1984 PLP 24 (SCMR)
WATER & POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY-Petitioner Versus NAEEM TRADING COMPANY, GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR -Respondent
| Citation | 1984 PLP 24 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | WATER & POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY-Petitioner Versus NAEEM TRADING COMPANY, GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR -Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 24 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 24 (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: 1984 PLP 24 (SCMR) (WATER & POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY-Petitioner Versus NAEEM TRADING COMPANY, GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR -Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Latif Rawn, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Ch.; Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing : 16th March, 1982.
- Latif Rawn, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Ch.; Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the order of the Lahore High Court, dated 11-2-1981, passed in Civil Revision No. 109/80).
Art. 185 (3) read with Arbitration Act (X of 1940), S. 28 Arbitrator failing to make award within four months-Civil Court, on application by respondent, revoking authority of such arbitrator and appointing new arbitrator-High Court in revision, upholding judgment of civil Court--Held, case not fit one for grant of leave to appeal.
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing : 16th March, 1982. ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑WAPDA (the petitioner herein) seeks Leave to Appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court, dated 11‑2‑1981, dismissing its Civil Revision in an Arbitration matter.
2. The facts leading to the petition are briefly, that the respondent company entered into a contract with WAPDA. According to the terms of the contract the Superintending Engineer, Primary Grid Circle, Lahore, was empowered to appoint an arbitrator, to decide any disputes arising between the parties touching the contract. A dispute arose between the parties and in pursuance of the Arbitration Clause Mr. Zia‑ul‑Haq, the then Executive Engineer, Tube well Electrification Division Multan, was appointed as the sole arbitrator on 17‑10‑1975. The Arbitrator fixed the matter on a number of dates but failed to deal with it effectively, and could not even get WAPDA to file its reply to the respondent's claim and failed to decide the matter within 6 months. The respondent thereupon applied to the Civil Court on 7‑11‑1980, for revocation of the authority of the arbitrator and for appointment of another person as the Arbitrator in his place. This was contested by the petitioner but the learned Civil Judge accepted the application on the ground that the Arbitrator had failed to make any headway and did not make the award within four months. He, therefore, removed the Arbitrator and directed the parties to suggest the name of six persons, to fill in the vacancy out of that panel. Against this order the petitioner filed a Civil Revision in the High Court which was dismissed vide the impugned judgment. Hence this petition.
3. The main contention urged on behalf of the petitioner before us was that it is the respondent who is responsible for the failure of the Arbitrator to conclude the matter in the specified time.
4. But on going through the record we notice that WAPDA was also partly responsible for the same inasmuch as it failed to apply for extension of tithe under section 28 of the Arbitration Act. In this view of the matter we do not think this a fit case for grant of leave. The petition is, therefore; dismissed. S. Q. Leave refused.