Find a Lawyer

NASIM AHMED VANA versus SHAMIM AHMED VANA

ection Section 34 (4) r Arbitration Agreement by Schedule of Time Extension - The rule bit by which the arbitration agreement can be referred to is referred to by arbitration by section 34 (4) of the Arbitration Act 1940. Considered legitimate. The clarification can only be extended if the court is of the opinion that in certain circumstances of the case the parties will face unlawful difficulties due to the expiration of time. [P 510] A

P L D 2017 Sindh 497 

Before Syed Saeeduddin Nasir, J

NASIM AHMED VANA and others—Plaintiffs

versus

SHAMIM AHMED VANA and others—Defendants

Suit Nos. 576, 577, 578, 579, 208, 580 of 2012 and 1439 of 2013, decided on 19th December, 2016.

(a) Arbitration Act (X of 1940)—

—S. 34(4)—Arbitration agreement—Fixed by time—Extension of time—Principle—Arbitration agreement fixing time during which reference may be made to arbitration is impliedly considered valid by S.34(4) of Arbitration Act, 1940—Court is vested with discretion to extend such time only in case if Court is of the opinion that in particular circumstances of the case undue hardship would otherwise be caused to parties due to expiration of time. [p. 510] A

Jam Khursheed Khan v. The Province of West Pakistan PLD 1973 Lah. 131 rel.

(b) Arbitration Act (X of 1940)—

—Chap. II, Ss. 3 to 19 & Chap. Ill, S.20—Reference to arbitration— Principle—Bar exists on invoking provisions of S. 20 (Chap. Ill) of the Arbitration Act, 1940, when parties to arbitration agreement have invoked provisions of Chap. II (Ss. 3 to 19) of Arbitration Act, 1940. [p. 512] B

(c) Arbitration Act (X of 1940)—-

—Ss. 3 to 20 & 37(4)—Arbitration—Agreement fixed by time---Plaintiffs contended that parties had arbitration agreement between them and the matter be sent to arbitrator for decision—Validity— Agreement fixing time during which reference could be made to arbitration was impliedly considered valid by S.37(4) of Arbitration Act, 1940, which vested Court power to extend such time when it was of the view that some undue hardship was likely to be caused to parties by not extending same—Where agreement itself could not be acted upon having become inoperative due to invalidity, the Court was not entitled to appoint arbitrator of its own choice and substitute original agreement of parties—High Court declined to extend validity of arbitration agreement under S.37(4) of Arbitration Act, 1940, as circumstances did not warrant to do so nor any undue hardship would be caused to parties to arbitration agreement, who were pursuing their remedies in parallel legal proceedings which were more effective and expeditious—Suit was dismissed in circumstances, [pp. 514, 515] C & D

Safullah Khan v. Karachi Customs Agents Association 2011 YLR 202; Communication and Works Department v. Pavital/Pivato Joint Venture 2002 CLC 1798; Trading Corporation of Pakistan v. Nidera Handelscompagnic B.V. 3001 UC 474; Qamaruddin Ahmed and Co. v. Din Muhammad 1970 SCMR 402; Abdul Salam v. Muhammad Yaqoob 1999 CLC 1005; Sharbat Khan v. Fazal Rahim 1998 SCMR 867; General (Retd.) Pervez Musharraf through Attorney v. Pakistan through Secretary Interior and others PLD 2014 Sindh 389; Federation of Pakistan through Secretary M/O Interior v. General (R) Pervez Musharraf and others PLD 2016 SC 570; Pakistan International Bulk Terminal Limited through Chief Finance Officer and others v. Maqbool Associates (Pvt) Limited through M.D. and others 2014 CLD 773; West Pakistan Government v. Messrs Pindi-Jhelum Valley Transport Limited Rawalpindi and others PLD 1960 SC (Pak) 88; M/s. Commodities Trading International Corporation v. Trading Corporation of Pakistan Limited and another 1987 CLC 2063; Ganesh Chandra Dey and another

v. Kamal Kumar Agarwalla AIR 1971 Calcutta 371; Nelofar Saqib v. Saiban Builders and Developers and others 2011 CLD 341; Mrs. Yasmeen v. M/s. Beach Developers through M.D. and another 2003 YLR 1109 and 1985 MLD 402 ref.

Mujtaba Hussain Siddiqui v. Sultan Ahmed 2005 YLR 2709; M/s. Hafiz Abdul Aziz Cotton Ginning Factory v. Ali Muhammad Abdullah and Co. and another PLD 1966 Kar. 197 and Jam Khursheed Khan v. The Province of West Pakistan PLD 1973 Lah. 131 rel.

Khawaja Shams-uMslam and Abdul Sattar Pirzada for Plaintiffs.

Muhammad Ali Lakhani for Defendants Nos. 1 and 2.

Ishrat Zahid Alvi for Defendant No.3.

Date of hearing: 25th November, 2016.

top advocate from Dhoun Kal lawyer