| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLG 4040 = 2026 SLD 4040 = 1958 PLD 27 |
WEST PAKISTAN, KARACHI
Suit No. 979 of 1953, decided on 13th September 1956.
Presented By: INAMULLAH, J.
Arbitration Act (X of 1940), S. 14 (2)-`Depositions and documents taken and proved'-Whether form part of the award-Omission by umpire to file depositions and documents with award-Whether affects merit of the case. Under subsection 2 of section 14 of the Arbitration Act, whatever the intention of the legislature may have been in calling upon the arbitrators or the umpire to file the docu ments and depositions along with the award, such documents cannot be said to be documents actually incorporated in the award. The omission by the umpire to file the deposition and documents which may have been taken and proved before him, is a mere irregularity not affecting the merit of the award. Arbitration Act (X of 1940), S. 30-Finding out error on face of award-Whether Court can make sifting investigation of entire proceedings before arbitrators. The proceedings before the arbitrators may be of some help to the Court in understanding the award, but in an application to set aside an award the Court cannot look into it in order to find out the error apparent on the face of the award. Champsey Bhata of Company A I R (1923) P C 66 ; Messrs. Bajranglal Laduram A I R 1951 Cal. 78 ; Bijoy Singh v. Bilasrai & Co. A I R 1952 Cal. 440 ; Gulzarilal Kanoria and Company v. Busi and Stephenson Limited A I R 1953 Cal. 621; F. R. Absalom, Limited v. Great Western (London) Garden Village Society Ltd. L R 1933 A C 592 ; King v. Duveen and others (1913) 2 K B 32 ; Attorney General for Manitoba and Kelly and others 1922 A C 268 ; Debidass and others v. Keshavdas and others A I R 1945 All. 432 and Union of India v. Premehand Satramdas A I R 1951 Pat. 201 ref. Munavvar Abbas for Plaintiffs. Ibadatyar Khan for Defendants.
Suit No. 979 of 1953, decided on 13th September 1956.
Presented By: INAMULLAH, J.
Arbitration Act (X of 1940), S. 14 (2)-`Depositions and documents taken and proved'-Whether form part of the award-Omission by umpire to file depositions and documents with award-Whether affects merit of the case. Under subsection 2 of section 14 of the Arbitration Act, whatever the intention of the legislature may have been in calling upon the arbitrators or the umpire to file the docu ments and depositions along with the award, such documents cannot be said to be documents actually incorporated in the award. The omission by the umpire to file the deposition and documents which may have been taken and proved before him, is a mere irregularity not affecting the merit of the award. Arbitration Act (X of 1940), S. 30-Finding out error on face of award-Whether Court can make sifting investigation of entire proceedings before arbitrators. The proceedings before the arbitrators may be of some help to the Court in understanding the award, but in an application to set aside an award the Court cannot look into it in order to find out the error apparent on the face of the award. Champsey Bhata of Company A I R (1923) P C 66 ; Messrs. Bajranglal Laduram A I R 1951 Cal. 78 ; Bijoy Singh v. Bilasrai & Co. A I R 1952 Cal. 440 ; Gulzarilal Kanoria and Company v. Busi and Stephenson Limited A I R 1953 Cal. 621; F. R. Absalom, Limited v. Great Western (London) Garden Village Society Ltd. L R 1933 A C 592 ; King v. Duveen and others (1913) 2 K B 32 ; Attorney General for Manitoba and Kelly and others 1922 A C 268 ; Debidass and others v. Keshavdas and others A I R 1945 All. 432 and Union of India v. Premehand Satramdas A I R 1951 Pat. 201 ref. Munavvar Abbas for Plaintiffs. Ibadatyar Khan for Defendants.
Messrs. OVERSEAS COTTON COMPANY-Plaintiffs
VERSUS
Messrs. S. M. FUZAIL & COMPANY----- Defendants
Law: Arbitration Act (X of 1940)
Section: 14(2),30
JUDGMENT INAMULLAH, J.--- This is an application under section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, contending that the award is invalid oil the numerous grounds stated in the application, and that the same may be set aside. The facts, shortly put, are these : The plaintiff had entered into four contracts with the defendant to purchase some cotton bales. Two contracts were entered into on the 22nd September 1951 and the other two were entered into on the 24th September 1951. In all the four contracts the last date of delivery was the 25th January 1952. There being a breach of the contract, according to the terms of the by laws of the Karachi Cotton Association Limited, the parties referred their dispute to two arbitrators. There was a disagreement between the arbitrators, and the matter was ultimately referred to the umpire, Hamid Dawood Habib who gave his award on the 20th July 1953, awarding a certain amount to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff. The award was filed in this Court in pursuance of section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 on the 26th August 1953. The service of the award having been effected on the defendants on the 3rd November 1953, they filed their objections on the 27th November 1953. Number of grounds have been taken in the objections to the award under section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. Mr. Ibadatyar Khan, the learned advocate for the defendants, however, has taken four fold objections before me :- The Umpire has failed to comply with section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and the rules of the Sind Chief Court regarding the filing of the award. The Umpire was partial. The Umpire had failed to state the case as requested by the defendants on a question of law. There is an error on the face of the award inasmuch as the Umpire has calculatedthe damages not in accordance with the rate prevalent on the 25th January 1952, but according to the rate mentioned in the debit note dated the 14th March 1952. I would consider these contentions separately So far as the first objection is concerned, the contention of Mr. Ibadatyar Khan was that the Umpire was required under the…