Section 9 : Power to party to appoint new arbitrator or, in certain cases, a sole arbitrator
2023 PLD 105 ISLAMABAD
BETTER ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS (PVT.) LTD. VS BALOCHISTAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, QUETTA
9(b), proviso—Sole arbitrator—Appointment setting aside of—Scope—Court can set-aside appointment of a sole arbitrator made under S. 9(b) of Arbitration Act 1940, where defaulting party comes up with equitable grounds—Court can allow further time to such party to appoint an arbitrator—Defaulting party is not required to show sufficient cause or explain delay of each and every day but has to satisfy Court that he has not been obstructive or evasive and has acted with due diligence—Order under proviso to S. 9(b) of Arbitration Act, 1940 enables defaulting party to remedy his failure to make appointment within 15 days after receipt of notice.
2023 PLD 105 ISLAMABAD
BETTER ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS (PVT.) LTD. VS BALOCHISTAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, QUETTA
9(b)—Term “may appoint that arbitrator to act as sole arbitrator”—Scope—Term “may appoint that arbitrator to act as sole arbitrator” in S. 9(b) of Arbitration Act, 1940 connotes appointment of sole arbitrator by serving a notice about such appointment on the party that failed or refused to appoint its arbitrator within fifteen-day period.
2023 PLD 105 ISLAMABAD
BETTER ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS (PVT.) LTD. VS BALOCHISTAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, QUETTA
S.9(b)—Pre-requests to be fulfilled before there can be a valid appointment of a sole arbitrator under S.9(b) enumerated.
2023 PLD 105 ISLAMABAD
BETTER ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS (PVT.) LTD. VS BALOCHISTAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, QUETTA
Ss. 8, 9, 20 & 30—Award, setting aside of—Appointment of arbitrator—Procedure—Dispute was with regard to award given by sole arbitrator which award was set aside by Trial Court on the ground that sole arbitrator could not have been appointed—Validity—Application under S.8(2) of Arbitration Act, 1940 for appointment of arbitrator(s) could be made only if arbitrator(s) who neglected or refused to act or had become incapable of acting or had died, had been appointed with the consent of the parties or by the Court under S.8 or 20 of Arbitration Act, 1940 but not where such arbitrator had been appointed by any party without the other part’s consent—Provision of S. 8 of Arbitration Act 1940, referred to power of Court to appoint an arbitrator or an umpire in case of neglect, refusal to act, incapability of acting, death of the appointed arbitrator, when parties did not concur in appointment of an arbitrator or umpire—Provision of S. 9 of Arbitration Act 1940, empowered a party to appoint his arbitrator as the sole arbitrator and was applicable only when arbitration agreement provided that reference would be to two arbitrators, one to be appointed by each party—Arbitration clause in agreements between parties provided for two arbitrators to be appointed by each of the parties, element of consent of parties was lacking, therefore, provision of S. 8 of Arbitration Act, 1940 was of no relevance—High Court maintained order setting aside of the award rendered by sole arbitrator—Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.
2019 CLD 566 ISLAMABAD
DEFENCE HOUSING AUTHORITY, ISLAMABAD VS MULTI-NATIONAL VENTURE DEVELOPMENT (PVT.) LTD.
9—Power of court to appoint new arbitrator or sole arbitrator—Failure of party to appoint arbitrator—Appointment of employee as an arbitrator—Scope—Section 9, Arbitration Act, 1940 applies when an arbitration agreement provides reference to two arbitrators, one to be appointed by each party—Clause (a) of S. 9 empowers the party which has originally appointed an arbitrator to appoint another person if the earlier appointed arbitrator neglects, refuses to act, or is incapable of acting or dies—Clause (b) of said section envisages a situation where one party fails to appoint an arbitrator, either originally or by way of substitution—For such an event to happen the other party is required to serve a notice in writing requiring the party to make an appointment and if the later fails to do so “for fifteen clear days” then in such an event there may be two courses to pursue—Firstly, the party which has appointed an arbitrator may appoint that arbitrator to act as sole arbitrator, or secondly, the Court may set aside such a sole arbitrator, either give sufficient time to the defaulting party to appoint an arbitrator “or pass such order as it thinks fit”.
