Find a Lawyer

HANOVER CONTRACTORS versus PAKISTAN DEFENCE OFFICERS HOUSING AUTHORITY

The terms of the Arbitration Act, 1940, Articles 33 and 34 of the Arbitration Agreement set forth in the contract before the Civil Court were settled by the plaintiff plaintiff and the dispute arose between the parties regarding the contract of construction. The consultant was found to have been settled between the parties to the agreement, the adviser ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, which was not mentioned in time. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit to recover his money and filed an application under section 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, while the defendants sought to keep proceedings under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, and the agreement referred to Wanted to present the arbitration clause, the defendants also included the condition of the first reference to the claim by the accused. And it was agreed to finalize the decision if it was not challenged within one of the 28-day effect where the pre-condition of the arbitration clause existed, the same was binding on the parties to these terms. It was not allowed to go and refuse what was relied upon and the High Court refused. In the circumstances, the two applications filed by the two parties were dismissed for permission to seek arbitration. property advocate from Sihala lawyer