| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2022 SLG 465 2022 SLD 465 2022 CLC 294 |
Lahore High Court
F.A.O. No.52305 of 2019, decision dated: 01-09-2021, hearingdate: 15-06-2021
ABID HUSSAIN CHATTHA, JUSTICE
Sahibzada Muzaffar Ali for Appellant.Syed Tassadaq Mustafa Naqvi, Syed Tassadaq Murtaza Naqvi and Syed Ali Naqi for
Respondents.
F.A.O. No.52305 of 2019, decision dated: 01-09-2021, hearingdate: 15-06-2021
ABID HUSSAIN CHATTHA, JUSTICE
Sahibzada Muzaffar Ali for Appellant.Syed Tassadaq Mustafa Naqvi, Syed Tassadaq Murtaza Naqvi and Syed Ali Naqi for
Respondents.
LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THROUGH DIRECTOR GENERALVSHABIB CONSTRUCTION SERVICES LIMITED THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE
Law: Arbitration Act, 1940
Section: 20
(a) Arbitration Act (X of 1940)--- ----S.20---Arbitration agreement---Court, intervention of---Purpose---Term sufficient cause---Court underlines sanctity of an arbitration agreement and reinforces basic principle that where parties to an agreement have undertaken to resolve their inter se disputes through arbitration, the intention of parties ought to be respected and given effect---Provision of S.20 of Arbitration Act, 1940, fundamentally is limited to determination of existence of a real and alive dispute between the parties in a summary procedure---Court is only required to prima facie satisfy itself regarding existence of dispute measured with the yardstick of sufficient cause. (b) Arbitration Act (X of 1940)--- ----S.20---Arbitration---Duty of Court---Live issue, determination of---Respondent filed application before Trial Court to resolve the dispute by appointment of arbitrator---Appellant was aggrieved of appointment of arbitrator and direction issued by Trial Court to file arbitration agreement---Validity---Question as to whether dispute or claim raised by respondent was legitimate or not was to be determined through arbitration and dispute between parties fell within prerogative and domain of arbitrator---Mere bald and general denial by appellant by simply stating that no dispute existed did not mean that there was no dispute---Scope of S.20 of Arbitration Act, 1940, restricted Trial Court to give findings on issues emanating from agreement itself regarding which parties have agreed to resolve through arbitration---Court was only required to satisfy itself regarding existence of a real and alive dispute between the parties---Reference to arbitration could not be a futile exercise and Court could not blindly refer a non-existent dispute to arbitration but it was required to satisfy itself that there was a tangible prima facie dispute between parties which required resolution through arbitration as agreed by parties---Court was empowered to determine itself, if application under S.20 of Arbitration Act, 1940, was barred by time or not, such was not an issue before Trial Court---All controversies inter se parties fell within the ambit of arbitration…
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