Case Details

Citation(s)
1998 SLG 1203 1998 SLD 1203 1998 PLD 132
Lahore High Court
Letters Patent Appeal No. 210 of 1967, heard on 24th April, 1997
MIAN ALLAH NAWAZ AND MUHAMMAD ISLAM BHATTI, JJ
Rana Muhammad Sarwar and Muhammad Afzal Khan Niazi for Petitioner. Muhammad Iqbal Khichi, A.A.G. for
Respondent

ZAKAULLAH KHAN

VS

GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, _ Buildings and Roads Department, Lahore=--Respondent

Law:

Section:

(a) Arbitration Act (X of 1940)-- ----Ss. 14, 15, 16, 17, 30 & 33---Nature and object of arbitration proceedings and role of Courts therein stated. Arbitration is a settlement' of controversies/disputes by one or more persons chosen by the parties themselves. The persons so chosen are known as Arbitrator/Arbitrators/Umpires. The object of arbitration proceedings is to curtail periqd o-f litigation; to encourage resolution of conflict through Judges of their own choice; that Arbitrators are not strictly bound by rules of technicalities embodied in Procedural Laws as well as Qanun-e-Shahadat/Evidence Act; that the Courts' are given role to see that these Judges decide causes strictly in accordance with law, in exercise of their supervisory power contained in sections 14 to 17, and sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act. Thus, it is clear that the role of the Courts, in the scheme of Arbitration Act is of supervisory character and is not akin to appellate power under the Code of Civil Procedure. Champsey Bhara & Co. v. Jivraj Balloo Spinning and Weaving Company Ltd. AIR 1923 PC 66; The Firm of Saleh Mahmood Dossal v. Seth Nathoomal AIR 1927 PC 164; Suleman Haji Muhammad & Co. v. State Bank of Pakistan PLD 1960 (W.P.) Kar. 78 and Ashfaq~Ali Qureshi v. Municipal Corporation, Multan and another 1985 S,CMR 597 rel. (b) Arbitration Act (X of 1940)-- ----Ss. 30 & 33---Law would lean in favour of upholding of award and not vitiating it. Ashfaq Ali Qureshi v. Municipal Corporation, Multan and another 1985 SCMR 597; Heihley, Maxsted & Co. v. Durant & Co. (1893) 1 QB 405; Abdul Rauf v. Muhammad Saeed Akhtar PLD 1958 (W.P.) Kar. 145 and M.A. Ali Mian v. Green & Co. White Ltd. PLD 1964 Dacca 527 ref. (c) Contract Act (IX of 1872)- ----Ss. 15, 16 & 19---Arbitration Act (X of 1940), S.14---Letters Patent Lahore (1911), Cl. 10---Contractor's claim to enhanced rate than accepted by him at earlier stage---Matter referred to arbitrator---Arbitrator found that acceptance of rates by contractor at relevant time was "under forced circumstances "---Such finding was exclusively relatable to domain of facts---Arbitrator being Judge, of facts and law,…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492