| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2025 SLG 540 2025 SLD 540 = 2025 PLD 41 = 2025 PLJ 26 |
Peshawar High Court
R.F.A. No.186 of 2023 with C.M. No.299 of 2023 with C.M. No.541 of 2023, decided on 20th May, 2024.
Before Syed Arshad Ali, J
Yasir Khalid, A.A.G. for Appellants. Barrister Muhammad Yaseen Raza Khan and Barrister Muhammad Ibrahim Khan Afridi, Amicis Curiae for
Respondents.
R.F.A. No.186 of 2023 with C.M. No.299 of 2023 with C.M. No.541 of 2023, decided on 20th May, 2024.
Before Syed Arshad Ali, J
Yasir Khalid, A.A.G. for Appellants. Barrister Muhammad Yaseen Raza Khan and Barrister Muhammad Ibrahim Khan Afridi, Amicis Curiae for
Respondents.
The GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA through Chief Secretary, Peshawar and others---Appellants
VERSUS
Messrs HMA PUMPS (PVT.) LTD. PESHAWAR CANTT. and another--Respondents
Law: Arbitration Act, 1940
Section: X,14,16,20
Law: First Schedule of the Arbitration Act, 1940
Section: 2,4,5
Arbitration Act (X of 1940)-------Ss. 14, 16 & 20---Award passed by arbitrators unanimously---Scope---Remitting (re-referring) matter to Arbitrators or umpire---Reconsideration---Scope--Provincial Government filed appeal against the order passed by the Civil Court whereby the award made by the umpire was made rule of court---Argument of the Appellant (Provincial Government) was that as earlier, during the proceedings before the Court, Arbitrators had passed award unanimously, the Court had wrongly accepted application of respondents/Company for remitting/re-referring the matter to the umpire---Contention of the respondents/ company was that it was provided under S. 16 of the Arbitration Act 1940 ('the Act 1940') that the award could be remitted to the arbitrators or the umpire for reconsideration, therefore, the Trial Court had rightly remitted the award to the umpire, instead of arbitrators--Question as to whether in a case when an unanimous award has been passed, the matter may be re-referred/remitted to the arbitrators who passed the award or it could be referred to an umpire---Held, that S. 16 of the Act 1940 and Rr. 2, 4 & 5 of the First Schedule of the Act 1940 clearly demonstrate that the umpire can only take cognizance in the matter if there are the circumstances provided under R. 4, which, inter alia, include that both arbitrators could not agree on a particular issue--Therefore, an umpire cannot be called upon to act under R. 5 if the circumstances as provided under R. 4 do not arise---Thus, the contention of the respondents/company went counter to the scheme of S. 16 of the Act 1940, which clearly envisaged that where award had left undetermined any of the matters referred to arbitration, or where it determined any matter not referred to arbitration and such matter could not be separated without affecting the determination of the matter referred to, the Court was competent to remit the award or any matter referred to arbitration of the arbitrators or umpire for reconsideration---This clearly implies that if the ambiguity, as stated in S. 16 of the Act 1940, arises out of the award passed by the arbitrators, then the matter shall be referred…