Award

Held: Arbitrator had no power and authority to grant interest on the amount of damages/compensation from the year 2014 till its realization

Such power was only with Trial Court under S. 29 of Arbitration Act, 1940 and the interest should be granted if Court desired, from the date of order or decree

Generally in absence of express or implied contract to pay interest, it could not be allowed on damages for breach of contract

Arbitrator could not award interest, on his own on the amount of compensation

Interest and sum of award as damages could not be allowed for period prior to the date of award under S. 29 of Arbitration Act, 1940 and the Court was empowered/competent to allow interest of award from the date of decree till payment

Trial Court rightly modified the order in respect of interest awarded by the arbitrator as such order of arbitrator in respect of interest was without jurisdiction

High Court declined to interfere in judgment and decree passed by Trial Court, as the appellants failed to point out any illegality or material irregularity in the same

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Both the parties assailed judgment passed by Trial Court, whereby award was made rule of the Court to the extent of questions finally determined by the arbitrator while for the question not decided, the matter was remanded by Trial Court to the arbitrator for decision afresh

Validity

Arbitrator was unable to show his expertise regarding mathematical calculations, where he had shown his inability in a particular subject and the same could have been settled by calling an auditor or chartered accountant firm

Trial Court rightly held that such portion was separable and was to be remanded to the arbitrator who could give its findings but such aspect could not be called as misconduct in the true sense by arbitrator, rather he did not conclude the matter finally and left it to the Court

Trial Court had rightly remanded the matter to arbitrator as such there was no denial that the arbitrator had recorded reasons which had further been appreciated by Trial Court

Ground for setting aside the award in terms of S. 30 of Arbitration Act, 1940 were not demonstrated by parties to the extent of portion of remitting of award

High Court, under S. 17 of Arbitration Act, 1940 upheld the portion of award which was remitted back to arbitrator, as the same was in accordance with law

High Court directed that direction given by Trial Court should be complied with accordingly

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Contention of the appellants was that the matters arising out of the award passed by the arbitrator were judicial in nature and not ministerial and mere absence or delay of objections did not absolve the Court from its responsibility to scrutinize it on merits

Validity

Such contention of the appellants was misplaced because although it was held that the objections of one of the appellants were barred by time, yet, while deciding the matter, the Trial Court had fully discussed the material available on record and decided the case on merits

Findings of Trial Court were based on proper appreciation of the material available before it, which did not require any interference

Appellate Court has a very limited jurisdiction while adjudicating an appeal arising out of the Arbitration Act, 1940, as neither it can reappraise the evidence nor can set aside an award merely on the basis of alleged irregularity committed by the Trial Court

For interference with an award and findings of the lower court there must be a patent illegality, which should be apparent on the face of award or the arbitrators have committed misconduct while passing the award which indeed was not the case of the appellants

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Award passed by Collector under S.11 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and judgment passed by Court on a reference by Collector on that award are both to be understood as "Award".

Plaintiff was aggrieved of non-payment of consideration amount for goods supplied to defendant under the contract between the parties

Plea raised by defendant was that (currency) exchange rate stipulation was unmerited as the appropriate exchange rate was to be that prevailing rate upon the date that the relevant amounts had become due

Validity

If objection of defendant was to be sustained, the same would amount to sanction unjust enrichment

Contract and obligation emanating therefrom was not denied and it was also admitted that such liability was denominated in foreign exchange

Payment of adjudicated liability, to plaintiff in Pakistan currency was not demonstrated to be barred by any sanction, foreign or domestic

Such objection was circumscribed with respect to applicable rate of exchange

Award was well reasoned and was predicated upon due consideration of evidence

Defendant failed to demonstrate any infirmity with respect to the Award, within the ambit of S.30 of Arbitration Act, 1940, or otherwise

High Court dismissed objections against award raised by defendant

Award was made rule of the Court, in circumstances.

