1989 SCMR 1411(2) (PLP)
Mehr SAKHI MUHAMMAD Petitioner Versus BOARD OF ARBITRATORS and mother Respondents
| Citation | 1989 SCMR 1411(2) (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | Mehr SAKHI MUHAMMAD Petitioner Versus BOARD OF ARBITRATORS and mother Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 SCMR 1411(2) (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 SCMR 1411(2) (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: 1989 SCMR 1411(2) (PLP) (Mehr SAKHI MUHAMMAD Petitioner Versus BOARD OF ARBITRATORS and mother Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- M. M. Saeed Beg, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing; 10th September, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment dated 29‑4‑1984 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench passed in I.CA. No.l of 1984) (a) Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972)‑‑ ‑‑‑S.3‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Intra‑Court appeal‑‑Leave to appeal granted to examine contention that although intra‑Court appeal was heard by two Judges of the High Court, the judgment had been signed by only one of them. (b) Arbitration‑ ‑‑‑ Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Arbitration Board of Market Committee‑‑High Court allowed appeal on the basis of two findings namely (i) the dispute referred to arbitrator was not between a dealer and a grower but that between two dealers and as such there was no proper reference to arbitration, and (ii) the market committee had no jurisdiction in the matter‑‑Leave to appeal granted to examine contention that findings of the arbitrator were erroneous inasmuch as relationship between the parties was that of a dealer and a grower and the dispute between the parties arose within the territorial jurisdiction of market committee.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑There was a dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.2 arising out of a contract between the parties for the sale/purchase of cotton. At the instance of the petitioner the dispute was taken up by the Arbitration Board of Market Committee, Khanewal. The Chairman of the Board made an award on 8‑10‑1983 whereby he directed respondent No.2 to pay a sum of Rs.40,500 to the petitioner. Respondent No.2 invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court to challenge the award. A learned Single Judge dismissed his writ petition. He then filed an Intra‑Court Appeal. In the Intra Court Appeal the award was declared to be without lawful authority and legal effect. The petitioner now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that although the Intra‑Court Appeal was heard by two learned Judges, the judgment has been signed by only one of them.
3. The Intra‑Court Appeal was allowed on the basis of two findings, namely, first, the dispute referred to arbitration was not between a dealer and a grower but that between two dealers and as such there was no proper reference to arbitration; second, the Market Committee, Khanewal, had no jurisdiction in B the matter. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that both the findings were erroneous inasmuch as the relationship between the parties was that of a dealer and a grower and the dispute between the parties arose within the territorial jurisdiction of Market Committee, Khanewal.
4. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner needs examination. Leave to appeal is granted. Security for costs in the sum of Rs.5,
000. The appeal may be made ready for hearing on the present record with permission to the parties to file all necessary documents within two months. M.B.A./S‑259/S Leave granted.