2003 PLP 592 (YLR)
Messrs SAADI CEMENT LTD. ‑‑‑Appellant Versus Messrs PIONEER CABLES LTD. ‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2003 PLP 592 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Saiyed Saeed Ashhad, C. J. |
| Parties | Messrs SAADI CEMENT LTD. ‑‑‑Appellant Versus Messrs PIONEER CABLES LTD. ‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Arbitration Act (X of 1940)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 592 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Arbitration Act (X of 1940)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP 592 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Saiyed Saeed Ashhad, C. J..
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 592 (YLR) (Messrs SAADI CEMENT LTD. ‑‑‑Appellant Versus Messrs PIONEER CABLES LTD. ‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mukhtar Ahmed Kuber for Appellant.
- Rao M. Shakir Naqshbandi for Respondent.
- We have heard the arguments of Mr. Mukhtar Ahmed Kuber, Advocate on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Rao M. Shakir Naqshbandi, Advocate on behalf of the respondent and have perused the material on record.
- Mr. Rao M. Shakir Naqshbandi, on the other hand, submitted that notice of filing of the Award was issued to the appellant who made appearance in Court through his Advocate on 28‑10‑1999 and submitted an application under section 148, C.P.C. requesting for time for filing objections/reply to the Award. Three weeks time was allowed to the Advocate for the appellant by the Additional Registrar but thereafter neither the Advocate nor the appellant either appeared in Court or filed objections/reply to the award, as a result of which the learned Single Judge passed the impugned order making the award role of the Court.
- We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the material on record especially the impugned order. It is absolutely clear that the notice of filing of award was served on the appellant and he made appearance through his Advocate requesting for three weeks time for filing objections/reply to the award. Thereafter, neither the appellant nor his Advocate either appeared in Court or filed objections/reply to the award. In the circumstances, the contention of the Advocate for the appellant that the appellant was condemned unheard in violation of the principle of natural justice is. absolutely without any substance. The award was filed in Court on 3‑6‑1999 and on 28‑10‑1999 on the application of the appellant's Advocate under section 148, C.P.C. three weeks time was allowed by the Additional Registrar for filing objections, which the appellant never filed till 6‑3‑2000 when the matter was put up in Court for orders on award. The above facts of the case did not warrant provision of any further opportunity to the appellant for filing objections as he had acted in a most careless, negligent and imprudent manner and the learned Single Judge was justified in making the award rule of the Court. No exception can be taken to the impugned order.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss. 14 & 17‑‑‑Making award rule of Court‑‑‑Opportunity of hearing‑‑‑Award was filed in Court on 3‑6‑1999‑‑‑Appellant after service of notice of filing 'award appeared in Court through counsel on 28‑10‑1999 and on his request three weeks time was allowed for filing objections to award‑‑‑Appellant or his counsel thereafter neither appeared in Court nor filed objections to award‑‑‑Matter came up for hearing before Court on 6‑3‑2000, when award was made rule of Court‑‑‑Appellant in view of such facts was not entitled to any further opportunity for filing objections as he had acted in a most careless, negligent and imprudent manner‑‑ No exception could be taken to impugned order‑‑‑High Court dismissed appeal in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Mukhtar Ahmed Kuber for Appellant. Rao M. Shakir Naqshbandi for Respondent. This High Court Appeal has been tiled against the order, dated 6‑3‑2000 of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Suit No.737 of 1999. By the aforesaid order, the learned Single Judge had made the award rule of the Court and ordered that decree be prepared accordingly. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, the appellant has challenged the same by way of this High Court Appeal. We have heard the arguments of Mr. Mukhtar Ahmed Kuber, Advocate on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Rao M. Shakir Naqshbandi, Advocate on behalf of the respondent and have perused the material on record. Mr. Mukhtar Ahmed Kuber submitted that the impugned order suffered from illegality as it was passed behind the back of the appellant without affording him an opportunity to file objections/reply to the Award dated 31‑5‑1999 which was made by Mr. Justice (R.) Haziq‑ul‑Khairi and was filed in Court on 30‑6‑1999. He further submitted that in the circumstances the order suffered from illegality being against the principle of natural justice and was liable to be set aside. Mr. Rao M. Shakir Naqshbandi, on the other hand, submitted that notice of filing of the Award was issued to the appellant who made appearance in Court through his Advocate on 28‑10‑1999 and submitted an application under section 148, C.P.C. requesting for time for filing objections/reply to the Award. Three weeks time was allowed to the Advocate for the appellant by the Additional Registrar but thereafter neither the Advocate nor the appellant either appeared in Court or filed objections/reply to the award, as a result of which the learned Single Judge passed the impugned order making the award role of the Court. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the material on record especially the impugned order. It is absolutely clear that the notice of filing of award was served on the appellant and he made appearance through his Advocate requesting for three weeks time for filing objections/reply to the award. Thereafter, neither the appellant nor his Advocate either appeared in Court or filed objections/reply to the award. In the circumstances, the contention of the Advocate for the appellant that the appellant was condemned unheard in violation of the principle of natural justice is. absolutely without any substance. The award was filed in Court on 3‑6‑1999 and on 28‑10‑1999 on the application of the appellant's Advocate under section 148, C.P.C. three weeks time was allowed by the Additional Registrar for filing objections, which the appellant never filed till 6‑3‑2000 when the matter was put up in Court for orders on award. The above facts of the case did not warrant provision of any further opportunity to the appellant for filing objections as he had acted in a most careless, negligent and imprudent manner and the learned Single Judge was justified in making the award rule of the Court. No exception can be taken to the impugned order. For the foregoing reasons and discussion, this High Court, appeal was found to be without any substance and by a short order dated 15‑10‑2002 it was dismissed in limine for reasons to be recorded later. These are the reasons for the said short order. S.A.K./S‑246/K Appeal dismissed.