Find a Lawyer

S.G. RAYON MILLS (PVT.) LIMITED versus FIDA HUSSAIN & ASSOCIATES

Putting aside the provisions of Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, the jurisdiction of the court to hold a second view of the material on the record where all the matters settled by them in connection with the dispute between the parties are referred to by a single arbitrator. The discoveries were good. In arguing that, based on the material available on the record and not finding any error and facts in the law, the High Court refused to disagree with the findings or take a second view of the matter, which was not lawful. , Could not make a second theory. To be taken because the High Court was not hearing the appeal against the award, if the award was examined by applying the yard stock of the appeal, the very purpose of referring the matter to the arbitrator would be disappointing. Some technical flaws or weaknesses in the award did not do so. In the present case the unacceptable award, which was based on the definition of law and facts, did not face any unlawful interference or weakness. Inspired by the High Court and made him the ruler of the court under the circumstances advocates from Kasur lawyer