Case Details

Citation(s)
2020 SLG 774 2020 SLD 774 2020 CLC 760
Islamabad High Court
Civil Revision No. 224 of 2018, decision Dated: 09-12-2019, hearing Date : 11-11-2019
MIANGUL HASSAN AURANGZEB, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Ms. Habiba Alvi
Respondent(s) by: Muhammad Shakeel Awan and Raza Ullah Khan Niazi

THE IMPERIAL ELECTRIC COMPANY (PRIVATE) LIMITED THROUGH CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

VS

M/S ZHONGXING TELECOM PAKISTAN (PRIVATE) LIMITED THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND 2 OTHERS

Law: Arbitration Act, 1940

Section: 11,12,34

(a) Arbitration Act (X of 1940)--- ----Ss.11, 12 & 34---Arbitrator, removal of---Trial Court stayed proceedings of the suit and referred the matter to arbitrator---Plaintiff sought removal of arbitrator as he had refused to adjudicate upon the dispute---Trial Court dismissed the application filed by plaintiff---Validity---Willingness of arbitrator to enter upon reference and to adjudicate upon contractual duties between parties to reference was sine qua non for arbitration proceedings---Responsibility to sit as an arbitrator could not be thrust on a person unwilling or not having sufficient time to discharge responsibility of arbitrator---Arbitrator had failed to use all reasonable dispatch in entering on reference, requirement in S.11(1) of Arbitration Act, 1940 to remove him was satisfied had moved application under S.12(1) of Arbitration Act, 1940 before the Trial Court; S.12(1) provided inter alia that where the Court removed one or more arbitrators the Court could on the application of any party to the arbitration agreement, appoint persons to fill the vacancies---Disputes between parties could be referred to sole arbitrator appointed with consent of parties---Since parties could not concur on appointment of arbitrator, High Court while deciding revision against order of Trial Court refusing to remove arbitrator, had jurisdiction not to just remove named arbitrator who refused to enter upon reference but could also appoint an arbitrator in his place---High Court set aside order passed by Trial Court and appointed new sole arbitrator after removing previous arbitrator for not entering on reference by failing to use all reasonable dispatch---Revision was allowed accordingly. Province of East Pakistan v. Abdur Rashid 1970 SCMR 319; Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Sanyal 1979 3 SCC 631 and Messrs Guru Nanak Foundation v. Messrs Rattan Singh and Sons AIR 1981 SC 2075 rel. (b) Arbitration Act (X of 1940)--- ----Preamble---Object, purpose and scope of Arbitration Act, 1940---Provisions of Arbitration Act, 1940 were to be interpreted in such a manner as to achieve essential objective of speedy adjudication through a domestic forum---Very purpose of…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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