| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2018 SLG 425 2018 SLD 425 2018 CLC 188 |
Suit No. 1325 of 1999, decided on 12-6-2017. Dates of hearing: 11 & 24-1, 8 & 22-2 and 22-3-2017.
Muhammad Amin Bandukda for Plaintiff. Badar Alam for Defendant.
CHINA INTERNATIONAL WATER AND ELECTRIC CORPORATION
VS
PAKISTAN WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (WAPDA
Law: Arbitration Act, 1940
Section: 3,30,33
(a) Arbitration Act (X of 1940)--- ----Ss. 3, 30 & 33---Award---Objection---Role of Court---Scope---High Court while hearing objections to award under Ss.30 & 33 of Arbitration Act, 1940, is not a court of appeal nor it is required to undertake reappraisal of evidence recorded by arbitrator in order to discover error or infirmity in award---Exception is available to such rule as well that if error or infirmity in award rendering it invalid is appearing on face of award and is discoverable by reading the award itself, then same can be looked into for either setting aside or modifying the award--- Award can also be interfered within certain exceptional circumstances when finding of arbitrator is not based on evidence on record. [case-law referred]. (b) Arbitration Act (X of 1940)-- ----Ss. 20, 30 & 33---Award---Objection---Plaintiff company had alleged that defendant Authority had failed to make payment of bill within time---Matter was referred to sole arbitrator who passed award against which defendant Authority had filed objection---Validity---Last date for payment of bill in question, duly certified on 08-03-1997 by the engineer, was 21-06-1997 and not 20-06-1997 as concluded by arbitrator---First day i.e., 08-03-1997 was not to be included but was to be excluded for calculation of total period of payment (45+60=105 days) and therefore, payment could have been made by 21-06-1997 and cheque was duly issued on 20-06-1997---Cheque issued by authorities was accepted and encashed by plaintiff on 24-06-1997 without any obstacle and/or delay Bank---Date of payment was deemed to be 20-06-1997 on the date cheque was issued and was subsequently encashed---No default existed on the part of defendant in payment of bill in question and plaintiff had no cause of action to invoke or exercise option of termination of contract in terms of specific clauses of conditions of contract---Entire claim lodged on basis of such default fell on ground as contract could not have been terminated for such alleged default--- Consequently, no damages as claimed could have been granted or even considered--- Objections under Ss.30 & 33 of Arbitration Act, 1940 raised by…
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