Parties entered into contract of Affreighment, whereby plaintiff / claimant was to bring coal under the terms of carriage and the same was to be delivered to defendant company/respondent

Dispute had arisen between the parties and matter was referred to Umpire who announced his award and the same was filed in Court for making the same rule of the Court

Defendant/respondent filed objections and sought setting aside of the same

Validity

Contentions of defendant/respondent were dealt with by the Umpire, who considered that 8 shipments were delivered and on the contrary there was an admission on the part of respondent as to the quantities discharged

Claimant was not required to prove the quantities discharged in the light of O. VIII, R. 5, C.P.C. and the only point remaining unresolved in respect of the consignments was as to the 10% balance freight remaining unpaid

Applicability or non-applicability of foreign law was not of any particular consequence as regards the conclusion reached

Relevant clause of Contract of Affreighment dealt with liability for the cargo and not the freight

Payment of freight could not be avoided as it was the underlying consideration for the carriage of goods by sea

High Court set aside objections raised by defendant / respondent as there was no patent error of any material nature underpinning the award and it was made rule of the Court

Application was allowed in circumstances.

Arbitrator was appointed who submitted his award in the Court wherein principal amount with markup on the same was granted till payment

Objections raised against the award were rejected and it was made Rule of the Court

Validity

Court while examining the validity of award could not act as a Court of Appeal and make reappraisal of evidence recorded by the arbitrator in order to discover the error or infirmity in the award unless such error or infirmity was on the record

Award, in the present case, was based on documentary evidence which did not require reappraisal of evidence

No infirmity had been pointed out in the impugned award

Nothing was on record with regard to misconduct of arbitrator

Arbitrator had no authority to grant any markup on the principal amount from the date of award till payment

Markup with effect from the date of award till realization of principal amount awarded by the arbitrator was without competence

Appeal was dismissed, accordingly.

Court while hearing objections does not act as court of appeal and cannot undertake reappraisal of evidence recorded by arbitrator.

Evidence tendered by parties was duly considered and on basis thereof, arbitrator reached conclusion that respondent was entitled to the award

Entire evidence, as well as factual and legal aspects of the matter were duly taken into account

Neither any legal error was floating on surface of record nor arbitrator had failed to take into consideration the material evidence adduced by parties

Arbitrator, in circumstances, committed no misconduct within meaning of Ss.30 & 33, Arbitration Act, 1940

High Court declined to interfere in the matter

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Parties to the contract had amended the contract so as to introduce a price adjustment formula in the contract to cater for the price hike

Company (contractor) moved the civil court to make the award rule of the court contending that the amendments were made with mutual consent and Interim Payment Certificates (I.P.C.) raised by the company were duly certified by the engineer for which partial payment was made to the company

Company further submitted that Dispute Review Expert (DRE) and sole arbitrator were justified because the purpose of introducing the price adjustment formula in the contract through amendments was to assist in mitigating the effects of the increase in the cost of the basic construction material that had occurred since the commencement of the project

Validity

Fact that parties had introduced price adjustment formula and partial payment was made to the company was not disputed but remaining amount of Interim payment certificates was withheld in view of meeting of Executive Board which decided that benefit of price adjustment was not effective retrospectively

Dispute Review Expert recommended the remaining payment declaring that Principal (authorities) could not thrust its Executive Board's decision on the company

Witnesses of Principal before sole arbitrator admitted that during the pendency of contract, substantial rise in cost of construction material was witnessed

Sole arbitrator was cognizant that the amendments were executed between the parties voluntarily

Sole arbitrator was of the view that authorities could not wriggle out of its obligations

Sole arbitrator took into consideration the fact that first amendment was stated to be retrospective, whereas other (second) amendment was in continuation of the first amendment, thus making both amendments to be an integral part of the contract from its very inception

Sole arbitrator did not find any reason to declare the amendments in the contract as void as these amendments were partially given effect to by the authorities

