2009 PLP 799 (YLR)
SAADULLAH KHAN AND BROTHERS (SKB) ENGINEERS AND CONSTRUCTORS, KARACHI and another — Plaintiffs Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH through Secretary, Works and Services Department, Government of Sindh, Karachi and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2009 PLP 799 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Nadeem Azhar Siddiqi, J |
| Parties | SAADULLAH KHAN AND BROTHERS (SKB) ENGINEERS AND CONSTRUCTORS, KARACHI and another — Plaintiffs Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH through Secretary, Works and Services Department, Government of Sindh, Karachi and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Arbitration Act (X of 1940) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 PLP 799 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Arbitration Act (X of 1940) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2009 PLP 799 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Nadeem Azhar Siddiqi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2009 PLP 799 (YLR) (SAADULLAH KHAN AND BROTHERS (SKB) ENGINEERS AND CONSTRUCTORS, KARACHI and another — Plaintiffs Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH through Secretary, Works and Services Department, Government of Sindh, Karachi and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S.20
Suit with the prayer for referring the matter to arbitration in terms of the provisions of the contract executed between the parties
State counsel had stated that defendants had no objection against referring the matter to arbitration, he however submitted that before approaching the arbitrator, the dispute was to be referred to the Engineer under clause of the conditions of the contract and only the decision of the said Engineer could be referred to arbitration
Chief Engineer, present in the Court, had categorically stated that neither the matter had been referred to the Engineer for his decision, nor any decision had been given by him
Said statement of the Chief Engineer was sufficient to resolve the controversy
Application filed under S.20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 was allowed
Plaintiff would file his grievance before the Engineer within one week who would decide the same after notice to the concerned parties positively within specified period and would submit his report to the court
After decision of the Engineer, the matter would be referred to the arbitrator within one week who would positively decide the same within specified period
Till such time the matter was not decided by the Engineer and the arbitrator, the defendants would not insist on encashment of Bank guarantees/performance bonds furnished by the plaintiff. Behad Ahmed for Plaintiffs. Qazi Majid Ali, A.A.-G. along with Muhammad Sharif Nizamni, Chief Engineer/Employer for the Plaintiff. Rehan Iqbal, Dy. Secretary, Works and Services Department, Government of Sindh and Hussain Bakhsh Shaikh, Executive Engineer, Foreign Aided Projects, Sukkur. Bakhsh Ali Abro, Representative of Consultant KAMPSAX International.
Judgment & Decree
NADEEM AZHAR SIDDIQI, J.--Learned counsel for the plaintiff has filed a statement alongwith the estimate of escalation in cost of the project for amicable settlement of the dispute, which is taken on record. Copy of the same has been provided to learned A.A-G. The plaintiff has filed this suit with the prayer for referring the matter to arbitration in terms of the provisions of the contract executed between the parties. Learned A.A-G, under instructions from the officers present, states that the defendants have no objection for referring the matter to arbitration. He, however submits that before approaching the arbitrator the dispute is to be referred to the Engineering under clause 67-1 of the conditions of contract and only the decision of the Engineer can be referred to arbitration. Mr. Behzad states that this exercise has already been carried out but he is not in a position to produce a copy of the decision of the Engineer. The Chief Engineer, who is present in Court, categorically states that neither the matter has been referred to the Engineer for his decision, nor any decision has been given by him. The statement of the Chief Engineer is sufficient to resolve this controversy. In view of the above, this application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act is allowed. The plaintiff shall file his grievance before the Engineer within one week who will decide the same after notice to the concerned parties positively within three weeks and will submit his report to the Court. After decision of the Engineer, the matter will be referred to the arbitrator within one week who shall positively decide the same within three weeks thereafter. Till such time the matter is not decided by the Engineer and the arbitrator, the defendants will not insist for encashment of Bank guarantees/ performance bonds furnished by the plaintiff. The plaintiff undertakes to resume the works by 3-10-2008. In case the plaintiff fails to resume the work on or before the above date, the defendants shall be entitled to ask for encashment of the Bank guarantees/performance bonds. In case any payment is due to the plaintiff, the same shall be cleared within 20 days from today and all future payments to the plaintiff shall be made in accordance with in the terms of the contract between the parties. With the above observations, the suit is disposed of. H.&.T./S-13/K Order accordingly.