Arbitration award

Duty of court to examine award on its own motion regardless of whether any objections or time-barred objections were filed or not

Scope

Court must ensure that award is free from any patent illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error

Facts of the matter in brevity were that the appellant/Capital Development Authority (CDA) awarded a construction contract to respondent company

Various disputes between the parties led them to arbitration

The sole arbitrator awarded Rs. 640 million to the respondent company

The appellant/CDA filed objections beyond the statutory limitation period which the Trial Court dismissed solely on grounds of delay and made the award rule of the court

The significant questions requiring determination by the High Court were as to (i) "Whether the objections filed against the arbitration award were rightly dismissed as time-barred without a substantive examination of the award itself?" and; (ii) "Whether the grounds raised for setting aside the award in appeal merit consideration despite the dismissal of objections on the ground of limitation?"

Held: While deciding the objections filed to the award Trial Court failed to appreciate the true import of the statutory mandate under S. 17 of the 1940 Act

Record demonstrated that the Trial Court failed to fulfill its legal obligation under S. 17 of the 1940 Act

Trial Court made the award rule of the court solely on the ground that the objections filed by the appellant/CDA were time-barred

Record clearly revealed that the Trial Court did not undertake the essential judicial scrutiny of the award as required by law under S. 17 of the Act 1940

It failed to assess the contents, fairness or legality of the award and did not determine whether the award was within the bounds of the arbitrator's authority or in violation of any provision of law, instead, the court dismissed the objections on the ground of limitation and proceeded to make the award rule of the court without applying the standards mandated by law

This failure constituted a miscarriage of justice and a deviation from the fundamental principles of due process and procedural fairness

Trial Court made the award rule of court simply because the appellant/CDA had filed time barred objections to the award

Impugned order did not show any application of judicious mind to the contents of the award so as to determine whether any provision of law was violated or whether there was any reason to remit the award for reconsideration

This failure on the part of the Trial Court rendered the impugned order unlawful and against the law

Trial Court while relying on the question of time barred objections failed to discharge its statutory duty and hastily proceeded to make the award rule of the court, thereby compromising the sanctity of the judicial process envisaged under S. 17 of the 1940 Act

It was not open to the court to bypass the scrutiny as established in S.17 of the 1940 Act on the ground of time-barred objections

Impugned order and decree were set-aside and the matter was remanded to the Trial Court to decide the same afresh in accordance with the law

Present appeal was disposed of, in circumstances.

Court to examine award on its own motion regardless of whether any objections or time-barred objections were filed or not

Scope

Court must ensure that award is free from any patent illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error

Duties and role of court in examining the award before making it the rule of court stated

Section 17 imposes a direct and mandatory obligation upon the Court once an award is submitted for making it a rule of Court

The statutory language does not envisage the Court acting as a mere conduit for converting the award into a decree rather, the Court is required to perform an active judicial function

It mandates that the Court must examine the award to determine whether there exists any ground for remitting it back to the arbitrator for reconsideration or for setting it aside

Only if the Court finds no legal flaw or procedural irregularity in the award, and after the expiry of the prescribed period for filing objections or upon lawful rejection of any objections filed, may the Court pronounce judgment in accordance with the award, thereby rendering it executable as a decree of the Court

Importantly, the Court's duty of judicial scrutiny is not contingent upon the filing of objections by either party, nor it is negated by the expiry of the limitation period for such objections

Even in the absence of objections or where objections are barred by time, the court remains under a legal obligation to examine the award on its own motion

The absence of objections does not absolve the Court from its responsibility to ensure that the award is not tainted by any apparent illegality, procedural irregularity, or violation of law

The Court's role under S. 17 of the 1940 Act is not that of a mere post office, mechanically endorsing the award upon the expiry of the limitation period for objections rather the Court must exercise its independent judicial mind to ensure that the award is free from any patent illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error

While making an award rule of the Court, in case parties have not filed objections, the Court is not supposed to act in a mechanical manner, like a post office but must subject the award to its judicial scrutiny

