| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1992 SLG 1046 1992 SLD 1046 1992 CLC 2034 |
Lahore High Court
F.A.O. No. 26 of 1991, decided on 1st February, 1992
MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J
Gulzar Ahmad Qureshi for Appellant. Mian Nisar Ahmad for
Respondents
F.A.O. No. 26 of 1991, decided on 1st February, 1992
MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J
Gulzar Ahmad Qureshi for Appellant. Mian Nisar Ahmad for
Respondents
PUNJAB PROVINCE
VS
MUHAMMAD SHAFI and others
Law:
Section:
Arbitration Act (X of 1940)--- ----S. 20---Application for reference of dispute to arbitration---Application for reference of dispute to arbitration was contested by opposite-party contending that applicant had failed to fulfil condition precedent prescribed by one of the clauses of agreement arrived at between parties for invoking Arbitration Clause---According to one of the clauses of the agreement applicant who was granted contract by Authority should have referred matter to Superintending Engineer of Authority concerned for decision before seeking reference to Arbitration---Applicant admittedly had made written complaint to Superintending Engineer concerned to take decision within stipulated period, but he failed to take decision accordingly---Requirement of agreement having duly been complied with by applicant before filing application for reference of dispute to arbitration, application was maintainable and was rightly allowed by Trial Court. JUDGMENT This judgment shall dispose of FAOs Nos.26, 27, 72 and 73 of 1991, in which the same questions of law and fact arise for determination which are directed against similar orders passed by the trial Court on 19th July, 1990 and 27th. of November, 1990. 2. The necessary facts for the disposal of all these appeals are that the respondents were awarded contract by the appellants for the construction of certain work. Subsequently, disputes having arisen between the parties, the respondents filed applications under section 20 of the Arbitration Act for reference of the disputes to arbitration. These applications were contested by the appellants but were allowed by the trial Court on 19th of July, 1990 and on 27th of November 1990 arbitrators were also appointed. 3. The only contention raised by learned counsel for the appellants was that as the respondent had failed to fulfil the condition precedent prescribed by clause 25-A of the agreement for invoking the Arbitration clause, the petitions under section 20 of Arbitration Act, 1940 filed by the respondents were not maintainable. It was explained that according to clause 25-A before seeking reference to Arbitration, the respondents should have referred the matter…
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