| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1980 SLD 3057 = 1980 CLC 470 |
Court of Special Judge, Karachi
Suit No. 247 of 1966, decided on 9th February, 1973.
Presented By: Ghulam Rasool, K.Shiakh, J
Nana Kwaku v. Nana Sir Afori Atta A I R 1933 P C 46 ref. Tahir Hussain for Plaintiff. H. A. Rehmani for Defendants.
Suit No. 247 of 1966, decided on 9th February, 1973.
Presented By: Ghulam Rasool, K.Shiakh, J
Nana Kwaku v. Nana Sir Afori Atta A I R 1933 P C 46 ref. Tahir Hussain for Plaintiff. H. A. Rehmani for Defendants.
MESSRS BARISONS (Pak.)Ltd. KARACHIPlaintiff
VERSUS
PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INDUSTRIES AND NATURAL SOURCES AND ANOTHERDefendants
Law: Arbitration Act (X of 1940)
Section: 30
(a) Arbitration Act (X of 1940) S. 30AwardMisconductDecision of arbitrator, wrong on face of awardOpen to reviewSpecific point of law referred to arbitrator, held, cannot be set aside, if such point of law. wrongly decided by arbitrator.[AwardArbitrator]. Sheikh Muhammad Sadiq v. Ministry of Industries P L D 19616 Kar. 412 rel. Champesy Bhara & Company v. Jivraj Ballo Spinning arid Weaving Company 501 A 324 ref. (b) Arbitration Act (X of 1940) S. 30Award, setting aside ofJurisdictionContention that dispute claim having been agitated in pleadings it gave arbitrator an authority to decide and his decision could not be assailedHeld : without forceArbitrator although competent to construe a clause of contract in absence of any specific reference about interpretation of contract yet W0Vm open to Court to consider whether finding of arbitrator on that point good or bad in lawStatement of claim filed before arbitrator by itself, held, not enough to oust jurisdiction of Court to subject finding of arbitrator to scrutiny.[AwardJurisdiction]. Amin Baling Company v. Aminpur Union Cooperation Multipurpose Society P L D 1961 Dacca 103 and Muhammed Sadiq Muhammad Afzal v. Ministry of Industries P L D 1966 Kar. 412 ref. (c) Arbitration Act (X of 1940) S. 30AwardMisconductClaimants merely acting as agents and admittedly receiving no authority beyond what was authorised by principals to get agreement amendedProposal for bifurcation of amount payable in foreign currency to principals and amount needed in Pakistan currency to meet local charges, made by claimants, accepted by respondents but not approved by principalsOriginal contract, held, could not be amended, without consent of principals, being beneficiary under contractDispute, held further, had to be decided in terms of original clause as it stood in agreement, and admitting claimants to benefit of their own proposal not sustainable in lawAwardSet aside in circumstances.(ContractAward). (d) Arbitration Act (X of 1940) . S. 30 (c) Expression "otherwise invalid" in S. 30 (c) Arbitration taking place in terms of a clause of agreement of general termsDisputes having to be confined to terms and conditions of…