Case Details

Citation(s)
2002 SLG 2325 2002 SLD 2325 2002 PLD 747
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.601 of 2000, decision dated: 20-05-2002.
RANA BHAGWANDAS AND SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, JJ
Bashir Ahmad Ansari, Advocate Supreme Court with Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court with Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondent No. 1.

MESSRS NISARULHAQ ASSOCIATES, GOVERNMENT, CONTRACTORS, MULTAN CANTT.

VS

CANTONMENT BOARD, MULTAN THROUGH EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND another

Law:

Section:

Cantonments Act (II of 1924)-------S. 260, 262 & 265---Arbitration Act (X of 1940), Ss.10(3) & 14(1)--­Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Constitution of Committee of Arbitration and decision of such Committee under Ss.260, 262 & 265, Cantonments Act, 1924---Award---Procedure---Where more than three arbitrators were appointed the award of the majority or if the arbitrators were, equally divided in their opinion, the award of the umpire shall, unless the arbitration agreement otherwise provided, prevail--- Provisions of S.14(1), Arbitration Act, 1940 provided that a hen the arbitrators or umpire had made their award, they shall sign the same and give notice in writing to the parties of the nuking and signing thereof--Award, in the present case, had not beer. signed by the arbitrators within the meaning of S.14(1), Arbitration Act 1940 and was also violative of the statutory provisions of Cantonments Act 1924 pertaining to the constitution and conduct of Committee of Arbitration in particular S.265(1) thereof which provided that the decision of every Committee of Arbitration shall be in accordance with the majority of votes ­taken at a meeting at which the Chairman and at least three of the other members were present ---Record showed that two Courts below had not considered the case in its proper perspective, and totally in disregard of the provisions of law made the award rule of the Court but High Court, in revision very rightly reversed the concurrent s of lower Courts--­Judgment of High Court was well-reasoned and based on proper appreciation of facts and law---No misreading or non-reading of evidence, material irregularity, or misconstruction of law was noted to the of High Court---Petition for leave to appeal against order of the High Court was dismissed. JUDGMENT SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, dated 14-12-1999, passed in Civil Revision No.47-D of 1996. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a dispute arose out of a contract of construction of Cantonment Public High School, Multan. The dispute was referred to a Committee of…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492