1991 PLP 1374 (CLC)
Haji ABDUL RAZAQ and others ‑‑‑ Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD ISHAQ and others ‑‑‑ Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1374 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Arif, J |
| Parties | Haji ABDUL RAZAQ and others ‑‑‑ Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD ISHAQ and others ‑‑‑ Respondents |
| Primary Law | Arbitration Act (X of 1940)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1374 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Arbitration Act (X of 1940)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1374 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Arif, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1374 (CLC) (Haji ABDUL RAZAQ and others ‑‑‑ Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD ISHAQ and others ‑‑‑ Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Arshad for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Hussain Naqshbandi for Respondent No.1.
- Nemo for Respondent No.2.
- Date of hearing: 17th March, 1990.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑ S.17 ‑‑‑ Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199 ‑‑‑ Judgment in terms of award‑‑‑ Validity ‑‑‑ Petitioners claimed that due to their arrest in criminal cases they could not appear before Authority and thus were proceeded against ex parte and that such proceedings were liable to be set aside ‑‑‑ Contesting respondent in his written statement had stated that appropriate remedy would be to remand the case for decision afresh ‑‑‑‑ Judgment in terms of award was declared to have been passed without lawful authority and of no legal effect ‑‑‑ Case was remanded to Authority for decision afresh after hearing parties.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Muhammad Arshad for Petitioner. Muhammad Hussain Naqshbandi for Respondent No.1. Nemo for Respondent No.2. Date of hearing: 17th March, 1990. This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 assails the judgment and decree dated 10‑4‑1989. of the Board of Arbitrators of Market Committee, Pindi Bhattian District Gujranwala directing the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.1,73,377 to respondent No.l. This decree has been challenged inter alia on the ground that as the liability to pay the amount in question was that of the son of the first petitioner, namely, Humayun, no decree could be passed against the petitioners. It is also averred that due to unavoidable circumstances namely the arrest of the petitioners in criminal cases, they could not appear before respondent No.2 and were proceeded against ex parte and the ex parte proceedings were liable to be set aside.
2. In the written statement filed by the contesting respondent No.1 it has been stated that it would be appropriate in the circumstances of the case to remand it to respondent No.2 for decision afresh. This concession on the part of respondent No.1 has been reiterated by his learned counsel during the hearing of this petition.
3. In view of what has been stated above, this petition is allowed. The order dated 10‑4‑1989 is declared to have been passed without lawful authority 'and of no legal effect. The case is remanded to respondent No.2 for decision afresh after hearing the parties. There shall be no order as to costs. A.A./A‑1313/L Case remanded.