Law:

Section:

Arbitration Duty of arbitrator-Arbitrator not bound to give a reasoned judgment on each and every issue and point raised before him. It is the duty of the arbitrator to act fairly to both the parties, and in the proceedings throughout the reference, he must not favour one party more than another, or do anything for one party which he does not do or offer to do for the other and he must observe in this the ordinary well-understood rule for the administration of justice. In order to render the award bad, evidence whether material or not must have been improperly taken or admitted. Naturally, if the decision of the dispute is dependent on a particular question or issue raised b-fore the arbitrator, it is the duty of the arbitrator to adjudicate upon that particular issue and then to give a decision in the case but that does not mean that the arbitrators are bound to give a reason judgment on each and every issue and point raised in the controversy before them. Baker v. Stephens (1867) 2 Q B 523; Iossifoglu v. Couman taros (1941) 1 K B 396; Pakistan v. Gayer & Co., Karachi P L D 1964 Kar. 3; Knowles & Sons Limited v. Bolton Corporation (1900) 2 Q B 253; Balawal Khan v. Captain Muhammad Alain Khan and others P L D 1956 Lah. 494; Kiril Mischeff Ltd. v. Constant Smith & Co. (1950) 1 All E R 890; In re: Hopper (1867) 2 Q B 367; Nan jappa v. Nanja Rao 16 1 C 478; Raminder Singh v. Mohinder Singh A I R 1940 Lah. 186; Narpat Rai v. Devi Das 14 I C 371 and Madan Lal v. Nabi Bakhsh A 1 R 1947 Lah. 177 ref. Haigh v. Haigh (1861) 5 L T 507, Ganes Narain Singh and others v. Maleda Koer 10 1 C 450; Payyavula Vengamma v. Payya vula Kesanna and others A I R 1953 S C 21 ; Walker v. Frobisher 1801 Ch. 6 Vesey 70 ; Fuerst v. Stephenson (1951) 1 Lloyd's Re. 429; In re: Gregson & Armstrong (1894) 70 L T 106 ; Royal Com mission on Sugar Supply v. Trading Society Kwik-Hoo-Tong (1922) 38 T L R 684 and Harvey v. Shelton (1844) Ch. 7 Beav. 455 distinguished. Dates of hearing: 28th to 30th January 1970. JUDGMENT A. R. SHEIKH, J.-Messrs Qamar Din Ahmad & Co., the appellant, entered into a contract with the Government of Pakistan in the Ministry of Defence, respondent…