This however does not mean that a Court will sit in appeal over the award and try to fish or dig out the latent errors in the proceedings of the award

It only means that even in the absence of objections or time barred objections, the award may be set aside and not made a rule of the Court, if it is a nullity or is prima facie illegal or for any other reason, not fit to be maintained; or suffers from an invalidity, which is self-evident or apparent on the face of the record

The Court's role is thus not purely procedural rather it involves a measure of judicial scrutiny to ensure that the award does not suffer from any fundamental legal infirmities

The Court's obligation to examine the legality and enforceability of the award before making it a rule of the Court is inherent in the statutory scheme governing arbitral proceedings

Section 17 of the 1940 Act, casts a positive duty upon the Court to independently examine whether there exists any cause to remit the award or any of the matters referred to arbitration for reconsideration or to set aside the award

This duty is not contingent upon the filing of objections within limitation but is inherent in the judicial function prescribed by the statute

No derogation can be made from this duty, as it forms a foundational safeguard within the arbitration process to prevent the enforcement of awards that are patently illegal, unenforceable or contrary to law

The Court's power to scrutinize an arbitral award is limited to patent illegality or error apparent on the face of the award and does not extend to reappraisal of evidence or merits

The arbitrator is the final judge of facts and law and his findings are to be respected unless there is a manifest error or misconduct.

Duty of court to examine award on its own motion regardless of whether any objections or time-barred objections were filed or not

Scope

Court must ensure that award is free from any patent illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error

Facts of the matter in brevity were that the appellant/Capital Development Authority (CDA) awarded a construction contract to respondent company

Various disputes between the parties led them to arbitration

The sole arbitrator awarded Rs. 640 million to the respondent company

The appellant/CDA filed objections beyond the statutory limitation period which the Trial Court dismissed solely on grounds of delay and made the award rule of the court

The significant questions requiring determination by the High Court were as to (i) "Whether the objections filed against the arbitration award were rightly dismissed as time-barred without a substantive examination of the award itself?" and; (ii) "Whether the grounds raised for setting aside the award in appeal merit consideration despite the dismissal of objections on the ground of limitation?"

Held: While deciding the objections filed to the award Trial Court failed to appreciate the true import of the statutory mandate under S. 17 of the 1940 Act

Record demonstrated that the Trial Court failed to fulfill its legal obligation under S. 17 of the 1940 Act

Trial Court made the award rule of the court solely on the ground that the objections filed by the appellant/CDA were time-barred

Record clearly revealed that the Trial Court did not undertake the essential judicial scrutiny of the award as required by law under S. 17 of the Act 1940

It failed to assess the contents, fairness or legality of the award and did not determine whether the award was within the bounds of the arbitrator's authority or in violation of any provision of law, instead, the court dismissed the objections on the ground of limitation and proceeded to make the award rule of the court without applying the standards mandated by law

This failure constituted a miscarriage of justice and a deviation from the fundamental principles of due process and procedural fairness

Trial Court made the award rule of court simply because the appellant/CDA had filed time barred objections to the award

Impugned order did not show any application of judicious mind to the contents of the award so as to determine whether any provision of law was violated or whether there was any reason to remit the award for reconsideration

This failure on the part of the Trial Court rendered the impugned order unlawful and against the law

Trial Court while relying on the question of time barred objections failed to discharge its statutory duty and hastily proceeded to make the award rule of the court, thereby compromising the sanctity of the judicial process envisaged under S. 17 of the 1940 Act

It was not open to the court to bypass the scrutiny as established in S.17 of the 1940 Act on the ground of time-barred objections

Impugned order and decree were set-aside and the matter was remanded to the Trial Court to decide the same afresh in accordance with the law

Present appeal was disposed of, in circumstances.

