1981 PLP 1282 (CLC)
MESSERS SIND CONSTRUCTION Co.‑‑Plaintiff Versus THE KARACHI PORT TRUST, KARACHI‑Defendant
| Citation | 1981 PLP 1282 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MESSERS SIND CONSTRUCTION Co.‑‑Plaintiff Versus THE KARACHI PORT TRUST, KARACHI‑Defendant |
| Primary Law | (c) Arbitration Act (X of 1940)‑, (b) Arbitration Act (X of 1940)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1981 PLP 1282 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: (c) Arbitration Act (X of 1940)‑, (b) Arbitration Act (X of 1940)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1981 PLP 1282 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1981 PLP 1282 (CLC) (MESSERS SIND CONSTRUCTION Co.‑‑Plaintiff Versus THE KARACHI PORT TRUST, KARACHI‑Defendant). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S. 33 read with S. 30‑Objections to award‑Grounds of‑Plaintiff granted contract for construction of some work by Port Trust basing his claim for escalation on certain Government instructions and memo randa‑Question of applicability of such Government instructions and memoranda to plaintiff, held, altogether distinct from question of reasonableness of rates and within scope of arbitration clause in instant case.‑.[Award].
S. 33 read with S. 30‑Obiections to award‑Grounds of‑Govern ment instructions and memoranda not forming part of agreement --Contract a fixed rate contract without escalation clause but subject to Government approval‑Government issuing instructions regarding payment of additional amounts on account of escalation‑Plaintiff claiming that Government instructions and memoranda entitled him to additional payment for work done under contract‑Held such Government instructions and memoranda "relevant documents" relating to work done under contract and their interpretation and applicability within condition of contract‑Arbitrator, held further, authorised to decide whether such instructions and memoranda "relevant documents or not".‑[Award].
S. 33 read with S. 30‑Objections to award‑Grounds of‑Award non -speaking and silent on legal issues‑Held, not necessary for arbitrator to give separate reasons or findings on each issue and arbitrator presumed to have rejected legal and preliminary objections in ‑_‑circumstances.‑[Award].
S. 33 read with S. 30‑Objections to award‑Grounds of‑Award non‑speaking‑‑No reasons given by arbitrator in. his award‑Held, at erroneous decision in law does not make award bad on its face unless from award itself it can be determined or found that some legal proposition (being the basis of award) is erroneous.‑[Award].
S. 33 read with S. 30‑‑Objections to award‑‑‑Grounds of‑Award merely referring to evidence or documents‑Held, such evidence or documents do no form part of award and a party cannot refer to them and point out inadequacies therein as ground of objections‑ Held further, unless evidence led by parties or documents produced before arbitrator set out and discussed in award, Court would not consider evidence or documents for purpose of challenging award. [Award].
Judgment & Decree
Ruseel on Arbitration, 17th Edn., p. 48 ref: (c) Arbitration Act (X of 1940)‑
S. 33 read with S. 30‑Objections to award‑Grounds of‑Award non -speaking and silent on legal issues‑Held, not necessary for arbitrator to give separate reasons or findings on each issue and arbitrator presumed to have rejected legal and preliminary objections in ‑_‑circumstances.‑[Award]. Trading Corporation of Pakistan Ltd. v. Aslam Saeed & Co. P L D 1973 Kar. 65 and Abdul Halim v. Faizurnnissa Bibi P L D 1969 Dacca 670 ref. (d) Arbitration Act (X of 1940)‑‑‑
S. 33 read with S. 30‑Objections to award‑Grounds of‑Award non‑speaking‑‑No reasons given by arbitrator in. his award‑Held, at erroneous decision in law does not make award bad on its face unless from award itself it can be determined or found that some legal proposition (being the basis of award) is erroneous.‑[Award]. Alopi Prasad & Sons Ltd. v. Union of India A I R 1960 S C 588 ref. (e) Arbitration Act (X of 1940)‑‑‑
S. 33 read with S. 30‑‑Objections to award‑‑‑Grounds of‑Award merely referring to evidence or documents‑Held, such evidence or documents do no form part of award and a party cannot refer to them and point out inadequacies therein as ground of objections‑ Held further, unless evidence led by parties or documents produced before arbitrator set out and discussed in award, Court would not consider evidence or documents for purpose of challenging award. [Award]. Sideman Haji Muhammad & Co. v. State Bank of Pakistan P L 'I) 1960 Kar. 78 rel; Alopi Prasad & Sons Ltd. v. Union of India A I R 1960 S C 588; Bijoy Singh v. Bilasroy do Co. A I R 1952 Cal. 440 and Champsey Bhara & Co. v. The Jivraj Balloo Spinning & Weaving Co. Ltd. A I R 1923 P C 66 distinguished. Shah Jamil Alam and Iqbal Siddiqi for Plaintiff. Abbas Ahmed for Qamarul Islam Abbas for Defendants. Dates of hearing : 13th and 15th October, 1980.