Find a Lawyer

PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB THROUGH SECRETARY GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATION AND WORKS DEPARTMENT, LAHORE AND A versus CH. QAISER MAHMOOD

Sections 14 (1) and (2) of the respondents, a contractor, had a dispute with the Provincial Building Division / Executive Engineer / Applicants were asked to dispute the agreement given to them by the Defendants to intervene with the court. ? The award was filed in court and the case for the objection was postponed for the next day, statements of the Assistant District Attorney and Section DO, Building Division, were recorded with the impression that the applicant did not wish to file objections to the award. So an order was passed in favor of it. The respondent's decree was challenged that the ADA and the section DA did not have the authority to record the statement from the applicants as the result of the appeal was filed by the section DO and ADA applicants. Were appearing before the due date, recording the statement in respect of the award was a misunderstanding because before the data there was a section DOADA before the court and the matter which was referred to arbitration was the present case. I was incompatible with the record, there was no notification, legal instruments or other legal basis from which it was known It may be that the Section DA or ADA has the general authority to act on behalf of the applicants. And in the post award proceedings, the suit did not have the requisite authority to make a concession statement like the one in ADA and section DO, and as a result, their statements could not bind applicants. Arbitrators were not available under Section 14 (1) of the Arbitration Act, 1940, nor could the applicant file an award through a trial court. ask a advocate free from Ambela lawyer