Court to examine award on its own motion regardless of whether any objections or time-barred objections were filed or not

Scope

Court must ensure that award is free from any patent illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error

Duties and role of court in examining the award before making it the rule of court stated

Section 17 imposes a direct and mandatory obligation upon the Court once an award is submitted for making it a rule of Court

The statutory language does not envisage the Court acting as a mere conduit for converting the award into a decree rather, the Court is required to perform an active judicial function

It mandates that the Court must examine the award to determine whether there exists any ground for remitting it back to the arbitrator for reconsideration or for setting it aside

Only if the Court finds no legal flaw or procedural irregularity in the award, and after the expiry of the prescribed period for filing objections or upon lawful rejection of any objections filed, may the Court pronounce judgment in accordance with the award, thereby rendering it executable as a decree of the Court

Importantly, the Court's duty of judicial scrutiny is not contingent upon the filing of objections by either party, nor it is negated by the expiry of the limitation period for such objections

Even in the absence of objections or where objections are barred by time, the court remains under a legal obligation to examine the award on its own motion

The absence of objections does not absolve the Court from its responsibility to ensure that the award is not tainted by any apparent illegality, procedural irregularity, or violation of law

The Court's role under S. 17 of the 1940 Act is not that of a mere post office, mechanically endorsing the award upon the expiry of the limitation period for objections rather the Court must exercise its independent judicial mind to ensure that the award is free from any patent illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error

While making an award rule of the Court, in case parties have not filed objections, the Court is not supposed to act in a mechanical manner, like a post office but must subject the award to its judicial scrutiny

This however does not mean that a Court will sit in appeal over the award and try to fish or dig out the latent errors in the proceedings of the award

It only means that even in the absence of objections or time barred objections, the award may be set aside and not made a rule of the Court, if it is a nullity or is prima facie illegal or for any other reason, not fit to be maintained; or suffers from an invalidity, which is self-evident or apparent on the face of the record

The Court's role is thus not purely procedural rather it involves a measure of judicial scrutiny to ensure that the award does not suffer from any fundamental legal infirmities

The Court's obligation to examine the legality and enforceability of the award before making it a rule of the Court is inherent in the statutory scheme governing arbitral proceedings

Section 17 of the 1940 Act, casts a positive duty upon the Court to independently examine whether there exists any cause to remit the award or any of the matters referred to arbitration for reconsideration or to set aside the award

This duty is not contingent upon the filing of objections within limitation but is inherent in the judicial function prescribed by the statute

No derogation can be made from this duty, as it forms a foundational safeguard within the arbitration process to prevent the enforcement of awards that are patently illegal, unenforceable or contrary to law

The Court's power to scrutinize an arbitral award is limited to patent illegality or error apparent on the face of the award and does not extend to reappraisal of evidence or merits

The arbitrator is the final judge of facts and law and his findings are to be respected unless there is a manifest error or misconduct.

Duty of court to examine award on its own motion regardless of whether any objections or time-barred objections were filed or not

Scope

Court must ensure that award is free from any patent illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error

Facts of the matter in brevity were that the appellant/Capital Development Authority (CDA) awarded a construction contract to respondent company

Various disputes between the parties led them to arbitration

The sole arbitrator awarded Rs. 640 million to the respondent company

The appellant/CDA filed objections beyond the statutory limitation period which the Trial Court dismissed solely on grounds of delay and made the award rule of the court

The significant questions requiring determination by the High Court were as to (i) "Whether the objections filed against the arbitration award were rightly dismissed as time-barred without a substantive examination of the award itself?" and; (ii) "Whether the grounds raised for setting aside the award in appeal merit consideration despite the dismissal of objections on the ground of limitation?"

Held: While deciding the objections filed to the award Trial Court failed to appreciate the true import of the statutory mandate under S. 17 of the 1940 Act

Record demonstrated that the Trial Court failed to fulfill its legal obligation under S. 17 of the 1940 Act

Trial Court made the award rule of the court solely on the ground that the objections filed by the appellant/CDA were time-barred

Record clearly revealed that the Trial Court did not undertake the essential judicial scrutiny of the award as required by law under S. 17 of the Act 1940

It failed to assess the contents, fairness or legality of the award and did not determine whether the award was within the bounds of the arbitrator's authority or in violation of any provision of law, instead, the court dismissed the objections on the ground of limitation and proceeded to make the award rule of the court without applying the standards mandated by law

