Law: Arbitration Act, 1940

Section: 14,14(1)(2),17,30

Law: Limitation Act, 1908

Section: 158,1stSchedule

Arbitration Act (X of 1940)--- ----Ss. 14, 17 & 30---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 158---Award---Application for making award as rule of Court---Objections---Limitation---Commencement of---Expression "notice in writing"---Scope---Objections against award were dismissed and award was made rule of the Court---Validity---Limitation period of thirty days had been provided under Art. 158 of Limitation Act, 1908 for filing of objections from the date of service of notice of filing of the award---Court was to give notice to the parties of the filing of award---Purpose of giving notice was to ensure that parties had knowledge of filing of award in the Court---Objections, if any, to the award were to be filed within a period of thirty days of such knowledge---Party in whose presence award was filed in the Court would have knowledge as to its filing and notice to such party would be a futile exercise---Such party could not claim that the limitation period for filing of objections to the award had not commenced---Limitation period for such a party for filing objections to the award would commence from the date when award was filed in the Court---Award, in the present case, was not filed in the presence of the parties or their counsel---Court issued a notice to the parties for their intimation accordingly---Limitation period for filing objections to the award would commence from the date on which respondent received notice from the Court as to filing of the award---Nothing was on record to show as to when notice with regard to filing of award was received by the respondent---Trial Court was not correct in holding that respondent's objection were time-barred---Arbitrator had ignored the arbitration agreement between the parties---Arbitrator had committed misconduct by holding that respondent was entitled to the return of the partial payment made and loss of rent---Alleged award was not sustainable in the eye of law---Respondent's objections were allowed and impugned and decree passed by the Trial Court were set aside---Appeal was allowed, in circumstances. Mahboob Alam v. Mumtaz Ahmad PLD 1960 Lah. 601; Ashfaq Ali Qureshi v. Municipal Corporation, Multan 1985 SCMR 597;…

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