Case Details

Citation(s)
1998 SLG 1412 1998 SLD 1412 1998 CLC 1684
Quetta High Court
Civil Miscellaneous Application No.25 and Civil RevisionNo.251 of 1997, decision dated: 30-04-1998, hearing DATE :14-04-1998
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY AND RAJA FAYYAZ AHMAD, JJ
Basharatullah and Ehsanul Haque for Appellants. S.A. Zahoor and Khushnood Ahmed for
Respondents

EJAZ ALI SIDDIQUE and anothervsRana IRSHAD AHMED and another

Law:

Section:

(a) Arbitration Act (X of 1940)-------Ss.30 & 33---Objection application by appellant---Respondents filed reply to objection application under Ss.30 & 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 wherein it was pleaded that the objection application filed by appellant was time-barred, therefore, liable to be dismissed---Appellant had participated and admitted the decision of Arbitrator and also joined in Dawa-i-Khair in this behalf and never raised objection at the relevant time---Appellant having submitted himself to the jurisdiction of Arbitrator, thus, on principle of waiver and estoppel, was estopped from challenging award or of Arbitrator---Objection application of appellant, therefore, was not maintainable. (b) Arbitration Act (X of 1940)--- ----S.39(i)(vi)---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115---Setting aside the award---Validity of the decree---Procedure---For the purpose of setting aside the award, appeal would be competent under S.39(i)(vi) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and for the purpose of examining the validity of a decree, as no specific provision has been incorporated, therefore, revision would be the only remedy available to the -debtor. PLD 1986 Quetta 321 and Amood Kumar Varma v. Hari Parsad Barman and others AIR 1958 All. 720 ref. (c) Judgment--- ----Object---Proper ---Judgment is to give impression that the same has been delivered after applying judicial mind and with full devotion---Duty of Presiding Officer of the Court. Presiding Officer of the Court has to write a proper , which may give impression that it has been delivered after applying judicial mind and with full devotion, because object of delivering the is not only to dispose of the matter, but a duty is cast upon the Presiding Officer to do justice between the parties, and if such factors lack in the , it reflects on the ability as well as conduct of the Presiding Officer. (d) Arbitration Act (X of 1940)--- ----Ss.33 & 32---Interpretation and scope of Ss.33 & 32 of the Arbitration Act, 1940---Objection to award---Process. Section 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 does not contemplate that a separate objection must be filed challenging the Arbitration Award, as according to…
🔒
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