2017 PLD 497 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
NASIM AHMED VANA VS State
Chap. II, Ss. 3 to 19 & Chap. III, S.20—Reference to arbitration—Principle—Bar exists on invoking provisions of S.20 (Chap.III) of the Arbitration Act, 1940, when parties to arbitration agreement have invoked provisions of Chap. II (Ss. 3 to 19) of Arbitration Act, 1940.
2017 PLD 497 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
NASIM AHMED VANA VS State
Ss. 3 to 20 & 37(4)—Arbitration—Agreement fixed by time—Plaintiffs contended that parties had arbitration agreement between them and the matter be sent to arbitrator for decision—Validity—Agreement fixing time during which reference could be made to arbitration was impliedly considered valid by S.37(4) of Arbitration Act, 1940, which vested Court power to extend such time when it was of the view that some undue hardship was likely to be caused to parties by not extending same—Where agreement itself could not be acted upon having become inoperative due to invalidity, the Court was not entitled to appoint arbitrator of its own choice and substitute original agreement of parties—High Court declined to extend validity of arbitration agreement under S.37(4) of Arbitration Act, 1940, as circumstances did not warrant to do so nor any undue hardship would be caused to parties to arbitration agreement, who were pursuing their remedies in parallel legal proceedings which were more effective and expeditious—Suit was dismissed in circumstances.
2016 PLD 121 SUPREME-COURT
KARACHI DOCK LABOUR BOARD VS QUALITY BUILDERS LTD.
9(b)—Power of a party to appoint its arbitrator to act as sole arbitrator—Essential conditions that had to be met before a party could appoint its arbitrator to act as sole arbitrator stated.
2016 PLD 121 SUPREME-COURT
KARACHI DOCK LABOUR BOARD VS QUALITY BUILDERS LTD.
- 9—Arbitrator, jurisdiction of—Arbitrator appointed in violation of the agreement between parties—Waiver and acquiesce, rule of—Sole arbitrator appointed by one party without consent of other party (in contravention of the agreement)—Rule of waiver and acquiesce would only apply if the other party, which had not given its consent to the appointment of arbitrator, (subsequently) expressly consented to submit to the jurisdiction of such arbitrator having no jurisdiction otherwise—Where there was clear acquiescence and waiver on part of the party aggrieved of the jurisdiction, such as participation in proceedings without any protest or objection, which conduct shall mean that they had accepted by choice the jurisdiction of the arbitrator.
2013 MLD 689 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
Syed FAQIR SHAH VS Haji INAYATULLAH KHAN
Ss. 8, 9, 13, 30 & 42—Arbitrator, powers of—Scope—Arbitrator could neither ignore principles of natural justice nor act at back of parties—Principles.
2011 CLC 108 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
HUSSAIN (PVT.) LTD. VS KARACHI FISH HARBOUR AUTHORITY
Ss.9 (b) & 14 (2)—Sindh Chief Court Rules (O.S.), R. 282—Arbitration—Making award rule of the court—Award by sole arbitrator—Defendants objected to award on the ground that matter was to be decided by two arbitrators one appointed by each party but the award was announced by sole arbitrator appointed by plaintiff only—Validity—Defendants had waived their objections and had continued to appear before the sole arbitrator without any objection till the last date when award was given—Raising of objection by defendants at such juncture would not vitiate the award granted by sole arbitrator merely on such ground alone—High Court declined to declare the award invalid or set aside—Award was made rule of the court in circumstances.