This failure constituted a miscarriage of justice and a deviation from the fundamental principles of due process and procedural fairness

Trial Court made the award rule of court simply because the appellant/CDA had filed time barred objections to the award

Impugned order did not show any application of judicious mind to the contents of the award so as to determine whether any provision of law was violated or whether there was any reason to remit the award for reconsideration

This failure on the part of the Trial Court rendered the impugned order unlawful and against the law

Trial Court while relying on the question of time barred objections failed to discharge its statutory duty and hastily proceeded to make the award rule of the court, thereby compromising the sanctity of the judicial process envisaged under S. 17 of the 1940 Act

It was not open to the court to bypass the scrutiny as established in S.17 of the 1940 Act on the ground of time-barred objections

Impugned order and decree were set-aside and the matter was remanded to the Trial Court to decide the same afresh in accordance with the law

Present appeal was disposed of, in circumstances.

Court to examine award on its own motion regardless of whether any objections or time-barred objections were filed or not

Scope

Court must ensure that award is free from any patent illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error

Duties and role of court in examining the award before making it the rule of court stated

Section 17 imposes a direct and mandatory obligation upon the Court once an award is submitted for making it a rule of Court

The statutory language does not envisage the Court acting as a mere conduit for converting the award into a decree rather, the Court is required to perform an active judicial function

It mandates that the Court must examine the award to determine whether there exists any ground for remitting it back to the arbitrator for reconsideration or for setting it aside

Only if the Court finds no legal flaw or procedural irregularity in the award, and after the expiry of the prescribed period for filing objections or upon lawful rejection of any objections filed, may the Court pronounce judgment in accordance with the award, thereby rendering it executable as a decree of the Court

Importantly, the Court's duty of judicial scrutiny is not contingent upon the filing of objections by either party, nor it is negated by the expiry of the limitation period for such objections

Even in the absence of objections or where objections are barred by time, the court remains under a legal obligation to examine the award on its own motion

The absence of objections does not absolve the Court from its responsibility to ensure that the award is not tainted by any apparent illegality, procedural irregularity, or violation of law

The Court's role under S. 17 of the 1940 Act is not that of a mere post office, mechanically endorsing the award upon the expiry of the limitation period for objections rather the Court must exercise its independent judicial mind to ensure that the award is free from any patent illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error

While making an award rule of the Court, in case parties have not filed objections, the Court is not supposed to act in a mechanical manner, like a post office but must subject the award to its judicial scrutiny

This however does not mean that a Court will sit in appeal over the award and try to fish or dig out the latent errors in the proceedings of the award

It only means that even in the absence of objections or time barred objections, the award may be set aside and not made a rule of the Court, if it is a nullity or is prima facie illegal or for any other reason, not fit to be maintained; or suffers from an invalidity, which is self-evident or apparent on the face of the record

The Court's role is thus not purely procedural rather it involves a measure of judicial scrutiny to ensure that the award does not suffer from any fundamental legal infirmities

The Court's obligation to examine the legality and enforceability of the award before making it a rule of the Court is inherent in the statutory scheme governing arbitral proceedings

Section 17 of the 1940 Act, casts a positive duty upon the Court to independently examine whether there exists any cause to remit the award or any of the matters referred to arbitration for reconsideration or to set aside the award

This duty is not contingent upon the filing of objections within limitation but is inherent in the judicial function prescribed by the statute

No derogation can be made from this duty, as it forms a foundational safeguard within the arbitration process to prevent the enforcement of awards that are patently illegal, unenforceable or contrary to law

The Court's power to scrutinize an arbitral award is limited to patent illegality or error apparent on the face of the award and does not extend to reappraisal of evidence or merits

The arbitrator is the final judge of facts and law and his findings are to be respected unless there is a manifest error or misconduct.

