Law: Arbitration Act, 1940

Section: 30,33,39

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 115

Arbitration Act (X of 1940)--- ----Ss. 30, 33 39---Rules of Procedure for the Functions of the Disputes Review Expert, R. 9(c), (d)---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115---Arbitration---Revisional jurisdiction---Concurrent findings of Courts below---Petitioner Authority awarded contract to respondent company---Dispute between the parties was decided by an arbitrator---Objections against award announced by arbitrator were dismissed by Trial Court as well as Lower Appellate Court and award was made rule of the Court---Validity---If on reappraisal of evidence, a different view is possible, High Court cannot substitute its own view and upset findings of fact concurrently arrived at by the Courts below---Such findings can only be interfered with if the Courts below had misread the evidence or had committed a jurisdictional error--- Dispute between the parties could not be resolved without the assistance of Dispute Review Expert (DRE)---It was for such reason that respondent company referred the dispute to DRE under specific clause of the Conditions of Particular Application---Just like rule 9(c) of Rules of Procedure for the Functions of the Disputes Review Expert, the provision of R. 9(d) of Rules of Procedure for the Functions of the Disputes Review Expert also does not prescribe any time limit within which a party can refer a dispute to DRE---Contractual provisions which placed a time limit on a partys right to initiate a dispute resolution process had to be strictly construed--- Reference of dispute to DRE did not offend any provision of Conditions of Particular Application read with Rules and Procedures for the Functions of the Disputes Review Expert---High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction declined to interfere in the award made rule of the Court---Revision was dismissed, in circumstances. Universal Insurance Company v. Karim Gul 2021 CLD 1189; Co-operators Life Insurance Co. v. Gibbons [2009] 3 SCR 605; Muhammad Akhtar v. Mst. Manna 2001 SCMR 1700 and Abdul Hakeem v. Habibullah 1997 SCMR 1139 rel. JUDGMENT MIANGUL HASSAN AURANGZEB, J.---Through the instant civil revision petition the petitioner, National Highway Authority (N.H.A.), impugns 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