Case Details

Citation(s)
2004 SLG 2580 2004 SLD 2580 2004 PLD 312
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 7907 of 2002, heard on 15th December, 2003
TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILANI, J
Sardar Sami Hayat for Petitioners. Syed Hamid Ali for
Respondents

LIAQUAT ULLAH KHAN KHATAK and 5 others

VS

HAFEEZ AKHTAR and 9 others

Law:

Section:

(a) Arbitration Act (X of 1940)-------S. 8(1)---Non-service of notice---Petitioner filed objection with regard to arbitration agreement and was pursuing such matter before Civil Court and High Court at all stages--Validity---Objection with regard to non-­service of notice under S.8 of Arbitration Act, 1940 would be of no avail. PLD 1970 Lah. 398 ref. 1991 MLD 1438 and 1999 CLC 1005 rel. (b) Constitution of. Pakistan (1973)--- ----Art.199---Concurrent orders passed by Courts below---Interference--­Validity---Interference with such orders would not, be warranted in Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court, if same are neither arbitrary or against record nor suffering from any jurisdictional defect. JUDGMENT This Constitutional petition is directed against the order dated 14-2-2002 vide which petitioner's revision against the order of the learned trial Judge dated 26-10-2000 was dismissed. 2. The petitioners and respondents had a dispute. On the application of the respondents under section 8 of the Arbitration Act, Mr. Amjad Ali Shah, Civil Judge Ist Class, Lahore held that there was an original .agreement between the parties dated 15-12-1981 in vernacular and in English through which an arbitrator was appointed, that on 29-10-1982 the arbitrator commenced the proceedings whereafter the parties repeated applications for extension of time within which the arbitrator may proceed which was allowed, that the appointment of arbitrator could not be declared illegal for want of notice under section 8(2) of the Arbitration Act as the said lacuna stood cured when the parties by mutual agreement agreed to the appointment of Mr. Ehsanul Haque Bhalli, District and Sessions Judge as Arbitrator, that the original agreement was admitted by the, parties before the High Court in the earlier round of litigation and parties had been appearing in the arbitration proceedings. This order was challenged in revision and the learned Additional District Judge, vide the impugned order dismissed the same and affirmed the order dated 26-10-2000 on the ground that the petitioner had joined the arbitration proceedings before the arbitrator and he was estopped to raise the objection with regard…
🔒
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