1973 PLP 98 (SCMR)
MESSRS AJ‑BAG CORPORATION‑ — Petitioner Versus PAKISTAN THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF
| Citation | 1973 PLP 98 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MESSRS AJ‑BAG CORPORATION‑ — Petitioner Versus PAKISTAN THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1973 PLP 98 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1973 PLP 98 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1973 PLP 98 (SCMR) (MESSRS AJ‑BAG CORPORATION‑ — Petitioner Versus PAKISTAN THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Z. H. Chishti, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Anwar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 8th February 1973.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan at Karachi, dated the 26th May 1972, in J. M. No. 113 of 1970). Arbitration Act (X of 1940), Ss. 5 & II‑Power of Court to remove arbitrator ‑Appointment of arbitrator and arbitration proceed ings taken in absence of a necessary party‑Lack legal sanction Authority of arbitrator, in circumstance, held, rightly terminated by Court.
Judgment & Decree
SAJJAD AHMAD, J.‑This petition for special leave is directed against the order of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan, whereby he has revoked the authority of the arbitrator, who was appointed earlier under an arbitration in the agreement between the parties to settle the disputes arising between them. It appears that this order of the learned Single Judge, which is dated the 26th of May 1972, was passed on an application moved on behalf of "Pakistan" under sections 5 and 11 of the Arbitration Act of 1940 for the removal of the arbitrator and for the revocation of his authority, on the main contention that the dispute involved in the case was the concern of the Pakistan State, which was neither made a party in the case before the Honourable Court nor before the arbitrator. The impugned order of the learned Single Judge shows that during the hearing 7 of this petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Chishti, asked for time to implead the Government, conceding thereby that 'the Pakistan Government was a necessary party. In that situ ation, the learned Single Judge was perfectly right in his view that the appointment of the arbitrator and the arbitration proceedings taken in the absence of a necessary party viz., Pakistan lacked legal sanction. The authority of the arbitrator was, therefore, rightly terminated. There is no substance in this petition, which is dismissed. Leave refused.