| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2025 SLG 1846 2025 SLD 1846 |
R.F.A No.122-M/2023
QAZI JAWAD EHSANULLAH, J.
Present: M/S Mian Hussain Ali and Shamsul Hadi, Advocates for appellants. Mr. Rahimullah Chitrali, Assistant A.G. for respondents a/w Tariq Murtaza, XEN C&W Swat and Jawad Hussain, SDO C&W Highway Swat at Matta. Date of hearing: 14.05.2025 & 16.05.2025 Date of announcement: 16.05.2025
MIS A.M & Company through its Representative Syed Khadim Shah s/o Shahzada Mian
VERSUS
. Executive Engineer Highways Division Department Swat KPK at Gulkada, Saidu Sharif Swat and one other
Law: Arbitration Act, 1940
Section: 39,33,14,30,26-A
Law: Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Section: 79, ORDER 1 Rule 9
REMARKS
The appellant, M/S A.M & Company, had entered into a contract with the Communication & Works Department, Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, for the construction and blacktopping of a road. Disputes arose between the parties, and the appellant approached the court, which referred the matter to arbitration. The arbitrators made an award in favor of the appellant, which was challenged by the respondents before the Additional District Judge. The Additional District Judge set aside the award, holding that it was not compliant with the provisions of Section 26-A of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The Additional District Judge had exceeded its jurisdiction by reappraising the evidence and acting as a court of appeal. The High Court noted that the arbitrators had provided sufficient reasons for their award, which was in substantial compliance with Section 26-A of the Act. The court also held that the respondents had participated in the arbitration proceedings without objection and could not now challenge the award on grounds that were not raised during the arbitration.
1. The court held that the Additional District Judge had erred in holding that the award was non-compliant with Section 26-A of the Act.
2. The court noted that the arbitrators had provided sufficient reasons for their award, which were a matter of fact and not a matter of law.
3. The court held that the respondents were estopped from challenging the award on grounds that were not raised during the arbitration proceedings. Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the Additional District Judge. The court directed that the arbitration award be made a rule of the court. The judgment highlights the limited scope of judicial review in arbitration matters and the importance of finality in arbitration awards.