P L D 2011 Supreme Court 506 (PLP)

MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.

This matter has its genesis in the arbitration proceedings between the parties. In view of the divergent awards of the respective arbitrators of the parties, Mr. Justice (R) Shafi- ur-Rehman acted as an umpire, who rendered his final award, which having been challenged by the parties earlier, ultimately came up for consideration before this Court in Civil Appeals Nos. 989 & 990 of 1993 titled "M/s Joint Venture KG/RIST v. Federation of Pakistan and the judgment in those cases is reported as PLD 1996 SC

108. In the said decision, the award was remitted to the umpire for reconsideration, whereafter a supplement award dated 18-6-1998 was made and signed by him. This was unsuccessfully challenged by the petitioners by filing the objections, which were dismissed by the Senior Civil Judge, Lahore vide order dated 25-10-2000. The appeal (FAO) against the aforesaid decision also could not succeed, and was dismissed by the High Court through the impugned judgment dated 26-9-2005. It may be pertinent to mention here that earlier .while hearing the matter though the leave was not granted however, through the order dated 8-3-2010 a notice was issued to the respondent but the service could not succeed as it being a foreign resident.

2. Today, we have decided to recall the notice and to hear the learned counsel for the petitioner to determine if the leave should be granted or otherwise. It has been argued, that the supplemental award dated 18-6-1998 has been made and signed by the umpire in violation of the reasons for which it was remitted to him by this Court; in this regard, learned counsel has drawn our attention to page No.121, un numbered paragraphs Nos.2, 3 and 4 of the judgment supra; it is further submitted that though in the supplemental award, the umpire has himself observed that certain admissions have been made by the respondent, but still by ignoring those he has rendered the award; some important and material piece of evidence has not been considered by the umpire, which constitutes a conspicuous error of non-reading of the evidence, therefore, on account of the above, the umpire has misconducted the proceedings, resultantly such award cannot sustain.

3. Heard. While considering the objections under sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 the court is not supposed to sit as a court of appeal and fish for the latent errors in the arbitration proceedings or the award. The arbitration is a forum of the parties' own choice and is competent to resolve the issues of law and the fact between them, which opinion/decision should not be lightly interfered by the court while deciding the objection thereto, until a clear and definite case within the purview of the section noted above is made out, inasmuch as the error of law or fact in relation to the proceedings or the award is floating on the surface, which cannot be ignored and if left outstanding shall cause grave , injustice or violate any express provision of law or the law laid down by the superior courts, or that the arbitrator has misconducted thereof. Obviously if there is a blatant and grave error of fact such as misreading and non-reading or clear violation of law, the interference may be justified by the courts. But for the appraisal and appreciation of the evidence; the courts should not indulge into rowing probe to dig out an error and interfere in the award on the reasoning that a different conclusion of fact could possibly be drawn. (See Premier Insurance Company and others v. Attock Textile Mills Ltd. PLD 2006 Lahore 534).

4. From the contents of the objection petition filed by the petitioners, we are not convinced if any specific plea was raised by them that the supplemental award of the umpire is in violation of the. ratio of the judgment supra (PLD 1996 SC 108), or has not been followed even in terms of letter and spirit thereto, Learned counsel for the petitioners, when confronted with the conspicuous omission, wants us to imply such objections from the general contents of the petition, but it is settled law that the objections to the award must be clear and unambiguous, stating with precision, clarity and certainty the grounds why it should be interfered. In our considered-and candid view the objection petition even does not reveal by implication that this has been the objection of the petitioners or was ever intended to be so. Besides, from the contents of the F.A.O. filed by the petitioners against the rejection of their objections, it is conspicuously noticeable that no ground has been set out to challenged the supplemental award on the basis and the touchstone of the judgment (supra); same is the position of the present petition. We are not persuaded by the argument of learned Deputy Attorney General that the aforementioned plea is a question of law and can be propounded and adjudicated by the courts at any stage' of the proceedings. Therefore, the first submission that the award is in violation of the said judgment is misconceived, which is hereby repelled.

5. As far as the question of admissions by the respondent and the misreading of the evidence on the record is concerned suffice it to say that from the supplemental award such an error is neither visible nor can be spelt out. The umpire has explicitly referred to the important and material piece of evidence, whatever was relevant and has accordingly dealt with the same by giving sound and cogent reasons. No specific misreading or non-reading has been pointed out. It is thus, no well-founded to argue that the award is bad for any factual or legal infirmity.

6. Resultantly, we find no merits in this petition, which is hereby dismissed. Leave to appeal is declined. M.A.K./F-1/S Petition dismissed.