Principal (Authorities) did not identify the matter before civil court that had been allegedly left undecided by the sole arbitrator and did not even specify the document or piece of evidence that would have caused sole arbitrator to come to a different conclusion

Civil court was conscious of the scope of its powers while hearing objections to an arbitration award that it could not carry out reappraisal of the entire evidence produced by the parties before the sole arbitrator like a court of appeal and held that the sole arbitrator had not committed any misconduct in rendering the arbitration award

Decision of the Executive Board of Principal (Authority) was taken much after the said amendments, therefore, the Dispute Review Expert the sole arbitrator and the civil court were correct in concurrently holding that the said decision of Executive Board could not be considered as a part of the contract between the parties

Amendments to a contract during its currency might be made for a variety of reasons, and there need not be consideration for each and every amendment to the contract independently

Reappraisal of evidence by the court was impermissible and award of arbitrator was final which could be challenged only on the grounds mentioned in Ss.30 & 33 of the Act

Interference would be available if there existed a total perversity in the award or award was based on wrong proposition of law

Sole arbitrator had not misconducted himself

Appeals were dismissed accordingly.

Suit was barred under S. 32 of Arbitration Act, 1940 if a party had affirmed the existence of arbitration award or its validity

Aggrieved party might seek remedy of either challenging the validity or existence of arbitration award or raising grounds for setting it aside

Plaintiff instead of availing proper remedy had filed suit which was barred under S. 32 of Arbitration Act, 1940

Impugned judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court were based on proper appreciation of evidence

No illegality or perversity had been pointed out in the impugned judgment and decree

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

Contention of plaintiffs was that award with regard to acquisition of land was result of fraud and was illegal and without jurisdiction and no notice of such acquisition was sent to them

Suit was dismissed concurrently

Validity

Suit property was acquired for public purpose which was mentioned in the award issued under the provisions of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Urban Planning Ordinance, 1978 which was a special enactment

Land in question was not acquired under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894

Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Urban Planning Ordinance, 1978 was enacted for the development and establishment of towns in urban areas which had overriding status over Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which was meant for general acquisition of land

Section 49 of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Urban Planning Ordinance, 1978 had excluded the operation and applicability of Land Acquisition Act, 1984

Department had fulfilled requirements before passing award and notices were duly published

Plaintiffs had neither objected on the mode of publication of notices nor had raised any such objection in their statements recorded before the Trial Court

Plaintiffs could not be allowed to raise a new plea at revisional stage which was not agitated before the lower Appellate Court

Impugned award was challenged by the plaintiffs and they claimed for enhancement of amount which remained intact up to the Supreme Court

Plaintiffs did not raise any objection during the course of acquisition and no appeal was preferred under S.60 of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Urban Planning Ordinance, 1978

Present suit had been filed after 3 years of passing of impugned award

Plaintiffs had not taken the plea of non-service of notices prior or during the acquisition process in their pleadings

Compensation amount had been received by the plaintiffs without protest and they were precluded from filing of present suit as they did not avail the remedy by filing of appeal

When a particular procedure was provided by a special law for the redressal of a particular grievance then special procedure provided by the special statute should be followed

Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Urban Planning Ordinance, 1978 was a special enactment wherein a particular procedure for redressal of any grievance arising from any act or omission with regard to acquisition of land had been provided and same should be followed in letter and spirit

Person who remained indolent and went in a deep slumber could not be given premium for his indolence and to re-open a past and closed matter in a civil suit

No illegality or irregularity had been pointed out in the impugned judgments passed by the courts below

Findings of facts recorded by the courts below were based on elaborate, reasoning and construction of correct facts

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

Arbitrator passed the award on the basis of alleged oath on Holy Quran without authority of the agreement, travelling beyond his jurisdiction

Cursory glance of assigning the award by the Corut was not permissible under the law

Court was bound to minutely discuss every aspect of the award and evaluate the same to see whether award was capable of being endorsed or not

Arbitrator could not deliver award whimsically and could not act with partiality or unfairness

