P L D 1956 Sind 71 (PLP)
Qazi MIR MUHAMMAD‑Applicant Versus MESSRS. M. N. SYNDICATE and another‑Opponents
| Citation | P L D 1956 Sind 71 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Bachal, J |
| Parties | Qazi MIR MUHAMMAD‑Applicant Versus MESSRS. M. N. SYNDICATE and another‑Opponents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1956 Sind 71 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1956 Sind 71 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Muhammad Bachal, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1956 Sind 71 (PLP) (Qazi MIR MUHAMMAD‑Applicant Versus MESSRS. M. N. SYNDICATE and another‑Opponents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- A. Aziz for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Partnership Act (IX of 1932), S. 69 (3)‑Inapplicable to proceeding under S. 14 Arbitration Act (X of 1940). Section 69, Partnership Act (IX of 1932), is inapplicable to an application under, section 14 Arbitration Act (X of 1940). Satish Chandra Chakrabarty v. P. N. Dass & Co. A I R 1938 Pat. 231 ; A I R 1936 Lah. 136 and Baboolal Dhandania v. Gauttam Co. A I R 1950 Cal. 391 fol. Appellant : unrepresented.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD BACHAL, J.--‑This is an appeal against the order of the learned First Class Sub‑Judge Mirpur Khas refusing to set aside an award. The learned Advocate for the appellant at the hearing of the appeal argued only one point. Whether section 69 of the Partnership Act is applicable to an application under section 14 of the Arbitration Act. He relied upon section 69 Jause (3) of the Partnership Act which provides :‑ "The provisions of subsections (A I R 1938 Pat. 231) and (A I R 1950 Cal. 391) shall apply also to a Claim of set off or other proceeding to enforce the right arising from a contract". In Satish Chandra Chakrabarty v. P. N.. Das & Co., (1) where this contention was raised it was held that an appli cation to file an award in respect of a Claim on a contract does not appear to be a proceeding to enforce the right from a contract. In A I R 1936 Lah 136, a single judge of the Lahore High Court held that only a suit as understood in forensic language is excluded by section 69 and not an appli cation such as is filed in award. The language of section 69 of the Partnership Act is entirely against the contention that the application is a plaint. The proceedings may be treated as a suit for certain purposes but they are not a suit property so called In Baboolal Dhandania v. Gauttam Co., (2) a case under the Arbitration Act, it was held that even if a firm is unregistered it can enter into an agreement for Arbitration, section 69 (3) of the Partnership Act notwith standing, and an award made in such a reference would be valid and can be enforced at the instance of the firm with great respect I prefer to follow the views of these High Courts. I accordingly hold that section 69 is inapplicable to the application under section 14 of Arbitration Act and dismiss the appeal with costs. A. H. Appeal dismissed.