2006 PLP 1253 (YLR)
President — Appellant Versus Messrs SEEWELL CORPORATION through Managing Partner — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 PLP 1253 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Mian Saqib Nisar, J |
| Parties | President — Appellant Versus Messrs SEEWELL CORPORATION through Managing Partner — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Arbitration Act (X of 1940) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 1253 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Arbitration Act (X of 1940) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 1253 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Mian Saqib Nisar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 1253 (YLR) (President — Appellant Versus Messrs SEEWELL CORPORATION through Managing Partner — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Akram Khawaja for Appellant.
- Riaz Karim Qureshi for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 20--Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.2(h)
Dispute arising out of contract to be referred to Secretary and thereafter to President of the Society
Respondent's application under S.20, Arbitration Act, 1940, before Trial Court seeking direction for the filing of arbitration agreement in Court and for appointment of arbitrator was allowed--Contention of appellant was that respondent had not fulfilled the prerequisites of arbitration clause in the agreement
Record had proved that respondent in terms of agreement, had approached the Secretary of the Society, in the first instance and thereafter the President of the Society but both refused to entertain the claim of respondent and he was left with no other option except to invoke the jurisdiction of Court
Appeal having no merit, was dismissed by High Court.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.
The present appeal as also F.A.O. No.174 of 2004, are being disposed of together, as both involve common questions of law and facts.
2. Admittedly, the respondent was awarded some construction work by the appellant and in terms of the agreement between the parties, if a dispute arose between them, it could be settled through the arbitration. However, before invoking the arbitration clause, the contractor respondent was obliged to approach the Secretary of the Society, in the first instance and thereafter the President. According to the respondent, these steps were taken and being unsuccessful, he moved an application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, which has been contested by the appellant and has been allowed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 25-5-2004. 2-A. Learned counsel for the appellant by relying upon the cases reported as Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Multan v. Fine Star & Company Engineers & Contractors (1993 SCMR 530), states that without complying the prerequisites of applying to the Secretary and the President of the Society, the arbitration clause could not be invoked.
3. The record has been requisitioned and perused. Both the above steps have been taken by the respondent, he approached the Secretary vide letter dated 9-12-1998, who refused to entertain the claim of the respondent; thereafter the President was approached but without any success. Obviously, in such circumstances the respondent was left with no other option except to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court.
4. When questioned today, as to whether the appellant is prepared to nominate the arbitrator within the contemplation of the clause, no specific answer has been given. Be that as it may, I do not find any merit in these appeals, which are hereby dismissed. F.B./P-2/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.