Law: Arbitration Act, 1940

Section: 17 , 39(1)(vi)

Law: Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Section: 96

Arbitration Act, 1940 (X of 1940)-- ----Ss. 17 & 39(1)(vi)--Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908), S. 96--Regular first appeal--Scope of appeal--Contract for construction of residential building--Scheduled of completion--Claim of bills--Refusal of certain bills--Initiation of arbitration proceedings--Difference of opinion--Appointment of umpire--Senior Civil Judge made umpire award--Challenge to--Allegations of misconduct by arbitrator--Challenge adjustment of price--Once trial Court refused to set aside an award and pronounced judgment in accordance with it, a decree follows--Statute explicitly mandated that “no appeal shall lie from such decree except on ground that it is in excess of, or not otherwise in accordance with, award--Appellant’s primary contention that Umpire committed misconduct by disregarding contractual clauses and awarding claims for price adjustment, interest, and variations might be scrutinized against high threshold of “legal misconduct”--It is pertinent to note that Appellant fully participated in these proceedings, with hearings conducted at their own office in Tarbela--Dispute itself was treated as an interpretational matter, focusing on applicability of PEC Rules, prevailing Law of Pakistan, and consequences of inappropriate deletion of GCC Clause 45 from Particular Conditions of Contract (PCC)--This approach demonstrated that Umpire did not invent new claims but rather interpreted existing contractual and legal frameworks to resolve a contention between parties--It is a settled principle of law that once a party participates in arbitration proceedings unconditionally and without objection to jurisdiction of arbitrator or nature of dispute, they were deemed to have waived any right to later challenge arbitrability of those issues--Umpire’s decision on price adjustments and variations fulfills requirements of Section 26-A of Arbitration Act, as it provided clear reasons inconsistent with any notion of arbitrariness--Since Umpire’s findings are well-reasoned and based upon project record, they remain final and binding within limited scope of review available under Section 39(1)(vi)--Petition…