Case Details

Citation(s)
2004 SLG 959 2004 SLD 959 2004 SCMR 590
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition No.273-L of 1998, decision dated: 29-04-2003.(On appeal from the judgment dated 31-7-1997 passed by the Lahore High Court in F.A.O. No.62 of 1997)
MUNIR A. SHEIKH AND FALAK SHER, JJ
Jehangir A. Joja, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Ashtar Ausaf Ali, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondents.Mahmudul Islam, Advocate-on-Record (on Show-Cause Notice)

PRESIDENT OF ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN-

VS

Syed TASNEEM HUSSAIN NAQVI and others

Law:

Section:

Arbitration Act (X of 1940)---S. 30---Objections to award on merits by contending that findings of Arbitrator were contrary to evidence---Validity---Award could be challenged only on grounds mentioned in S.30 of Arbitration Act, 1940 if the Arbitrator had misconducted himself in the proceedings and not on merits---No substantial grounds with precision and particular allegations were pleaded which ,could be construed to be misconduct by the arbitrator or the proceedings---Court while hearing objections against award could not sit as a Court of appeal against award and interfere with the same on merits. JUDGMENT MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.---This petition is directed against the judgment dated 31-7-1997 of the Lahore High Court through which appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment of the trial Court of making the award rule of the Court has been dismissed. 2. There was admittedly contract between the parties about the selling of ticket etc. on Lahore, Faisalabad route. An agreement was executed between the parties which was to be effective from 1-8-1992 for a period of two years extendable at the option of the parties for one year. 3. A dispute arose between the parties which resulted in filing of a suit by the respondent before the Civil Court. During pendency of the suit, the petitioner invoked Arbitration clause in the agreement and referred the dispute to the nominated arbitrator namely General Manager, Pakistan Railways as sole Arbitrator. Claim was filed by the petitioner which was opposed by the respondent, who filed counter -calim. The Arbitrator after framing as many as eight issues, recorded evidence of the parties, delivered award and recorded findings that both the parties had failed to perform their reciprocal obligations under the agreement and both of them did not implement the agreement and the trains were late. It was held that respondents should pay an amount of 85.10 lacs to the Railway Department and Railway should release the security 'in the form of defence certificate etc. to the respondents. The respondent had paid an amount of Rs.6.6 Crores against an amount of Rs.5.5 Crores which was earned by the Railway in the year prior to the…
🔒
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