Arbitrator announced the award on the same day on which he was appointed showing lack of fair play

Under S.26-A of the Arbitration Act, 1940, arbitrator was obliged to announce award by assigning reasons and giving sufficient details to enable the court to consider any question of law arising out of the award

Arbitrator announced award without applying his judicial mind and failed to determine the real dispute

Evidence showed that arbitration agreement was scribed under coercion

Court below failed to consider that award announced by arbitrator was beyond the authority given to him by parties

Award was of no legal effect and could not be made rule of court

Impugned orders were set aside

Award was held to be pending before Trial Court for appointment of another arbitrator after obtaining consent of parties

Constitutional petition was accepted.

Said award was unanimous and against the facts as out of five arbitrators two had not joined the proceedings and writing in the same

Award announced by the arbitrators beyond the scope of reference or by misconduct could not be made rule of court

Findings recorded by the courts below were based upon the evidence available on the file

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

Said award was unanimous and against the facts as out of five arbitrators two had not joined the proceedings and writing in the same

Award announced by the arbitrators beyond the scope of reference or by misconduct could not be made rule of court

Findings recorded by the courts below were based upon the evidence available on the file

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

Appeal should only lie in any proceedings under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to the High Court from award or any part of the same subject to the provisions of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 applicable to appeals from original decrees.

Number of CNG stations were established by CNG licence holders in their premises without seeking help of Pakistan State Oil (PSO) or any other Oil Marketing Company, therefore, they could pay Sui Southern Gas Pipe Line (SSGPL) the rental charges as determined by Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority (OGRA)

In cases of CNG stations established with permission of PSO dealers in petrol pumps established by those dealers, rules and break-up of rental fee did not apply as with minimum of efforts such CNG license holders had establishing their links in running and establishing? petrol pumps and they could not be equated with such CNG stations which were established in independent premises and they had to start their business at their own without assistance of any other Oil Marketing Company

Arbitrator was to state in award sufficient reasons in sufficient detail under S. 26-A of Arbitration Act, 1940, to enable Court to consider any question of law arising out of award

Where award did not state reasons in sufficient detail, the Court could remit award to arbitrator or umpire fixing time within which arbitrator or umpire was to submit award back with reasons in sufficient detail

Arbitrator jumped to conclusion without providing grounds for such conclusion, therefore, the award was incomplete in all details and declaration of arbitrator that clause in question of the agreement warranted necessary clarification and interpretation and gross percentage mentioned therein or any other percentage for PSO and the dealers respectively was then to be read as ratio of share between PSO and dealers

Arbitrator did not make efforts to associate PSO dealers in arbitration proceedings but determined rights of PSO dealers which was a material irregularity

High Court declared the award by arbitrator liable to be remitted under S. 16 of Arbitration Act, 1940, as indefinite award and not capable of execution

Objection to illegality of award was apparent upon the face of it

High Court directed the arbitrator to reconsider the matter, to provide opportunity of hearing to PSO dealers and also to summon CNG licensee individually and then declare award within three months to be in conformity with all legal formalities including payment of stamp duty under Stamp Act, 1899

Suit was disposed of accordingly.

Arbitrator was final judge of questions of law and fact and that his decision was to be honoured unless it could be explicitly demonstrated that he or she had committed misconduct and the same was established to the satisfaction of the court

Court, while examining validity of award, could not sit as a court of appeal

Court could not reappraise evidence recorded by Arbitrator

Any alleged error or infirmity in award should manifestly appear on the face of the award

Court could not travel beyond the award and make inquiries and investigations in proceedings and documents, which did not form part of the award

In order to construe misconduct on the part of Arbitrator, it was essential that grounds raised with precision and allegations were pleaded clearly, rather being evasive in nature

Objections filed by defendant Authority had no force and the same were dismissed

Award was made Rule of the Court in circumstances.

