| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2015 SLG 2179 2015 SLD 2179 2015 YLR 1813 |
Islamabad High Court
Civil Suit No. 334 and Arbitration Petition No. 20 of 2010,decided on 17th April, 2015
SHAUKAT AZIZ SIDDIQUI, J
Babar Ali Khan for Petitioner (in C.S. No. 334 of 2010). Sardar Qasim F. Ali for Petitioner (in Arbitration Petition No. 20 of 2010). Barrister Babar Ali Khan for
Respondent No. 2 (in Arbitration Petition 20 of 2010). Syed Javed Akbar Shah for
Respondent
Civil Suit No. 334 and Arbitration Petition No. 20 of 2010,decided on 17th April, 2015
SHAUKAT AZIZ SIDDIQUI, J
Babar Ali Khan for Petitioner (in C.S. No. 334 of 2010). Sardar Qasim F. Ali for Petitioner (in Arbitration Petition No. 20 of 2010). Barrister Babar Ali Khan for
Respondent No. 2 (in Arbitration Petition 20 of 2010). Syed Javed Akbar Shah for
Respondent
ALL PAKISTAN CNG ASSOCIATION through Authorized representativeSvsPAKISTAN STATE OIL COMPANY LTD. through Managing Director
Law:
Section:
Arbitration Act (X of 1940)--- ----Ss. 4(2), 17, 26-A & 30---Award---Objections---Remitting the award---Failure to give reasons---Effect---Dispute was with regard to fixing profit for Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) stations---Validity---Number of CNG stations were established by CNG licence holders in their premises without seeking help of Pakistan State Oil (PSO) or any other Oil Marketing Company, therefore, they could pay Sui Southern Gas Pipe Line (SSGPL) the rental charges as determined by Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority (OGRA)---In cases of CNG stations established with permission of PSO dealers in petrol pumps established by those dealers, rules and break-up of rental fee did not apply as with minimum of efforts such CNG license holders had establishing their links in running and establishing? petrol pumps and they could not be equated with such CNG stations which were established in independent premises and they had to start their business at their own without assistance of any other Oil Marketing Company---Arbitrator was to state in award sufficient reasons in sufficient detail under S. 26-A of Arbitration Act, 1940, to enable Court to consider any question of law arising out of award---Where award did not state reasons in sufficient detail, the Court could remit award to arbitrator or umpire fixing time within which arbitrator or umpire was to submit award back with reasons in sufficient detail---Arbitrator jumped to conclusion without providing grounds for such conclusion, therefore, the award was incomplete in all details and declaration of arbitrator that clause in question of the agreement warranted necessary clarification and interpretation and gross percentage mentioned therein or any other percentage for PSO and the dealers respectively was then to be read as ratio of share between PSO and dealers---Arbitrator did not make efforts to associate PSO dealers in arbitration proceedings but determined rights of PSO dealers which was a material irregularity---High Court declared the award by arbitrator liable to be remitted under S. 16 of Arbitration Act, 1940, as indefinite award and not capable of execution---Objection to illegality of award was…