CLC 1981

1981 PLP 423 (CLC)

Mst. AKHTAR BASHIR‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD BASHIR AND ANOTHER‑Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
Civil Revision No. 624 of 1973, decided on 16th December, 19813.
Honorable Judges
Khurshid Ahmad, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1981 PLP 423 (CLC)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members Khurshid Ahmad, J
Parties Mst. AKHTAR BASHIR‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD BASHIR AND ANOTHER‑Respondents
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1981 PLP 423 (CLC)?

This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1981 PLP 423 (CLC)?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Khurshid Ahmad, J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1981 PLP 423 (CLC) (Mst. AKHTAR BASHIR‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD BASHIR AND ANOTHER‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Representation

  • Farooq Bedar for Petitioner.
  • S. M. Wahab for Respondent No. 2.
  • Date of hearing : 7th December, 1980.

Headnotes / Summary

(a) Arbitration Act (X of 1940)‑ ‑‑ S. 21‑Award, challenge to‑EstoppelParties in pending case consenting to refer matter to arbitration, signing proceedings, and award subsequently submitted‑Parties, held, estopped from questioning validity of award on ground of reference having not strictly been made m compliance with provisions of S. 21 and no application having been made in writing‑Evidence Act (I of 1872), S. 115.‑‑[Estoppel Award]. Mahabir v. Manohar Singh A I R 1924 All. 540; Waliullah v. Bbaggan A I R 1925 Oudh 269 ; Nldamurthi Karishnamoorthy and another v. Garlgipard Gana pathilingam A I R 1917 Mad. 656; Ghulam Khan v. Muhammad Hassan 29 I A 51 (P C); Ve. N. K. R. M. A. Venkatachellam Chettiar v. Ve. N. K. A. Ramanathan Chettiar etc. A I R 1922 Mad. 429 ; Parsotam Das etc. v. Jagan Nath and others A I R 1919 All. 381 ; Jaimal Singh v. Tib Ram A I R 1930 Lah. 523 Messrs S M. Qasim & Co. v. Messrs Sh. Ziauddin P L D 1062 Lah.

95. Pakistan through Director of Storage and Inspection (Food grains), Ministry of Agriculture and Works, Karachi v. Chaudhry Brothers Ltd., Lahore P L D 1978 Kar. 362 and Jagmohan v. Suraj Narain A I R 1935 Oudh 499 ref. (b) Arbitration Act (X of 1940)‑ ‑ S. 30‑Award, setting aside ofArbitrator framing issues and parties knowing subject‑matter of suit having been referred to arbitration Award, held, could not be knocked down on ground of reference having been vague or invalid‑[Jumma Khan etc. v. Mahmud Khan etc. 1973 S C M R 2E9 held not applicable].‑[Award]. Jumma Khan etc. v. Mahmud Khan etc. 1973 S C M R 289 held not applicable. (c) Arbitration Act (X of 1940)‑ S. 30‑Award, setting aside ofArbitrator considering all evidence, documents, and arguments of partiesAward cannot be set aside such case on any technical ground‑Conditions necessary for setting aside award: misconduct of Arbitrator and award being result of corruption‑No such condition having been proved, award, he could not beset aside‑[Award]. Safia Bai etc. v. Karachi Co‑operative Housing Societies Union Ltd. P L D 1967 Kar, 598 ref. Respondent No. 1 : Ex parse.

Judgment & Decree

Pakistan through Director of Storage and Inspection (Food grains), Ministry of Agriculture and Works, Karachi v. Chaudhry Brothers Ltd., Lahore P L D 1978 Kar. 362 and Jagmohan v. Suraj Narain A I R 1935 Oudh 499 ref. (b) Arbitration Act (X of 1940)‑ ‑ S. 30‑Award, setting aside ofArbitrator framing issues and parties knowing subject‑matter of suit having been referred to arbitration Award, held, could not be knocked down on ground of reference having been vague or invalid‑[Jumma Khan etc. v. Mahmud Khan etc. 1973 S C M R 2E9 held not applicable].‑[Award]. Jumma Khan etc. v. Mahmud Khan etc. 1973 S C M R 289 held not applicable. (c) Arbitration Act (X of 1940)‑ S. 30‑Award, setting aside ofArbitrator considering all evidence, documents, and arguments of partiesAward cannot be set aside such case on any technical ground‑Conditions necessary for setting aside award: misconduct of Arbitrator and award being result of corruption‑No such condition having been proved, award, he could not beset aside‑[Award]. Safia Bai etc. v. Karachi Co‑operative Housing Societies Union Ltd. P L D 1967 Kar, 598 ref. Farooq Bedar for Petitioner. Respondent No. 1 : Ex parse. S. M. Wahab for Respondent No.

2. Date of hearing : 7th December, 1980.