Contention of the Management was that during the pendency of appeal, Management had closed its business and as such after closure agreement was not required to be executed

Validity

Award given by Labour Court pertained to the period prior to the closure of establishment, therefore Management was bound to pay/allow the benefits of Award till the closure of Establishment

Award given by Labour Court was maintained by Appellate Tribunal.

Collector should tender payment to the persons interested entitled according to award and should pay the same unless prevented by the contingencies

When amount of compensation awarded was not paid or deposited on or before taking possession, then Collector should pay the amount awarded with interest at the rate of 8% from the time of taking possession until same had been so paid or deposited

Person interested who was not satisfied with the amount of compensation was entitled to receive the same under protest and could apply to the Collector to refer the matter to the court

Collector was then to make a statement to the court and court was empowered to fix the compensation which should not exceed the amount so claimed or be less than the amount awarded by the Collector

When the applicant/landowner had omitted to make such claim, the amount awarded to him should not be less than that, and might exceed the amount awarded by the Collector

Collector had to deposit or pay the amount of compensation with the Referee Court.

Third stage occurred when appeals were filed in the High Court.

Trial Court decreed the suit in terms of award announced by arbitrator and the same was maintained by Lower Appellate Court

Validity

Petitioner had knowledge of award dated 9-9-2011, when he filed application for restoration of suit on 21-9-2011 by specifically mentioning that award had been announced against him and thereafter he filed application for amendment in plaint, in which petitioner sought amendment in plaint for challenging award dated 9-9-2011

Both the courts below had rightly observed that objections filed by petitioner on 12-12-2011, were barred under Art.158 of Limitation Act, 1908

High court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction declined to interfere in concurrent judgments and decrees passed by two courts below as the court had not committed any material irregularity

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

In the present case, the Labour Court had rightly refused to make an interim award without hearing other party but on revision, the same was suspended

Subsequently, the Labour Court, contrary to its earlier observations made the interim award and issued direction to implement the same in letter and spirit, which was violation of law

Labour Court was directed by High Court to decide the matter after hearing the parties

Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

-Summary decision made by the Trial Court and upheld by the Appellate Court was violative of the mandatory provisions of law which suffered from material illegality and same was not sustainable in the eyes of law

Impugned judgments of both the courts below were set aside

Matter was remanded for decision afresh.

Objection was repelled.

Law leans in favour of upholding award and not vitiating the same, when a party having submitted to the jurisdiction of arbitration.

Matter was referred to sole arbitrator, with the consent of parties and arbitrator filed award for making the same as rule of the Court

Defendant objected to award on the ground that he was not given opportunity of hearing

Validity

Defendant had fully participated in proceedings and had specifically mentioned in the objections that his averments had duly been incorporated by the Arbitrator in his Award

Having allowed to deal with the matter, defendant was estopped and acquiesced with the matter of objecting to the same on the ground that he was either not heard or not given sufficient opportunity to present his case-High Court found the objections filed by defendant as frivolous and contrary to record

No error was apparent as alleged by defendant calling interference by High Court

Valid award had binding force and such award was to be made rule of the Court

Award was made rule of the Court.

Trial Court made award rule of the court and directed the petitioner to pay penalty and stamp duty on the award at the rate of 3% ad valorem

Contention of petitioner was that no stamp duty was payable on the award as the award had arisen out of a contract executed and performed in Islamabad and payment under the contract was made

Validity

Expression "when such instrument was executed" as mentioned in section 2(6) of Stamp Act, 1899, clearly implied that an instrument was to be stamped according to the time and place where it was executed

Award was made at Lahore, where Art.12 of Sched.I of Stamp Act, 1899, had imposed a stamp duty of 2% ad valorem unlike the rest of the country where a maximum stamp duty of Rs.50 only was to be fixed on the award, regardless of the value of subject-matter

Award was subject to payment of stamp duty but at the rate of Rs.2% ad valorem instead of 3% ad valorem

As the award was made in Lahore, the stamp duty was payable in the treasury of District Collector Lahore and no penalty was payable on award

Revision was disposed of accordingly.

