| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2023 SLG 2476 2023 SLD 2476 2023 PLJ 656 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
C.Ps. No. 3059 & 3060 of 2021, heard on 18.5.2023. (Against Judgment dated 01.03.2021 passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in RFA Nos. 01 & 2 of 2018) Date of hearing: 18.5.2023.
Present: SARDAR TARIQ MASOOD, AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN AND MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR, JJ.
Mr. Mohammad Siddique Awan, ASC and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR for Petitioner. N.R. for
Respondents
C.Ps. No. 3059 & 3060 of 2021, heard on 18.5.2023. (Against Judgment dated 01.03.2021 passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in RFA Nos. 01 & 2 of 2018) Date of hearing: 18.5.2023.
Present: SARDAR TARIQ MASOOD, AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN AND MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR, JJ.
Mr. Mohammad Siddique Awan, ASC and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR for Petitioner. N.R. for
Respondents
INJUM AQEEL--Petitioner
VERSUS
LATIF MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, etc.--Respondents
Law: Arbitration Act, 1940
Section: 30,34,13
Arbitration Act, 1940 (X of 1940)-- ----Ss. 30 & 34--Sale agreement--Mechanism to deal with disputes--Appointment of arbitrator by Court---Ex-parte proceedings--Announcement of award--Application for setting aside ex-parte proceedings--Accepted--Trial Court was made award rule of Court--Filling of objections--Opportunity was afforded to to petitioner--Petitioner was contacted telephonically and he was appeared before arbitrator--There was no dispute with regard to appointment of Arbitrator in view of arbitration agreement--Arbitrator was nominated on application of petitioner and Trial Court appointed Arbitrator--The objections were filed under Section 30 of Arbitration Act, on ground that Arbitrator afforded no opportunity to petitioner to defend proceedings, hence Award is liable to be set aside--The petitioner was also contacted telephonically who appeared before Arbitrator and informed that his counsel of will appear--The statement of claim was also handed over by Arbitrator to counsel of petitioner to submit reply of claim but neither counsel nor petitioner appeared before Arbitrator despite being afforded repeated opportunities-- The petitioner has failed to point out any misconduct of Arbitrator and also remained unsuccessful in demonstrating any other deficiency, error or legal infirmity in Award--An opportunity was afforded to join proceedings but petitioner was so reckless and reluctant to join for which Arbitrator cannot be blamed--Even no plausible grounds are raised in objection which may infer, corroborate or substantiate any act of misconduct on part of Arbitrator which could be proved to satisfaction of Court. Arbitration Act, 1940 (X of 1940)-- ----S. 13--Powers of arbitrator--The arbitrators or umpires, unless a different intention is expressed in agreement, may exercise (i) powers to administer oath to parties and witness appearing; (ii) state a special case for opinion of Court on any question of law involved; (iii) make an award conditional or alternative; (iv) correct in an award any clerical mistake or error arising from any accidental slip or omission; and (v) administer to any party to arbitration such interrogatories as may in…
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