MALIK SARDAR MUHAMMAD QASIM versus MALIK HAJI ABDUL GHAFFAR
Arbitration 13, 17, 32 and 39 of the Special Relief Act (of 1877), Articles 12, 42 and 54 for the performance of the arbitration agreement, the parties agreeing that the parties submit their disputes to the panel of arbitrators. So they can decide. The terms of the judicial agreement show that if either party fails to comply with the arbitrators' decision, the said party is sued after paying only Rs. 500,000 (Rs. 500,000) to the party. Running can be allowed because the penal arbitrators inspected the question, both sides heard, gathered the necessary information from the general public and then, through their decision or award, instructed the defendant to use his four grinding machines Remove from the site related to the claimant within a week, both sides accepted the arbitrators' decision. The parties, the defendants, were also withdrawn from signing the judgment in the presence of witnesses, together with the arbitrators, after withdrawing from the said case, not only failed to remove its four grinding machines, but also accepted the arbitration award. Also denied, the plaintiff, before reaching the parties to the performance of the contract before the Magistrate's Council, said the suit was. The order and the defendant were permanently barred from interfering with the ground in the dispute and the defendant was also directed to remove the four grinding machines from the disposal site. The appeal was filed on two grounds. The first suit filed by the plaintiff was not retained against the arbitration agreement or award. Secondly, the suit cost Rs 60,000 for specific performance but the plaintiff saw
Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2012