Every award is subject to payment of stamp duty if it is made on a reference otherwise than by an order of court in the course of a suit

Any award pursuant to a reference made by an order of the court in the course of a suit is exempt from payment of stamp duty

Benefit of exemption from payment of stamp duty is available only when reference is made by an order of Court passed in the course of a suit

Such order can be passed by court under S.23 of Arbitration Act, 1940, during pendency of a suit, if the parties to the suit agree and apply to court for reference of their dispute to arbitration

Besides, an order of reference passed under section 20(4) of Arbitration Act, 1940, is also deemed to have been passed in the course of a suit as application under S.20 of Arbitration Act, 1940, is recognized as a suit.

Photocopy was not admissible in evidence.

Arbitration award was challenged on the ground that the decision of the arbitrator had been acted upon and evidence of the parties to that effect had not properly been appreciated

Trial Court dismissed suit of the plaintiff

Appellate Court allowed appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court

Validity

Arbitration award having never been made a rule of court had lost its credence

Disputed property was not partitioned physically as dictated by the award

Arbitration award, photocopy of which was placed on the record did not appear to have been acted upon by the authorities in letter and spirit as well as in true perspective

High Court declined to interfere in revisional jurisdiction.

Grievance of plaintiff was that defendant did not provide him the agreed number of pipes for transportation and due to such short supply, he suffered loss

Matter was referred to sole arbitrator for determination of loss if any and award was filed in court for making the same rule of the court

Defendant filed objections against the award including the plea of misconduct committed by arbitrator

Validity

Court, while examining validity of award could not act as a court of appeal

Court hearing objection to award could not undertake reappraisal of evidence recorded by arbitrator in order to discover error or infirmity in award

Error or infirmity in award which could render award invalid must appear on the face of the award and should be discovered by reading the award itself

Award of charges on account of deficit in transportation of pipes and award of man-month charges at the same time and award of interest without referring to any specific provision of agreement, were errors apparent on the face of award

High Court modified the award to the extent that plaintiff was only entitled to claim on account of extra man-months from 1-2-1996 to 30-6-1996, as there was no evidence on record that after June 1996, arrangements were there for transportation of pipes and plaintiff himself admitted that he did not transport pipes in August 1996

High Court reduced the amount of award and directed defendant to pay the same with, markup to plaintiff, within two months

Objections raised by defendant against award were rejected

Award was made rule of the Court.

Office-bearers of the petitioner assailed the award before Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court but remained unsuccessful

Later on decree making award rule of the Court was sought to be set aside under S.12(2), C.P.C. by the same office-bearers in the name of petitioner, which application was dismissed by Trial Court and the order was maintained by Lower Appellate Court

Plea raised by petitioner was that it was a necessary party but was not made party during arbitration proceedings

Validity

Issue with regard to non-joinder of necessary party had already been decided by the Courts below and therefore, petitioner was not an aggrieved party and had no locus standi to file revision petition

Petitioner was unable to point out any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by Lower Appellate Court

High Court declined to interfere in the order passed by Lower Appellate Court

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

Court, while examining validity of award, cannot undertake reappraisal of evidence recorded by Arbitrator in order to discover error or infirmity in award

Error or infirmity in award must appear on the face of the award and should be discovered by reading the award itself

When dispute is referred to Arbitrator it becomes duty of court to give every reasonable intendment in favour of award and lean towards holding same rather than vitiating it.

Arbitrator filed award in the court and plaintiff objected to the same on the ground that it was manoeuvred document, passed ex parte and submissions of plaintiff were not considered

Validity

Arbitrator was Judge of all matters arising in dispute and it was not proper for the court to proceed to scrutinize the award in order only to discover error for the purpose of setting aside the same

Plaintiff failed' to point out any perversity or illegality in award and had also failed to establish any misconduct on the part of Arbitrator

Arbitrator based his findings in view of terms of agreement of licence executed between parties

While directing plaintiff to vacate premises, Arbitrator did not commit any error and there was no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the award

Objections filed by plaintiff were set aside

Award was made rule of the court.

