| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2022 SLG 2299 2022 SLD 2299 2022 SCMR 1810 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 315 of 2022, decided on 20th June, 2022.
IJAZ UL AHSAN, SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI AND, JAMAL KHAN MANDOKHAIL, JJ
Qazi Jawad Ehsanullah, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant.Mian Shafaqat Jan, Additional A.G., Khyber Pakhtunkhwa for
Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 315 of 2022, decided on 20th June, 2022.
IJAZ UL AHSAN, SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI AND, JAMAL KHAN MANDOKHAIL, JJ
Qazi Jawad Ehsanullah, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant.Mian Shafaqat Jan, Additional A.G., Khyber Pakhtunkhwa for
Respondents.
SHAHIN SHAHvsGOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA through Secretary Irrigation Department, Peshawar and others
Law: Arbitration Act, 1940
Section: 17,39
(a) Arbitration Act (X of 1940)--- ----Ss. 17, 39---Arbitration Award made Rule of Court---Composite order of Trial Court---Scope---Whether order of Trial Court making the Arbitration Award Rule of Court was appealable before the High Court---Held, that respondents were aggrieved of a “composite order” passed by the Trial Court, whereby the objections filed by the Respondents were dismissed as being time barred and the Arbitration Award was made Rule of Court---Word “composite” meant that the order was comprised of two distinct elements or parts---When the High Court found that the order of the Trial Court had two distinct parts, then, it had to examine whether the respondents had challenged both parts of the order independently by raising independent grounds in terms of section 17, section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (Act)---High Court could not have suo motu implied that such grounds had been taken---High Court was required to proceed on the basis of record which clearly showed that the respondents had nowhere taken the stance that the decree of the Trial Court was in excess of or against the Arbitration Award---As such, the High Court could not have assumed jurisdiction in the matter, especially when the respondents did not question the decree on the grounds mentioned in section 17 of the Act---Even otherwise, the failure of the respondents to agitate the grounds mentioned in section 17 before the Trial Court barred them from raising any such grounds before the High Court since the respondent was appealing against the of the Trial Court---Respondents were to show that the of the Trial Court was hit by any of the grounds available under section 17 which they failed to do---High Court erred in law and exceeded its jurisdiction in proceeding beyond the grounds agitated by the respondent in its appeal---Appeal was allowed and Award rendered by the Arbitrators was made Rule of the Court. Rashida Begum v. Ch. Muhammad Anwar and others PLD 2003 Lah. 522 and Muhammad Alam Khan v. Jewan Khan PLD 1985 Lah. 181 ref. (b) Arbitration Act (X of 1940)--- ----S. 30---Grounds for setting aside an Award---Court cannot reappraise the evidence relied upon by the…
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