| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2014 SLG 1487 2014 SLD 1487 2014 PLD 494 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No.1708 of 2002 out of Civil Petition No.774 of 2001, decided on 27th January, 2014. DATE of hearing: 27th January, 2014, (Against the judgment dated 11-1-2001 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in F.A.O. No.63 of 1998)
NASIR-UL-MULK, AMIR HANI MUSLIM AND MUHAMMAD ATHER SAEED, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Civil Appeal No.1708 of 2002 out of Civil Petition No.774 of 2001, decided on 27th January, 2014. DATE of hearing: 27th January, 2014, (Against the judgment dated 11-1-2001 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in F.A.O. No.63 of 1998)
NASIR-UL-MULK, AMIR HANI MUSLIM AND MUHAMMAD ATHER SAEED, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and another
VS
Messrs ALICON LIMITED, LAHORE
Law:
Section:
(a) Arbitration Act (X of 1940)--- ----S. 10---Chairman of Arbitration Committee appointed by arbitrators---Status of---Arbitration Committee comprised of two arbitrators, one appointed by appellant-authority and the other by respondent-company---Two arbitrators in turn selected another person as a Chairman of Arbitration Committee---During arbitration proceedings arbitrators disagreed with each other and published their own different awards---Chairman, Arbitration Committee agreed with the award and reasons enumerated by the arbitrator appointed by respondent-company---Trial Court made said award rule of court and decreed the same---Contention of appellant-authority that Chairman of Arbitration Committee was appointed as an umpire in terms of S.10(1) of Arbitration Act, 1940, and thus should not have joined the arbitration proceedings; that in case of a conflict between arbitrators, Chairman should have reheard the case and given his independent award instead of simply agreeing with the award made by arbitrator appointed by respondent-company---Validity---Chairman was appointed by arbitrators as a chairman/surpanch and not as an umpire and thus he would be deemed to be an arbitrator---Chairman participated in the proceedings and did not interfere or try to interfere in the working of the two arbitrators and did not influence them, thus he was not required to conduct independent and separate proceedings---Award by the majority of the arbitrators being in accordance with law could not be set aside merely on the ground that the appointment of arbitrators was not in accordance with law---Chairman/surpanch was not required to record independent reasons of his own and could agree with the reasons highlighted by any one of the arbitrators as he sat in all the proceedings of the arbitration and was aware of the arguments and facts of the case--- Arbitration Committee was properly constituted and procedure adopted by it was also unexceptionable---Appeal was dismissed accordingly. Abdul Hamid v. H.M. Qureshi PLD 1957 SC 145 and Chief Engineer, Building Department v. Messrs Pakistan National Construction 1988 SCMR 723 ref. (b) Arbitration Act (X of 1940)--- ---S.…
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