| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2024 SLG 5739 2024 SLD 5739 = 2024 CLD 1451 |
Islamabad High Court
F.A.O. No.121 of 2021, decided on 10th October, 2024.
Before Mohsin Akhtar Kayani and Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan, JJ
Barrister Talha Ilyas Sheikh for Appellant. Malik Omair Saleem for
Respondent No.1. Date of hearing: 25th April, 2024.
F.A.O. No.121 of 2021, decided on 10th October, 2024.
Before Mohsin Akhtar Kayani and Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan, JJ
Barrister Talha Ilyas Sheikh for Appellant. Malik Omair Saleem for
Respondent No.1. Date of hearing: 25th April, 2024.
PAK GULF CONSTRUCTION (PRIVATE) LIMITED---Appellant
VERSUS
GODWIN AUSTEN JOHNSON----Respondent
Law: Arbitration Act, 1940
Section: 17, 18 ,39 (vi)
(a) Arbitration Act (X of 1940)-------S. 18---Arbitration proceedings---Question of law---Scope---Expression "question of law" includes conclusion of fact drawn from facts proven in arbitration---Legal effect of conclusion of fact is a question of law.Hodgkinson v. Fernie (1857) 3 C.B. (N.S.) 189 fol.(b) Arbitration Act (X of 1940)-------Ss. 17, 18 & 39 (vi)---Arbitration award---Rule of Court---Appellant / employer hired services of respondent / consultant and entered into contract titled 'Design Consultancy Service-Architecture, Interior and Specialty Design for 5 Star Movenpic Hotel, Centaurus Islamabad'---Dispute had arisen between the parties regarding right of respondent / consultant to invoice reimbursable expenses--Objections to award filed by appellant / employer were rejected by Trial Court and award was made rule of Court---Validity---It was not explained in award that, in absence of express words, how was it a valid construction of Schedule 4 to the Contract, read as a whole that appellant / employer agreed to pay for detailed drawings regardless of whether they were indeed final (i.e., useable for the project) or were mere garbage---In absence of express words to the contrary in Sched. 4 to the Contract, reasons for depriving appellant / employer of its final say in acceptability of work-products were absent in award---Out of two alternatives of respondent / consultant giving customary warranty of fitness for purpose versus appellant's / employer's right to reject deliverables and not pay final one-third of the Contract price for relevant phase, parties agreed on the latter in Sched. 4 to the Contract, but award did not expound such bargain of parties---Award did not give sufficient reasons for not reading Sched. 4 of the Contract as a whole nor how the applicable stage for payment under relevant phase had been accomplished without appellant's / employer's approval of final drawings---Appeal was precluded under S. 17 of Arbitration Act, 1940 from a decree but when the very award on which that decree rested was revisited (by setting aside, modifying or remitting the award) by Appellate Court under…
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