1990 PLP 446 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD RAMZAN‑‑Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB and 3 others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 446 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RAMZAN‑‑Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB and 3 others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Arbitration Act (X of 1940)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 446 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Arbitration Act (X of 1940)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 446 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 446 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD RAMZAN‑‑Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB and 3 others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Naveed Shahr Yar, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 11th June, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 6‑11‑1985, passed in F.A.O. No.135 of 1974). ‑‑‑S.8‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Arbitration‑‑‑Misconduct of arbitrator‑‑‑Arbitrator while giving award though accepted claims of petitioner with regard to several items but rejected the claim for one item No. 3‑‑‑Plea raised that arbitrator while rejecting the claim for said item had mis-conducted himself‑‑‑After going through record and judgment of High Court, it was found that arbitrator had not mis-conducted himself‑‑‑Neither any error of law was found nor any question of public importance arose which needed examination‑‑ Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
Naveed Shahr Yar, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 11th June, 1989. S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.‑‑This is a petition for leave to appeal from the order dated 6‑11‑1985, whereby, a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. An agreement was executed between the petitioner‑contractor and the respondent‑Department for the work of providing and fixing steel collapse-able sliding gates to the garages for Civil Defence Vehicles al Ferry Road, Lahore. A dispute about the rates and the amount payable arose between the parties, after completion of the work, which was referred to an arbitration of Superintending Engineer, Sargodha Provincial Circle. The petitioner made four claims out of which the Arbitrator vide his Award dated 3‑5‑1969 turned down claim No.3 of the petitioner and the rest of the claims were decided in his favour. The petitioner's objection with regard to his clam No.3 was rejected and the Award was made rule of the Court vide order dated 10‑6‑1974. The petitioner filed F.A.O. No.135 of 1974 before the Lahore High Court against the order dated 10‑6‑1974 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Lahore which was dismissed vide impugned order. The main argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Arbitrator while giving his Award though accepted the claims of the petitioner with regard to the items Nos.l, 2 and 4 and in rejecting the claim for item No.3 has thus misconducted himself. After going into the record and finding of the High Court, we have come to the conclusion that the above mentioned plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner so far as the rejection of claim of item No.3 is concerned does not amount to misconduct on the part of the Arbitrator. The finding of the learned High Court is unexceptional; There is neither any error of law nor any question of public importance in the petition which needs examination of this Court. The petition is accordingly, dismissed. Leave refused. M.A.K./M‑1042/S Petition dismissed.