Case Details

Citation(s)
2003 SLG 3477 2003 SLD 3477 2003 PLD 536 2003 PLJ 608
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 727 of 1995 with Criminal Original PetitionNo. 23 of 1994, decided on 2nd April, 2003.
SH. RIAZ AHMED, C.J., MIAN MUHAMMAD AJMAL AND MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, JJ
S.M. Zafar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab. Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Appellant.Tariq Mahmood Khokhar, Addl. A.G., Punjab for
Respondents.

ABDUL QAYYUM KHANvsGOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT through Secretary and another

Law: Arbitration Act (X of 1940)

Section: 2C, 33, 14

(a) Arbitration Act (X of 1940) ---S. 2(c)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.199 & 185(3)---Leave to appeal was granted by the Supreme Court to examine the view of High Court to the effect that "High Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Art, 199 of the Constitution was not a 'Court' as defined in S.2(c), Arbitration Act, 1940 and dispute raised in the Constitutional petition could not be referred to arbitration with the intervention of the Court and such arbitration for all purposes shall be deemed to be a private arbitration without the intervention of the Court by the parties". (b) Arbitration Act (X of 1940) ----Ss. 2(c), 33 & 14---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.199 & 185--­Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art.14---Constitutional petition before High Court---Parties, with the intention to avoid litigation in the writ petition, desired for settlement of the dispute by a person of their choice without the interference of the Court---High Court, at the option, of the parties, while appointing the desired person, as sole arbitrator, disposed of the Constitutional petition--- Dispute to the Constitutional petition was not as such referable to the arbitration under the lease agreement between the parties rather the Constitutional petition was disposed of in terms of compromise between the parties for decision of dispute through arbitration by the person of the choice of the parties---Mere fact that the High Court sent the matter to the arbitrator would neither be obligatory for the High Court to entertain the application under Arbitration Act, 1940 and perform the function of Civil Court nor it would be deemed that it was an arbitration with the intervention of High Court and thus in view of the provisions of S.33 read with S.2(c) of the Act the High Court would have no jurisdiction to entertain the arbitration application for adjudication of the dispute arising out of the award in its Constitutional jurisdiction---Matter being not referable to an arbitrator as an arbitration dispute under Arbitration Act, 1940, award given by the Arbitrator would have no nexus with the proceedings in the Constitutional petition,…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register