Respondent company filed application under S.20 of Arbitration Act, 1940, for settlement of dispute through appointment of arbitrator

Trial Court appointed sole arbitrator and his award was made Rule of the Court

Lower Appellate Court maintained the Rule of the Court passed by Trial Court

Petitioner authorities assailed Rule of the Court on the plea of misconduct of sole arbitrator

Validity

Sole arbitrator was appointed consensually and his appointment was never challenged before any higher forum

Appointment of sole arbitrator was made in agreement with both the parties

Up till rendering the award by him no objection was raised by the parties to the lis upon the appointment of sole arbitrator, which amounte to waiver of their objection, within the purview of law of estoppel as contemplated under Art.114 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Such objection could not be allowed to be raised at subsequent stage, particularly only for viewing purpose and after rendering arbitration award, more particularly when petitioner authorities had failed to assert that what bias the sole arbitrator was carrying at the time of rendering the arbitration award

Arbitration award could only be objected, if specific allegations of misconduct were alleged, which did not figure in the present case

High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction declined to interfere in orders passed by two Courts below as there was no illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in decrees rendered by both the fora below, as contemplated under S.115 of C.P.C.

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

In the present case, objections to the Award were filed by the appellant/defendant after more than two months of service

Two grounds (load-shedding and ailment) pleaded for condonation of delay were not worth considering

Application for condonation of delay filed by the appellant was rightly dismissed, and in consequence whereof objections, which were filed beyond statutory time frame, could not be considered

No case of interference was made out in impugned judgment passed by the Single Judge of the High Court in making the Award a Rule of the Court

Appeal filed by the defendants was dismissed, in circumstances.

Appellant / employer hired services of respondent / consultant and entered into contract titled 'Design Consultancy Service-Architecture, Interior and Specialty Design for 5 Star Movenpic Hotel, Centaurus Islamabad'

Dispute had arisen between the parties regarding right of respondent / consultant to invoice reimbursable expenses

Objections to award filed by appellant / employer were rejected by Trial Court and award was made rule of Court

Validity

It was not explained in award that, in absence of express words, how was it a valid construction of Schedule 4 to the Contract, read as a whole that appellant / employer agreed to pay for detailed drawings regardless of whether they were indeed final (i.e., useable for the project) or were mere garbage

In absence of express words to the contrary in Sched. 4 to the Contract, reasons for depriving appellant / employer of its final say in acceptability of work-products were absent in award

Out of two alternatives of respondent / consultant giving customary warranty of fitness for purpose versus appellant's / employer's right to reject deliverables and not pay final one-third of the Contract price for relevant phase, parties agreed on the latter in Sched. 4 to the Contract, but award did not expound such bargain of parties

Award did not give sufficient reasons for not reading Sched. 4 of the Contract as a whole nor how the applicable stage for payment under relevant phase had been accomplished without appellant's / employer's approval of final drawings

Appeal was precluded under S. 17 of Arbitration Act, 1940 from a decree but when the very award on which that decree rested was revisited (by setting aside, modifying or remitting the award) by Appellate Court under S.39(vi) of Arbitration Act, 1940 then the foundation for that decree, to the extent the award was set aside, modified or remitted, had gone and lost all legal value

High Court set aside rule of Court and remitted the award under S. 26A of Arbitration Act, 1940 to arbitrator only to the extent of respondent's / consultant's right to invoice, and appellant / employer's obligation to pay, for the relevant phase of Schedule 4 to the Contract, in absence of appellant's / employer's approval of final detailed drawings

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Arbitrator, whose fee / dues have been cleared is not prevented under Arbitration Act, 1940, to provide the parties with signed copies of award or original award in duplicate

Where arbitrator does not provide parties with such award on the ground that his fee / dues have not been cleared, provision of S. 38(1) of Arbitration Act, 1940, entitles a party to apply to Court, which can order arbitrator to deliver award to the applicant on payment into Court by applicant of fees / dues demanded

Where an award is delivered to party either by adopting process envisaged by S.38(1) of Arbitration Act, 1940, or otherwise, the party can file such award in Court and the Court thereupon gives notice to other party of filing of the award

Provision of S. 14 (2) of Arbitration Act, 1940, applies to a case where help of Court is sought for getting award filed in Court by calling upon arbitrator to file it

High Court set aside order passed by Trial Court and remanded the matter for further proceedings on appellant's application under S. 14 of Arbitration Act, 1940, praying for award to be made the rule of the Court

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Opinion/decision of the Arbitrator should not be lightly interfered by the court while deciding the objection thereto, until a clear and definite case within the purview of the section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 is made out.

