| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2011 SLG 1373 2011 SLD 1373 2011 PLD 506 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition No.2373-L/2005, decided on 10th March, 2011. (Against the judgment dated 26-9-2005 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore in F.A.O.No.30 of 2001).
MAHMOOD AKHTAR SHAHID SIDDIQUI AND MIAN SAQIB NISAR, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Civil Petition No.2373-L/2005, decided on 10th March, 2011. (Against the judgment dated 26-9-2005 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore in F.A.O.No.30 of 2001).
MAHMOOD AKHTAR SHAHID SIDDIQUI AND MIAN SAQIB NISAR, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Food, Islamabad and others
VS
Messrs JOINT VENTURE KOCKS K.G. /RIST
Law:
Section:
(a) Arbitration Act (X of 1940)--- ----Ss. 30 & 33---Objections to award---Scope---Court under Ss.30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 is not supposed to sit as a court of appeal and fish for the latent errors in the arbitration proceedings or the award---Principles. Under sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 the court is not supposed to sit as a court of appeal and fish for the latent errors in the arbitration proceedings or the award. The arbitration is a forum of the parties' own choice and is competent to resolve the issues of law and the fact between them, which opinion/decision should not be lightly interfered by the court while deciding the objection thereto, until a clear and definite case within the purview of sections 30 and 33 is made out, inasmuch as the error of law or fact in relation to the proceedings or the award is floating on the surface, which cannot be ignored and if left outstanding shall cause grave injustice or violate any express provision of law or the law laid down by the superior courts, or that the arbitrator has misconducted thereof. Obviously if there is a blatant and grave error of fact such as misreading and non-reading or clear violation of law, the interference may be justified by the courts. But for the appraisal and appreciation of the evidence, the courts should not indulge into rowing probe to dig out an error and interfere in the award on the reasoning that a different conclusion of fact could possibly be drawn. Premier Insurance Company and others v. Attock Textile Mills Ltd. PLD 2006 Lah. 534 ref. (b) Arbitration Act (I of 1940)--- ----Ss. 30 & 33---Objections to award---Scope---Objections to the award must be clear and unambiguous, stating with precision, clarity and certainty the grounds as to why same should be interfered. (c) Arbitration Act (X of 1940)--- ----Ss. 30 & 33---Objections to award---Scope---Umpire having explicitly referred to the important and material piece of evidence, whatever was relevant and had accordingly dealt with the same by giving sound and cogent reasons---No specific misreading or non-reading had been pointed out---Award, in circumstances, was not bad for any…
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