1987 PLP 1391 (SCMR)
FAISALABAD and others Petitioners Versus Mirza BASHIR AHMAD and 2 others Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 1391 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | FAISALABAD and others Petitioners Versus Mirza BASHIR AHMAD and 2 others Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Arbitration Act (X of 1940)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 1391 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Arbitration Act (X of 1940)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 1391 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 1391 (SCMR) (FAISALABAD and others Petitioners Versus Mirza BASHIR AHMAD and 2 others Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. M. Saeed Beg, Advocate Supreme Court and Rao Muhammad Yusuf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in all the Petitions).
- Nemo for Respondent (in all the Petitions).
- Date of hearing: 4th May, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeals from the judgment and order dated 1‑11‑1986 of the Lahore High Court in Civil Revisions Nos.20137/D, 2088/1) and 2089/1) of 1986). ‑‑‑Ss.14 & 17‑‑Arbitration (Amendment) Ordinance (XV of 1981), S.3 (1)‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Arbitration awards‑‑Belated objections rejected on ground of limitation‑‑Plea that Arbitrator not having; given reasons in support of his awards, Court ought not to have made them rule of Court but should have remitted them to Arbitrator in accordance with S. 3(1) of Ordinance (XV of 1981) , not entertained because no such prayer was made before trial Court or appellate court‑‑Leave to appeal refused. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Leave to appeal, grant of‑‑Prayer not made before trial Court or appellate Court‑‑Not entertained at stage of petition for leave to appeal ‑Petition dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑In these petitions the objections filed by the petitioners to arbitration award were rejected on the ground of limitation. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners we are satisfied that the objections were not preferred by the petitioners within the stat story period and as such no fault can be found with the decision of the trial Court in this regard.
2. The awards, were filed in the Court on 7‑5‑1981. On 11‑5‑1981 the Arbitration' (Amendment) Ordinance, 1981 came into force. Section 3(1) of the Ordinance stated: "If in any case in which proceedings in relation to an award which has been filed in Court are pending in any Court immediately ,Before the commencement of this Ordinance, the Court finds that the award does not, or does not in sufficient detail,) states the reasons for the award, the Court may remit the award to the arbitrators or umpire with a direction to state the reasons for the award in sufficient detail." The contention on behalf of the petitioners is that in these cases the arbitrator had not given reasons in support of his awards and, therefore, the Court ought not to have made them rule of the Court but should have remitted them to the arbitrator in accordance with section 3(1) ibid. We find no merit in this contention for the reason that no such prayer was made before the trial Court or the Additional District Judge on behalf of the petitioners. These are, therefore, not fit cases where leave should be granted to the petitioners. The petition are accordingly dismissed. M. I. /P‑17/S. Petitions dismissed.