1999 PLP 3365 (MLD)
LEVER BROTHERS PAKISTAN. LIMITED — Appellant Versus GRESHAMS EASTERN (PVT.) LIMITED — Respondent
| Citation | 1999 PLP 3365 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | LEVER BROTHERS PAKISTAN. LIMITED — Appellant Versus GRESHAMS EASTERN (PVT.) LIMITED — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 PLP 3365 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1999 PLP 3365 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1999 PLP 3365 (MLD) (LEVER BROTHERS PAKISTAN. LIMITED — Appellant Versus GRESHAMS EASTERN (PVT.) LIMITED — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- We had heard Mr. Gulzar Ahmad, Advocate for the appellant on 29-8-1997. He contended that before making an application under section 20 of the 'Arbitration Act the respondents should have informed the appellants by way of a notice of their intention for appointment of an arbitrator. He has challenged the maintainability of the application under section 20 of the said Act and that it was barred by limitation.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 20
Maintainability of-- Respondents filed application for appointment of Arbitrator without notice to appellant
Effect
Held, notice was not a condition precedent for proceeding under S. 20, Arbitration Act, 1940.
Judgment & Decree
S. 20
Maintainability of-- Respondents filed application for appointment of Arbitrator without notice to appellant
Effect
Held, notice was not a condition precedent for proceeding under S. 20, Arbitration Act, 1940. Gulzar Ahmed for Appellant. We had heard Mr. Gulzar Ahmad, Advocate for the appellant on 29-8-1997. He contended that before making an application under section 20 of the 'Arbitration Act the respondents should have informed the appellants by way of a notice of their intention for appointment of an arbitrator. He has challenged the maintainability of the application under section 20 of the said Act and that it was barred by limitation. The notice is not a condition pre-requisite of section 20 of the Arbitration nor it was agitated before the learned Single Judge. It cannot be agitated now. The application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act was maintainable because the agreement between the parties is not disputed and the Arbitration clause is admitted. The contention of the learned counsel regarding limitation, also does not carry any force as the dispute arising in 1983 between the parties had no nexus with the claim of the respondent/plaintiff. No other illegality has been pointed-out by the learned counsel hence the impugned order does not require any interference. The merits of the claim will be questioned before the arbitrator as there exists a dispute between the parties. In view of the above facts we find no merit in this appeal which is dismissed in limine.
2. C. M. A. No. 242 of 1997 has become infructuous. Q.M.H./L-11/K/ Appeal dismissed.