Limited scope of judicial review of an Award announced by an Arbitrator stated.

Misconduct of an Arbitrator in the judicial sense means failure to perform his essential duty or any conduct inconsistent with his duties, resulting in substantial miscarriage of justice between the parties.

Petitioner assailed arbitration award and order dismissing objections filed by him on the plea of misconduct of arbitrators

Neither any specific allegations of misconduct figured in objection filed by petitioner, nor was it reflected in evidence adduced except an assertion that he did not expect justice from arbitrators

Such assertion did not, in any way, absolve him or give a way to escape from arbitration agreement, which he at his free will had entered with respondent

Proceedings carried out by arbitrators were quasi-judicial proceedings

Court while parting with the objections or making award as rule of Court could not sit as court of appeal looking into nitty gritty of proceedings and arbitration award

High Court declined to interfere in concurrent findings of facts of fora below, which did not suffer from any illegality or infirmity making the same to be unjust and unreasonable

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Limitation period of 90 days mentioned under Article 178 of the Limitation Act, 1908 applies to parties to an arbitration agreement who have been given notice of making of the award and not to the Arbitrator(s)

Arbitrator(s) must be requested by the parties to file the Arbitration Award or must be given a direction by the Court to do so.

In the present case the Award did not state that a written claim was submitted by the plaintiff-respondent; that he led evidence, let alone the Arbitrator having discussed it; did not state that the defendant-appellant was given an opportunity to reply to the claim; that the defendant-appellant was provided an opportunity to lead evidence and allowed to cross-examine the plaintiff-respondent and his witnesses

Contents of the Award showed that it was passed in undue haste and in disregard of the requirements of due process and fair trial, respectively, mandated by Art. 4 & Art. 10A of the Constitution

Such an Award was not sustainable

Appeal was allowed.

Arbitrator awarded Rs.231.42 million in favour of respondent without taking into consideration the counter claim of appellant

Error existed apparently on the face of arbitration award rendering the same unsustainable

Court while scrutinizing award during hearing of objections could not sit as a Court of appeal but it was obligatory upon the Court to examine the award in order to determine invalidity or inconsistency with the provisions of the contract

Division Bench of High Court remanded the matter to arbitrator for rendering award afresh as there was sufficient cause and material on record to remit the same

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Case record showed that the matter for grant of a decree was sent to the Arbitrator by the Court, which was not permissible under the law

Even if the same was treated as an irregularity, the Trial Court was required to assess the Award for adjudging as to whether there were any apparent errors in the same

Objection petition of defendants was dismissed by the Trial Court but the Award itself was not appraised before being made Rule of the Court

Further, the Appellate Court had noted in its judgment that some of the parties to the agreement to sell were minors and there was nothing on record to show that before entering into the said agreement or making the reference, any permission of the Court was obtained for entering into the said agreement

Appellate Court had rightly remanded the case to the Trial Court to decide the same on merits

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.

Federal Government Employees Housing Foundation launched a Housing Scheme and it was provided in the brochure that possession of apartments would be delivered to the allottees within a period of two years and cost of apartments would be subject to variations on account of escalation in prices and unforeseen circumstances

Housing Foundation could not complete apartments within a period of two years and issued letters for payment of additional amount for the apartments

Petitioners filed constitutional petitions and matter was referred for arbitration with the consent of the parties

Objections against award were dismissed and it was made rule of the Court

Validity

Petitioners-allottees had defaulted in making payments of instalments

Delay in construction caused due to default in payment of instalments by the allottees, such allottees were not entitled to any compensation

Default in payment of instalments by the allottees did come within the meaning of a "delay for some unavoidable/unforeseen circumstances"