2006 CLC 1060 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
KARACHI DOCK LABOUR BOARD VS Messrs QUALITY BUILDERS LIMITED
—Ss. 5, 8, 9, 11, 20, 30 & 39—High Court appeal—Reappraisal of evidence—Appellate Court, jurisdiction of—Appointment of arbitrator—Failure to raise any objection—On the basis of arbitration clause in the contract between the parties, respond
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
2005 YLR 2709 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MUJTABA HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI VS SULTAN AHMED
—S. 14 & Chap.II [Ss.3 to 19]—Award—Arbitrator, after passing the award, is required to file the award in the Court within the meaning of S.14, Arbitration Act, 1940 and then further proceedings would be conducted by the Court under the other provis
2005 YLR 2709 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MUJTABA HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI VS SULTAN AHMED
–Ss. 20, 8, 34 & Chap. II [Ss.3 to 19]—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, R.11—Suit for dissolution of partnership, rendition of accounts, permanent injunction and declaration—Recovery of amount was stayed under S.34, Arbitration Act, 1940 o
2004 PLD 404 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Sh. SALEEM ALI VS Sh. AKHTAR ALI
—-S. 9—Parties, in the present case, had executed a formal arbitration agreement that in the event of any party had cause of grievance against the decision of their mediator, the matter shall be referred to the arbitration of the arbitrators—Appoint
2001 CLC 289 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ALPHA INSURANCE CO. LIMITED VS NIZAM DIN & SONS
Arbitration Act 1940 S. 9(b)—Sole arbitrator—Failure to appoint substitute arbitrator within specified time—Effect—Such failure would justify the appointment of arbitrator by the other party to act as sole arbitrator.
2001 CLC 15 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ALPHA INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD.
Arbitration Act 1940 Ss. 9 & 33—Insurance Act (IV of 1938), S.44-B—Insurance claim–Arbitration—Insured invoked the arbitration clause and appointed the arbitrator—Insurance company in spite of receipt of notice neither appointed arbitrator nor joined the arbitration proceedings—Award was given by the sole arbitrator—Insurance company moved application under S.33 of Arbitration Act, 1940 for setting aside the award—Trial Court rejected the application of- insurance company—Validity—When the insurance company rejected claim of the insured and did not allege any fraud, order of Trial Court dismissing the application was unexceptional.
1999 CLC 1962 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
TRAVEL AGENTS ASSOCIATION OF PAKISTAN VS PAK TRAVEL AGENCY (PVT.) LTD.
Arbitration Act 1940 Ss. 9 & 14—Sindh Chief Court Rules (O.S.), R.282—Making award as rule of the Court —Validity—Estoppel by conduct—Sole arbitrator forwarded award pronounced by him to Court for making same rule of the Court—Defendants objected that they being not signatories to arbitration agreement, same could not be imposed upon them—Defendants had also objected that notices of appointing arbitrator by plaintiff having not been served on them, entire proceedings before arbitrator suffered from illegality—Conduct of defendants throughout was that ` they had never challenged, controverted or disputed execution of arbitration agreement which was executed between plaintiff and defendants—Defendants’ only grievance was that they were not party to Defendants from their conduct were estopped from pleading such objection and were not entitled to raise such plea at later stage.
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.
1990 MLD 2010 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
DESIGN GROUP OF PAKISTAN VS CLIFTON CANTONMENT BOARD
—-Ss.9 & 11—Sole arbitrator had neglected to proceed with the case and did not conduct in a proper and legal manner and proceeded in post haste merely to frustrate the plaintiff’s action for his removal and appointment of any other arbitrator—Sole a
1989 MLD 4087 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
PROVINCE OF PUNJAB VS IMRAN & COMPANY
Arbitration Act 1940 —Ss. 9 & 20–Filing of agreement in Court–Notice to opposing party–Specific notice sent by applicant intending to get matter decided through arbitration-Receipt of such notice though admitted by opposing party, but challenged the vires of that notice on ground of impropriety–Onus to prove impropriety of notice would be on opposing party–When opposing party failed to lead any evidence whatsoever on the point, issue was rightly decided against it.
1989 CLC 1428 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
AFSAR ALI VS MAHBOOB SONS
Arbitration Act 1940 —Ss.9 & 14–Objections to award filed in Court–Plaintiff had failed to give notice of fifteen days to defendant that his Arbitrator had neglected, refused or was incapable of acting and that he should appoint another arbitrator–Effect–Award filed by the sole Arbitrator appointed by plaintiff was set aside; such Arbitrator was removed–Sole Arbitrator was appointed by the Court with specified directions for conducting the proceedings.
