P L D 2001 Karachi 158 (PLP)
AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT AGENCY LTD — Plaintiff Versus Messrs M.Y. CORPORATION and others — Defendants
| Citation | P L D 2001 Karachi 158 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT AGENCY LTD — Plaintiff Versus Messrs M.Y. CORPORATION and others — Defendants |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 2001 Karachi 158 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 2001 Karachi 158 (PLP)?
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: P L D 2001 Karachi 158 (PLP) (AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT AGENCY LTD — Plaintiff Versus Messrs M.Y. CORPORATION and others — Defendants). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 14, 17, 30 & 33
Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 158
Objections to award
Delay in filing the objections
No application was filed for condonation of delay
Effect
Objections to award had to be filed within thirty days and if filed beyond statutory period, then the objections could not be taken into consideration especially in absence of any application for condonation of delay and possible justification as to why the objections were not filed within prescribed time
Judgment & Decree
1998 MLD 659; 1987 MLD 416; PLD 1984 Pesh. 2 and 1983 SC'MR 716 ref. Nemo for Plaintiff. Syed Sami Ahmed alongwith M.A. Baig and Jawed Rata for Defendants. This is a matter in which an Arbitrator was appointed by this Court through C.M.A. No. 1501 of 1995 dated 9-4-1995. The award was given on the 31st July, 1995. Notices were issued and objections had been filed. Today tae matter was fixed for hearing. Nobody was present on behalf of the plaintiff. Mr. Sami Ahmed learned counsel for the defendant pointed out that the objections were riot filed within statutory period of 30 days as provided under Article 158 of the Limitation Act. He has further pointed out that since the period of 30 days is to be computed from the date when the notice is served, therefore, he has drawn my attention to the various dates which are as follows:-- "Bailiff report dated 17-9-1995 shows that the service had been effected upon the parties on 12-9-1995. The diary sheet of the Additional Registrar shows that service was held good on the 18th September, 1995 and 30 days were given to file objection from the: date of service. Objections were filed on 17-10-1995. Therefore, the objections cannot be taken on consideration as they have been filed beyond the prescribed period as provided under the law." In this respect Mr. Syed. Sami Ahmad has relied upon 1998 MLD 659, 1987 MLD 416, PLD 1984 Pesh. 2 and 1983 SCMR
716. In all these cases the question of limitation in respect of filing of objections has been discussed. Since nobody was present on the last date and even today nobody was present on behalf of the plaintiff therefore, all that which Mr. Eyed Sami Ahmed has stated goes clearly unrebutted. It goes without saying; that it is by now a settled law that objections have to be filed within 30 days and it they are tiled beyond statutory period then they cannot be taken into consideration especially in the absence of any application for condonation of delay and possible justification as to why the objections were not tiled within the prescribed tune. The award is, therefore, made rule of the Court and the objections are dismissed. H.B.T./A-106/K Award made rule of Court.