Law: Arbitration Act (X of 1940)

Section: 20

Before Muhammad Hussain Adil Khatri, J Arbitration Act (X of 1940) ----S. 20---Arbitration agreement---Disputes between parties---Plaintiff's suit seeking direction of Court for referring matter in question, to arbitrator as per terms of arbitration agreement---Defendant's plea that no dispute existed between the parties, therefore, referring matter to arbitrator was not warranted---Validity---Pleadings of parties had brought surface issues which required consideration as also effect thereof, on specific clause of contract-- Questions raised prima facie were not free from doubt and required to be adjudicated in the light of the provisions of contract, memorandum attached therewith and exposition thereof---Interpretation of such provisions of the contract by the Court would amount to usurpation of jurisdiction vested in domestic tribunal constituted under the agreement viz. arbitrator---Defendant was directed to file agreement in question, in Court for referring disputes between parties to arbitration. Prince Trading Company v. Muhammad Usman Moula Bux PLD 1954 Sindh 56; Muhammad Umar v. Zakaria Adamji Charitable Corporation 1988 MLD 1199 and Jamila Industries Ltd. v. Pakistan Refinery Ltd. PLD 176 Kar. 644 ref. Munawar Ghani for Plaintiff. Imtiaz Lari for Defendant. Date of hearing; 6th December, 1993. JUDGMENT The plaintiff seeks directions to the defendant, under suction 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 to file arbitration agreement dated 24-6-1981 in Court and to refer the matter to the arbitrator for resolving various disputes between the parties. The defendant had invited tenders for construction of its office buildings at Abbasi Shaheed Road, Karachi. The plaintiff participated in the tender and was awarded the contract under defendant's letter dated 24-6-1981.   The work was to be executed in two phases within specified time frames of 24 and 18 months, respectively. However, the work could not be completed as scheduled and accordingly time for completion of the work was extended in respect of both the phases. The case of the plaintiff is that it suffered losses because of the escalation in overall cost of construction. Apart from the…