Case Details

Citation(s)
1962 SLG 2860 = 1962 SLD 2860 = 1962 PLD 386
Sindh High Court
Miscellaneous Appeal No. 46 of 1960, decided on 1st March 1962.
Presented By: G. B. Constantine, J
A. K. Shaikh (A. A.-G.) for Appellant.   Sohail & Co. for
Respondent No. 1.   S. A. Hassan for
Respondent No. 2.

PROVINCE OF WEST PAKISTAN-Appellant  

VERSUS

  MESSRS FAKIR SPINNING MILLS LTD. AND ANOTHER Responden

Law: Arbitration Act, 1940

Section: S 14

Arbitration Act (X of 1940), S 14-Production of unsigned copy of award-Does not constitute "filing of award".   Arbitration Act (X of 1940), S. 33-Party may apply to Court for adjudication on point whether arbitration agreement is in existence or valid, if award is not made.   Under section 33, Arbitration Act, 1940 a party may apply to the Court for adjudication on the point whether an arbitration agreement is in existence or valid, but once it is alleged that an award has been made in purported pursuance of such an agreement, the attack upon the agreement becomes an attack upon the award.   Once the award has been given, then it is the award which must be challenged. There may be of course cases where a party against whom an award has been made, but not filed in Court, wishes to challenge the validity of a purported arbitration agree ment in order to prevent any further proceedings in arbitration upon other matters.   Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 39---Applies to applications under S. 33, Arbitration Act (X of 1940).   Arbitration Act (X of 1940), S. 14-No time limit to arbitrator giving notice of award-Limitation for filing award does not start until the notice from arbitrator.   There is no time limit to an arbitrator giving notice of an award and limitation for filing does not start until an arbitrator has given notice.   Arbitration Act (X of 1940), Ss. 14, 17 & 33-Validity of award can be challenged even though award not filed in Court.   Once an award, as provided in section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 has been filed in Court, an application to challenge the award under section 33 is the same as an application to set aside an award mentioned in section 17. But this does not involve the con clusion that an application to challenge the validity of an award is restricted to cases where an award has been filed.   Ratnaji Virpal & Co. v. Dhirajal Manila) A I R 1942 Born. 101 ; Sait Pamandass Sungnaram v. T. S. Pillai arid others A I R 1960 Andhra Pradesh 59 and A I R 1948 Mad. 40 ref.     Dates of hearing: 31st January, 1962 ; 1st and 14th February 1962.   JUDGMENT  …
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register