1989 MLD 1304 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
ABDUL HAKIM K. KHAN VS BEGUM KHANUM JAN
Arbitration Act 1940 —Ss.8 & 9–Appointment of Arbitrator–Party who nominated arbitrator is also competent to nominate his substitute and no other party has any concern with that nomination and its consent was not at all necessary for slid appointment.
1988 SCMR 723 SUPREME-COURT
CHIEF ENGINEER, BUILDING DEPARTMENT VS PAKISTAN NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION
—S.9–Constitution of Pakistan (1973) Art.185(3)–Leave to appeal granted in view of the law to the effect that an aggrieved party after having raised objection to the jurisdiction of an Arbitrator was not bound to retire from the proceedings and by mer
1986 CLC 359 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
AZHAR FAROOQUI VS PERVEZ ANWAR
Arbitration Act 1940 —S. 9–Counsel of party acting as sole arbitrator–Effect–By Rerun’ acting as counsel before entering on reference, held, would not amount to misconduct or impairment of impartially on part of counsel.
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 MLD 397 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
VASEEM CONSTRUCTION COMPANY VS PROVINCE OF SIND
Arbitration Act 1940 —Ss. 8 & 9–Power to appoint umpire/arbitrator–Not to be exercised again and again–First umpire appointed by Arbitrators and on other two occasions defendants allowed to nominate umpire but each one failing to make award and their authority revoked–Fit case for appointment of umpire by Court–Plea that departmental authority above was to again exercise power to appoint new umpire repelled as procedure had been deviated earlier.
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.
1982 CLC 1984 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
ASSOCIATED CONSTRUCTORS LTD. VS KARACHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
- 9–Arbitration award-Non-speaking award-Cannot be challenged on ground of reasons being not given-Sole arbitrator giving reasons in previous two awards but on remand thereof for reconsideration omitting to give reasons-Arbitrator, held, did not commit any illegality.-[Award].
1982 CLC 1506 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
PORT QASIM AUTHORITY, KARACHI VS NADEEM BROTHERS
- 9 – Arbitration – Sole arbitrator – Nothing in agreement indicating reference having to be made to two arbitrators one to be appointed by each party – Arbitration agreement itself; held, must provide for reference to be made to two arbitrators one to be appointed by each party – Clause in agreement providing for reference to be made to one or more arbitrators-Held further, cannot permit one party to appoint his own arbitrator as sole arbitrator on default of other party to appoint or nominate his own arbitrator.
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 PLD 377 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF PORT OF KARACHI VS NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CO. (PAKISTAN) LTD.
- 9 read with S. 30, Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) and Limitation Act (IX of 1908)?”Sufficient cause”?Definition?Appointment of sole arbitrator on failure of other party to nominate its arbitrator Held, can be set aside if party in default satisfies Court that it has not deliberately avoided to appoint its arbitrator or it was acting under some misunderstanding or confusion and not lacking in bona fides by being obstructive, evasive or negligent.?[Words and phrases].
1981 PLD 123 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF KARACHI VS NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CO. (PAKISTAN) LTD.
Ss. 5, 9, 11 & 33?Jurisdiction of Arbitrator??Question whether Arbitrator could enter upon reference or not??Held, a jurisdictional question and not question of determination and interpretation of terms and conditions of contract?Exercise of jurisdiction by Arbitrator under arbitration agreement depending on completion or non?completion of works under contract?Question whether works substantially completed?Held, irrelevant to question of exercise of jurisdiction by Arbitrator?Exercise of jurisdiction by Arbitrator depending upon existence of certain conditions?Existence of such conditions can only be decided by Court and not by Arbitrator.?[Arbitratorl.
