Law: Arbitration Act (X of 1940)

Section: 34

P L D 1970 Karachi 490 Arbitration Act (X of 1940), S. 34-Stay of legal proceedings pending arbitration-Application for stay seeking reference to arbit ration in respect of some parts of plaint-Stay of proceedings involving decision by Court and arbitrator on same question ----Stay, in circumstances, refused. Russel on Arbitration, 17th Edn., page 88 and Turnock v. Sartoris 43 Ch. D 150 rel. Date of hearing: 25th November 1969.   JUDGMENT The first defendant is a firm and the other defendants are the partners of this firm. On 2nd September 1965, the first defendant had entered into a written contract with the plaintiff for the construction of 8 bungalows for the plaintiff's officers in K. D. A. Scheme No. 1, Karachi (I shall refer to this contract as the said contract). Under the said contract the defendant No. 1 had to complete the construction of the 8 bungalows within 9 months of the plaintiff's works order which was issued by it on 6-9-1965. Unfortunately, there were disputes between the plain tiff and the defendants about the execution of this contract, and the plaintiff was not satisfied with the manner in which the defendant was constructing the said bungalows, therefore there was corres pondence between the parties, and by its notice dated the 16th September 1969, the plaintiff had informed the first defendant that it had "abandoned the work" and that it had committed breach of contract for which it was liable to pay damages to the plaintiff, therefore by this notice the plaintiff had called upon the first defendant to pay it a sum of Rs. 5,58,619.22. The defendant by its reply dated the 20-9-1969, repudiated the allegation in the plaintiff's notice and observed that it would prefer the matter to take its own legal course. It is only material to state here that thereafter on 3-10-1969, the plaintiff filed this suit for the recovery of Rs. 5,58,609.22 as damages from the defendants for breach of contract and for a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the construction of the said bungalows. As the said contract contained various provisions for arbitration, the plaintiff has stated in its plaint…