Arbitrator had termed escalated costs mentioned in the brochure as highly excessive which was not in dispute between the parties

Housing Foundation was to charge actual costs of the apartments from the allottees and same could not be compared with the costs incurred by the other organizations establishing housing projects

Each Housing Scheme had its own peculiar features and dimensions and the costs incurred by all Housing Schemes could not be identical

Determination as to escalated costs demanded by the Housing Foundation to be highly excessive on the basis of costs incurred on the Housing Scheme by the other organization was erroneous and perverse

Costs of apartments given in the brochure and allotment letters were not final but tentative in nature and were subject to variations

Petitioners were bound by the terms and conditions mentioned in the brochure which made an increase in the costs of apartments permissible

Rights and liabilities of the parties were to be determined in the light of terms and conditions of agreement containing arbitration clause

Costs of apartments was to be finally determined and charged from the allottees on the basis of "actual expenditure" incurred on completion of apartments which was to be communicated to the allottees in due course

Housing Foundation had communicated enhanced costs of the apartments to the allottees which was not a profit making organization

Escalation in the costs of construction material and other factors had not been considered in the present matter

Terms of brochure did not provide for compensation or liquidated damages to be paid to the allottees if apartments were not completed within a specific period

Delay in completion of project was attributable to the defaulting petitioners-allottees and they were not entitled for compensation for the delay to handover possession of apartments

Housing-Foundation was justified in raising a demand for additional amount and surcharge on the delay in the payment of instalments from the allottees

Mere fact that surcharge had been waived by the Foundation for one of the allottees would not nullify the provision with regard to imposition of a surcharge in the brochure

Court while making award as a rule of Court was not required to act mechanically even if no objection was filed

Impugned judgment and decree as well as award were set aside

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Arbitration awards are liberally construed by courts for purpose of upholding award given by arbitrators unless there is some error apparent on face of it

Courts have to give reasonable intendment in favour of award leaning towards upholding rather than vitiating same

Court could neither act as a court of appeal nor override award through its own judgment by scrutinizing award to discover errors for purposes of setting aside same

Possibility of a different view by appreciating facts with a different angle is no ground for setting aside award

Arbitrator is final judge on question of law and fact and his decision merits weightage unless misconduct against him stands proved.

Claim of ownership or share in the suit property which was never raised by the father of plaintiff in his lifetime could not be raised by one of his legal heirs after twelve years of his death

Share of plaintiff's father in the joint family business had not been handed over to him and his other legal heirs

Plaintiff had no title and right in the suit property and he had prayed for its partition

Validity

Plaintiff should have impleaded his other brothers and sisters as legal heirs of his deceased father and prayed for declaration of joint ownership which he had not done

Plaintiff was bound to explain as to how the relief sought by him in the present suit was within limitation

Present suit did not fall within the ambit of administration of property for which no limitation was applicable

Right to seek declaration of ownership accrued to the plaintiff in the year 1985; plaintiff should have approached the Housing Society within six years for mutation of his share in the record of said society

Limitation to claim ownership in the suit property had expired in July 1991

Right to sue for partition of immovable property would accrue only to the owner against co-owner irrespective of possession

Plaintiff was not owner of suit property and family settlement and arbitration award could not be enforced against lawful owner of immovable property

Mere construction on the suit property did not create right and interest adverse to the owner of said property

Law did not recognize possession of an immovable property as ownership rights

Ownership was dependent on the title document and not on mere residence/ possession of immovable property

Plaintiff had no cause of action or locus standi to file the present suit

Suit was dismissed in circumstances.

