1989SCMR1421 (PLP)
PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and another‑‑Petitioners Versus Malik SARFRAZ NAWAZ Respondent
| Citation | 1989SCMR1421 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and another‑‑Petitioners Versus Malik SARFRAZ NAWAZ Respondent |
| Primary Law | Arbitration Act (X of 1940) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989SCMR1421 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Arbitration Act (X of 1940) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989SCMR1421 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989SCMR1421 (PLP) (PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and another‑‑Petitioners Versus Malik SARFRAZ NAWAZ Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Abdullah Bajwa, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- S. Wajid Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 28th August, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 29‑5‑1983 in Civil Revision No.610 of 1977). ‑‑‑S.26‑A‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Objection to the award of a sole Arbitrator dismissed by Trial Court‑‑Contention that High Court was bound to direct the Arbitrator to re‑write the award giving his reasons in support thereof which was necessary by the amendment of S.26‑A of the Act‑‑Supreme Court, taking into account the contents of the award and after hearing the petitioner was satisfied that refusal by the High Court to exercise its discretion for directing the re‑writing of the award, did not suffer from any infirmity so as to justify interference by Supreme Court‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Petitioners have sought leave to appeal against the dismissal by the High Court of their Civil Revision. It had arisen out of an arbitration matter. The petitioners had raised objections to award of a sole arbitrator. They were dismissed by the trial Court. Their appeal and revision having been dismissed, they have now sought leave to appeal. Learned counsel while agreeing with the High Court that the Arbitrator was not bound to give reasons on the day he made his award contended that the High Court was bound to direct the Arbitrator to re‑write the award giving his reasons in support thereof. This according to the learned counsel was made necessary by the amendment in the Arbitration Act section 26‑A. After hearing the learned counsel and taking into account the contents (reasons) of the award in question, we are satisfied that the refusal by the High Court to exercise its discretion for directing the re‑writing of the award, did not suffer from any infirmity so as to justify interference by this Court. Leave to appeal, therefore, is refused M.B.A./P‑92/S Petition dismissed.