1985 PLP 381 (MLD)
LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and another — Appellants Versus Messrs ALI CON LTD. — Respondent
| Citation | 1985 PLP 381 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Zafarullah, J |
| Parties | LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and another — Appellants Versus Messrs ALI CON LTD. — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Arbitration Act (X of 1940) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 381 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Arbitration Act (X of 1940) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 381 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Zafarullah, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 381 (MLD) (LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and another — Appellants Versus Messrs ALI CON LTD. — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Azam Rasool for Appellants.
- Syed Najamul Hassan Kazmi for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 2nd June, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 39(1)--Order making award rule of Court--No suggestion of misconduct on part of arbitrator made--Award can be rejected only if arbitrator misconducted himself.
Judgment & Decree
S. 39(1)--Order making award rule of Court--No suggestion of misconduct on part of arbitrator made--Award can be rejected only if arbitrator misconducted himself. Malik Azam Rasool for Appellants. Syed Najamul Hassan Kazmi for Respondent. Date of hearing: 2nd June, 1985. This judgment will dispose of First Appeal from original Order No. 197 of 1984, First Appeal from original Order No. 198 of 1984 and First Appeal from original Order No. 199 of 1984. 2. The respondents carried out certain sewerage works under a contract with the appellants. The work was completed in 1976 and has been in operation ever since. Certain payments were due to the respondents and the matter went to arbitration. The award of the Arbitrator was subsequently made the rule of the Court on 30th July, 1984. This order has been challenged in the three appeals. The appellants point out that no payment could be made to the respondents without the ex-filteration test but this is no ground to reject the award as an award can be rejected only if the Arbitrator has misconducted himself. There is not even a suggestion of misconduct on the part of the Arbitrator. There is, therefore, no merit in the appeals. These are dismissed with costs. H.A.K. Appeals dismissed with costs.