Lease was cancelled but without affording any opportunity of hearing to the allottee which was against principles of natural justice

Provisions of S.64-A of Co-operative Societies Act, 1925 could not be extended or made applicable to the cases of arbitration proceedings in which award had already been made and upheld in appeal

Award in question had already been upheld in appeal by the Co-operative Housing Society

Provincial Minister, in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction was not competent to set aside the said award which had become final in appeal

Impugned order passed by the Provincial Government/Minister was not only illegal but coram-non-judice

Once a document was registered, same could only be cancelled by another registered document or through declaration of a civil court

Impugned order was null and void which was set aside

Award by the Registrar Co-operative Societies was restored

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

Objections against award announced by umpire were dismissed by single Judge of High Court and the award was made rule of the Court

Validity

While examining validity of award, Court was not to act as court of appeal

Court hearing objections to an award could not reappraise evidence recorded by arbitrator, which otherwise was legally and sound

Award which was made rule of the Court, had no apparent error or legal infirmity, which warranted interference by High Court

All relevant pieces of evidence and documents were thoroughly examined and discussed in the award by umpire and the same was rightly made rule of the Court

Division Bench of High Court did not find any illegality in the order of Single Judge of High Court

Appellants failed to demonstrate that umpire mis-conducted himself or proceedings of the award had been conducted in an illegal manner or award made by umpire was unreasonable or had improperly been procured or invalid

Umpire discussed each and every aspect of the case by giving detailed reasons and after providing ample opportunity of hearing to appellants announced the award and the same did not require any interference

Division Bench of High Court upheld the order passed by Single Judge of High Court

Intra Court appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Court, while examining the validity of an award, does not sit as a court of appeal and cannot undertake reappraisal of evidence

For the Court to interfere in an arbitration award, there has to be an error on the face of it and discoverable by reading the award itself.

Trial Court had neither framed issues in the light of objections and reply thereto nor recorded evidence of the parties in proof and rebuttal of the same

Trial Court had made the award rule of court which contained material beyond the subject matter of the suit

Arbitrators had neither recorded evidence of the parties nor heard them before passing the award

Impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court were set aside and award was cancelled

Case was remanded to the Trial Court with the direction to resume trial from the stage where it was given up

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Consent decree was obtained by the plaintiffs on the same day without arraying necessary and proper party in the application

Said decree could not be termed as valid decree

Plaintiffs had neither incorporated the same in the record nor that was got executed within prescribed period of limitation

Consent decree, in circumstances, carried value not more than an agreement between the parties to the case

Defendants were not party to the consent decree and same had no binding effect upon them

Judgment passed by the court having no jurisdiction had no legal status

Present suit had been filed for implementation of consent decree after 80 years and 5 months, which was not maintainable

No fresh suit could be filed by the same parties who had failed to act upon the decree

Implementation of decree could not be substituted with fresh suit

No document of title had been produced by the plaintiffs on the basis of which arbitration award was completed

Party could succeed according to what was alleged and proved

Except consent decree there was no other document on the file to show ownership of plaintiffs with regard to disputed property

Plaintiffs were bound to prove the facts alleged by them but no effort was made for the same

Plaintiffs had failed to prove their claim through cogent evidence

Short coming on behalf of defendants would not benefit the plaintiffs

Revision was accepted and impugned judgments and decrees of both the courts below were set aside.

Award by arbitrator stated that contractor was deprived of the profits which could have been earned by it due to execution of balance or remaining work; that contractor was entitled to 6% profit for the balance work as compensation (contractor had claimed 15% profit); that contractor was also entitled to escalation due to increase in prices of materials

Contention of appellant that contractor had only completed 33% of the contract, therefore, he was not entitled to escalation; that no basis had been given in the award for loss of profit and contractor had only given an estimate which was wrongly allowed in the award

Validity

Arbitrator in his award pointed out that only condition was that in case of increase in prices of material the contractor could get escalation, and such finding of the arbitrator had not been rebutted before the court nor any evidence had been shown to the effect that escalation was only allowable if the whole contract had been executed

Arbitrator was justified in awarding 6% of the claim of the profit against 15% and had rightly awarded compensation for escalation

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Registration of award would be necessary only after same was made rule of the court, but not before that stage.

Mere fact of non-drawing of award on stamp paper would not justify rejection of application for making award rule of court.

Registration of award would be necessary only after same was made rule of the court, but not before that stage.

Mere fact of non-drawing of award on stamp paper would not justify rejection of application for making award rule of court.