Case Details

Citation(s)
1976 SLG 3006 = 1976 SLD 3006 = 1975 PLD 31
Court of Special Judge, Karachi
Suit No. 485 of 1973, decided on 29th October 1975.
Presented By: Mushtak Ali Kazi, J
Mohammad Ali Sayeed and S. M. Aizaz Ali for Plaintiff: Waheed Faruqui for Defendant.

MERS CRESCENT JUTE PRODUCTS LTD., KARACHI-Plaintiff

VERSUS

GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN-Defendant

Law: Arbitration Act (X of 1940)

Section: 14, 30, 16

(a) Arbitration Act (X of 1940) Ss. 14 & 30-Courts, in proceedings under S. 14, not to be regarded as Courts of appeal-Court can interfere only if award bad on face of it or error of law apparent on mere perusal-Award substantially deciding actual dispute between parties-Fact that precise questions referred not answered in manner indicated in reference - Cannot render award invalid or without jurisdiction.-[Award]. In proceedings under section 14 of the Arbitration Act the Courts are, not to be regarded as Courts of appeal from the decision of an arbitrator. The Courts are not supposed to go into the evidence and re-assess the same for deciding whether the decision of the arbitrator is in accordance with evidence or not. The Court can only interfere if the award is bad on the face of it or there is an error of law apparent on a mere perusal of the award. In the absence of any such indication if the award substantially decides the actual dispute between the parties, it would not render the award as invalid or without jurisdiction, if the precise questions referred are not answered in the manner indicated in the reference. Nor can the award be set aside as illegal on the ground that the arbitrator has committed error of law in arriving at the decision. The arbitrators are supposed to be laymen not conversant with the niceties of the law and rules and if the award is badly stated it cannot for that reason be considered as liable to be set aside. Only when a legal proposition forming the basis of the award is, on the face of it, erroneous, can the award be set aside or remitted. It must be contrary to the specific provisions of the law and this error should be apparent on the face of the award. Raminder Singh v. Mohinder Singh A I R 1940 Lah. 186; Penukonda Bathakrishnamurthy v. Balasubramania & Co. and others A I R 1949 Mad. 55 and Ch. Abdul Rauf and another v. Mohammad Saeed Akhtar and others P L D 1958 Kar. 145 ref. Mohammad Sadiq v. Ministry o! Industries P L D 1962 Kar. 113 distinguished. (b) Arbitration Act (X of 1940)  S. 16-Calculation of price of goods in dispute left to parties themselves according to given formula-Award, held, cannot be…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register