHMADIYA ASHAIT-I-ISLAM, LAHORE VS HAFIZ GHULAM AHMAD
Arbitration Act 1940 Ss. 8 and 25 Proviso-Case not covered by S. 8-S. 25 cannot be pressed into service for superseding the arbitration.
1954 PLD 1 SINDH-CHIEF-COURT
HOOSEN BROTHERS LTD VS PAKISTAN TEXTILE MILLS LTD
Arbitration Act 1940 —-S. 8-Arbitration clause in contract to refer dispute to sole arbitrator-Breach of contract Party applied to Court to appoint sole arbitrator on allegation that other Party failed to agree to refer to sole arbitrator-Held that agreement is covered by clause (a) of section 8 (1) and petition under section 8 is competent.
1952 PLD 563 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
YAR MUHAMMAD VS GHULAM SARWAR
Arbitration Act 1940 —-S. 8-In absence of contract presumption is that vacancy should be supplied.
1949 PLD 30 SINDH-CHIEF-COURT
HARIRAM KHIARANI, A FIRM VS GOBINDRAM RATTAN CHAND, A FIRM
Arbitration Act 1940 Sections 8 and 9-Difference between Sections 8 and 9-Section 9 relates to case where arbitrations are yet to be appointed-Section 8 applies to case where arbitrators have been appointed-Failure of one arbitrator to act—Procedure under Section 8 to be followed-If not followed reference, lapses and dispute to be decided by Civil Court.