Contractor was not only embroiled in uncalled for litigation by the department but was also deprived of his earned money for period as far back as year 1986

Contractor was constrained to file Constitutional petition where a former Inspector General of Police was appointed arbitrator with the concurrence of the parties who gave sufficient time to make the payment of amount to the contractor

Contractor was deprived of all his due amount for a period extending over more than a decade

Appeal against the rule of Court was dismissed by High Court

Validity

Department failed to point out any illegality in the judgment passed by the High Court as cogent reasons had been given while dismissing the appeal

Leave to appeal was refused.

Said two mutations did not reveal whether they were about built-up land or in shape of plots or these documents were about commercial or residential area

Evidence produced by the petitioner was not worthwhile to support his claim

Referee Court had rightly dismissed the reference there being no illegality or infirmity in judgment appeal was dismissed.

Appellants filed objection petition for cancellation of award and filed application that the award may be made rule of Court

Both the applications were decided by consolidated issues

Trial Court dismissed the objection petition and made the award as rule of the Court

Validity

Arbitrator had not asked the parties to file written claims to confine them

Evidence was not recorded and documents produced were not annexed with the award

No reason was recorded

Arbitrator had transgressed his limits and by accepting to act as special attorney had lost his neutrality

Judgment and decree of trial Court was set aside and award was declared to have been made without lawful authority.

­ Appellant's contention was that they had filed reference before the Collector within time on 9-4-2001, whereas according to the respondents it was time-barred when it was presented before the Referee Judge on 13-4-2001

Such controversy would bring the case in the area, which required the investigation, for which evidence was required to be recorded

Valuable rights of the parties were involved in the case and it was not proper to rush through the whole affair, therefore, the Trial Court should have provided reasonable opportunity to the parties to establish their respective pleas regarding the question

If the impugned order and the Reference were put in juxtaposition in the present case, the question of limitation could not be decided without framing the issue qua the limitation as the controversy could not be resolved in view of the facts of the case

Referee Judge had failed to consider such aspect of the case

Court, in view of the contents of the plaint and circumstances, could not reach to a definite conclusion that the suit/Reference was barred by law of limitation

Impugned order/judgment, therefore, was not in accordance with law as the plaint/Reference could not be rejected as was done by the Trial Court

­ High Court, while accepting the appeal, set aside the impugned order/judgment and remanded the suit Reference to the Trial Court for fresh decision

Referee Court was directed to frame all the issues including the issue of limitation, record the evidence on all the issues and then decide the whole suit in accordance with law.

Company incorporated under the law of China having its office in China and a company incorporated in Pakistan entered into a contract whereby plaintiff (the Chinese Company) agreed to sell and respondent (Pakistan Company) agreed to purchase machinery/ equipment, know-how and design as per terms and conditions of the contract

Article of the said contract provided for arbitration in China in English to be conducted by China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission in accordance with the letter, rules, and procedure in case of any or all disputes arising from the execution of or in connection with the said contract with the provision that (he arbitration of the Commission would be final and binding upon both the parties

Necessary notification as required under S.2(b)(c) of the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act, 1937 was never issued by the Federal Government in respect of China, so the award could not be treated as foreign award

Such award, though not being foreign award or domestic award was not enforceable in Pakistan in the manner as an award was to be enforced under the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act, 1937 or under Arbitration Act, 1940, yet it could be enforced the way the awards made by the foreign Arbitrators were being enforced before coming in force of the said Acts

Contract having been signed in Pakistan and defendants residing in Pakistan and carrying on business here, the plaintiff could enforce the award by filing suit in Pakistan

Present suit, though was under a special law, but substantially it was a suit for enforcement of an award and for recovery of the claim awarded in the arbitration proceedings

Plaintiff, could not be non-suited for technical reasons that the award could not be enforced under the provisions of Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act, 1937 and Arbitration Act, 1940; it would be proper to treat the same as a regular suit exercising powers under S.151, C.P.C.