1979 CLC 565 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
HASAN AMIN VS CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, ISLAMABAD
- XXXIX, rr. 1 & 2 and Arbitration Act (X of 1940), Ss. 5, 9, 11 & 33-Inconvenience to parties, in case reference to arbitration ultimately found incompetent, greater than on account of stay of proceedings-Proceedings stayed on application under Ss. 5, 9, 11 &
1978 PLD 147 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
CENTRAL INSURANCE CO LTD VS KHYBER TEXTILE MILLS LTD
- 9??Arbitrator, appointment of?Misapprehension as to?Party agreeing to refer dispute to arbitration not deliberately avoiding to appoint its arbitrator??Possibility of such party being under bona fide misapprehension of occasion not having till then arisen to appoint its arbitrator?Contention that such party having failed to nominate its arbitrator, nominee arbitrator of contending party could act as sole arbitrator overruled and arbitration directed to proceed with two arbitrators one each nominated by both parties.?[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 899 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
VS
Arbitration Act 1940 S. 9(b)-Appointment of sole arbitrator-H by notice in writing calling upon M to appoint its arbitrator and in came notice indicating also that if M failed to appoint its arbitrator within 15 days; person appointed by H would act as sole arbitrator-On failure of M to name its arbitrator within 15 days another notice given by H calling upon M to appoint his arbitrator within 48 hours -M again sitting silent whereupon H calling upon his arbitrator to act as sole arbitrator and the sole arbitrator in turn calling upon M to appear before him on a specified date -M remaining adamant and not co-operating—Held, there was, in circumstances, substantial compliance with provisions of S. 9(b) regarding notice and award given by Bolt arbitrator could not be set aside on ground of non-compliance with S. 9(b).
1970 PLD 173 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
STEEL BROTHERS & CO. LTD., KARACHI VS A. WAHID
Arbitration Act 1940 S. 9, proviso read with English Arbitration Act, 1950, S. 7, proviso-Arbitration-Service agreement-Agreement stipulating to refer all disputes between employer and employee to their nominated arbitrators-Employer defaulting to nominate his arbitrator within statutory period due to confusion caused by lengthy correspondence between parties—- Employee seeking to take advantage of situation while himself stressing observance of rules of natural justice and equity-Case, held, essentially one where Court should exercise its option in equity and on obvious assumptions arising out of provisos of both Arbitration Acts-Time extended to appoint arbitrator.
1968 PLD 916 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MESSERS BALGAMWALLA COTTON GINNING AND
PRESSING FACTORY
VS MESSRS ELITE TEXTILE MILLS AND PRESSING
FACTORY LTD.
Arbitration Act 1940 S. 9 (b)-Notice contemplated by S. 9(b)-To be sent to party having right or power to appoint or substitute arbitrator and not to party who does not have such power or right.
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].
1964 PLD 166 DHAKA-HIGH-COURT
ABDUL KHALEQ VS PROVINCE OF EAST PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER
Arbitration Act 1940 Ss. 9 (b) & 17-Party appointing sole arbitrator without prior notice to other party-Proceedings by such arbitrator held without jurisdiction and void-Court, bound under S. 17, to see suo moto whether award is legal before giving effect to it.
1959 PLD 87 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MESSRS M. ESMAILJEE & SONS VS THE FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN
Arbitration Act 1940 S. 9-Differences between parties bona fide-Government, having made default in appointing their arbitrator, allowed to appoint one during proceedings in Court.
1959 PLD 739 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MESSRS S. M. FAZAIL & CO VS MESSRS OVERSEAS COTTON
—Bye-Law 39 (1) (a) of Karachi Cotton Association Ltd.-Failure to give formal notice to other party to appoint his arbitrator-Fatal to arbitration proceedings-Merely informing other party of one’s decision to go in for arbitration-Not sufficient notice-
1957 PLD 145 SUPREME-COURT
ABDUL HAMID VS H. M. QURESHI
Arbitration Act (X of 1940), Ss. 9 (b), 10 (2)?Reference to two arbitrators and a “Surpanch” held to be reference to three arbitrators?”Surpanch” not an “Umpire”?Failure of one party to appoint his arbitrator?Other party held not competent to appoint his arbitrator as “sole” arbitrator?S. 9 (b), held C J, inapplicable.
1956 PLD 96 SINDH-CHIEF-COURT
FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN VS ABDUL MAJID OPEL
Arbitration Act 1940 —–Ss. 5, 9 and 33-Party repudiating and challenging contract containing arbitration clause, and yet referring dispute to arbitration-Reference revoked.
1949 PLD 30 SINDH-CHIEF-COURT
HARIRAM KHIARANI, A FIRM VS GOBINDRAM RATTAN CHAND, A FIRM
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.