1991 PLP 1511 (SCMR)
Mahr SAKHI MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus BOARD OF ARBITRATORS and-another — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1511 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Mahr SAKHI MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus BOARD OF ARBITRATORS and-another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1511 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1511 (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: 1991 PLP 1511 (SCMR) (Mahr SAKHI MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus BOARD OF ARBITRATORS and-another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M.M. Saeed Beg, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 10th September, 1988.
- M.M. Saeed Beg, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment dated 29-4-1984 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench passed in I.C.A. No. 1/84)
Art. 185(3)
Intra-Court appeal was allowed in favour of respondents on basis of two findings, that dispute referred to arbitration was not between a dealer and a grower, but was between two dealers and as such there was no proper reference to arbitration and Market Committee at place `K' had no jurisdiction in the matter
Petitioner contended that both findings were erroneous inasmuch as relationship between parties was that of a dealer and a grower and that. dispute between parties arose within territorial jurisdiction of Market Committee at place `K'
Contentions raised by petitioner needing examination, leave to appeal was granted.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑‑ There was a dispute between the petitioner and respondent Nn.2 arising out of a contract between the parties for the sale/purchase of cotton. At the instance of the petitioner the dispute was taken up by the Arbitration Board of Market Committee, Khanewal. The Chairman of,;i6A the Board made an award on 8‑10‑1983 whereby he directed respondent No.2 to pay a sum of Rs.40,500 to the petitioner. Respondent No.2 invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court to challenge the award. A learned Single Judge 4ismissed his writ petition. He then filed an Intra‑Court Appeal. In the Intra‑Court Appeal the award was declared to be without lawful authority and legal effect. The petitioner now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that although the Intra -Court Appeal was heard by two learned Judges, the judgment has been signed by only one of them.
3. The Intra‑Court Appeal was allowed on the basis of two findings, namely, first, the dispute referred to arbitration was not between a dealer and a grower but that between two dealers and as such there was no proper reference to arbitration; second, the Market Committee, Khanewal, had no jurisdiction in the matter. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that both the findings were arroneous inasmuch as the relationship between the parties was that of a dealer and a grower and the dispute between the parties arose within the territorial jurisdiction of Market Committee, Khanewal.
4. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner needs examination. Leave to appeal is granted. Security for costs in the sum of Rs.5,
000. The appeal may be made ready for hearing on the present record with permission to the parties to file all necessary documents within two months. H.B.T./S‑412/S Leave granted.