Such an order was not barred by any provision of law

High Court, therefore, treated the suit of the plaintiff as regular suit for enforcement of the award

Court had the powers even to convert the proceedings of one kind to the proceedings of other kind when necessary for doing justice between the parties.

Arbitrator, after passing the award, is required to file the award in the Court within the meaning of S.14, Arbitration Act, 1940 and then further proceedings would be conducted by the Court under the other provisions of Chap.II of the Arbitration Act, 1940.

No suit lies for setting aside amending or modifying award.

One of the clauses of the sale agreement had mentioned in clear terms that plant and machinery or the land, building and structures of old plant would not be subject of sale and the area of old plant would remain cordoned off by a boundary wall

Another clause of the sale agreement provided that buyer 'would be responsible for payment/discharge of all liabilities including that of old plant

Petitioner sought setting aside of award on the ground that the award was made in violation of the sale agreement between the parties and no sufficient reasons had been given in support of the award

Role of the Courts under Arbitration Act, 1940, principally is of supervisory nature and not that of appellate power under C.P.C.

Award may be modified or corrected when it-falls within the scope of S.15 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and it can be set aside, if it is governed by S.30 of the said Act but there is no provision for review in the Act.

Rationale behind not imposing stamp duty oil such award is that arbitrators perform the functions entrusted to them under supervision of the Court

Arbitrators are paid their fee separately, which is paid by contesting parties, who are not obliged to pay stamp duty

Additional liability on parties to pay stamp duty, under such circumstances, would not be justified.

Plaintiff, on the basis of such fact filed a suit for setting aside of the decree passed by Civil Court whereby the award subject-matter of the suit was made rule of the Court

Trial Court while relying on the evidence on record decreed the suit and set aside the award

Judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court was maintained by the Appellate Court

Contention of the defendant in revision before High Court was that the award could not be set aside by filing a suit

Validity

At the time when the suit was filed, provisions of S.12(2), C.P.C. had not come into force, the only remedy open to the plaintiff was the suit which he did file and was decided by the Courts below

High Court rejected the contention of the defendant and refused to interfere with the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below.

Land acquired for public purposes-Finding of Collector in matter of Award that fruit-bearing trees were planted after notification under S.4 of Act (I of 1894) and there being overwhelming evidence to show that said trees were planted after notification and in rebuttal petitioners' evidence being insignificant and doubtful, Supreme Court upheld concurrent findings of two Courts below and refused leave to appeal.

Industrial Establishment discontinuing their business and selling out their plant and business to another Industrial Establishment

Industrial Court on finding that Employees' Union had entered into an agreement with previous establishment Corporation whereunder all workmen in the establishment accepted voluntarily termination of employment and benefits for such termination, dismissing the industrial dispute the demands of employees

Finding of fact recorded by High Court that the employees having submitted to the termination of their services and having accepted compensation and all the consequential benefits and having accepted appointments (with the Management of successor establishment) could not resurrect their past service for any purpose whatsoever so as to bridge the gap or to establish a link and continuity

Award, setting aside of—Where Arbitrator made mistake, either of law or fact in determining matter referred, but such mistake did not appear on face of award, such award,' held, would be considered good notwithstanding fact of mistake and would not be remitted or set aside-Error of law on face of award, means that error which one can find in the award or an erroneous legal proposition forming basis of such award.

Duty of Court to give every reasonable intendment in favour of award and lean towards upholding rather than 'vitiating same

Arbitrator Judge of all matters arising in dispute whether of facts or law

Court not to act as a Court of appeal sitting in judgment over award and not to proceed to scrutinize award in order only to discover an error for purpose of setting it aside

Error must be apparent on face of award and not latent

Award not found to be suffering from any patent infirmity

Held, could not be remitted or set aside.