Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. K‑108 of 1969, decided on 14th January 1970.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, dated the 18th June 1969, in L. P . A. No. 33 of 1962).

S. 33‑Award‑Arbitrator supply ing duplicate copies of award to both parties and himself available to file original‑Case not one where award cannot be filed in Court Validity of award, held, could be challenged even though original award not filed in Court in circumstances.

S. M. Sohail, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by K. A. Ghani, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Dates of hearing : 13th and 14th January 1970.

The petitioner and the former State of Khairpur, the predecessor‑in‑interest of respondent No. 1 entered into an agreement for the construction of Power House' at Gambat. There arose between the parties dispute regarding this contract which was referred to the Arbitration of Sardar Muhammad Aslam, respondent No. 2. The learned Arbitrator made his award and sent the same, in duplicate, to each of the two contesting parties by registered post in the first week of November 1957.

In April 1959, the Government of West Pakistan, respondent No. 1, filed an application under sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act in the Court of District Judge, Khairpur Mir for setting aside the said award. Along with the application, they also filed a copy of the award. This case was registered as Miscellaneous Application No. 17 of 1959: The learned District Judge held that an application for setting aside the award without the award being filed in Court, is not maintainable and dismissed the application by order dated the 18th April 1960. Respondent No. 1 challenged this order in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 46 of 1960, which was allowed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court on the 1st March 1962. The learned Single Judge held that an application under section 33 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award was maintainable even when the award was not filed in the Court. The matter was then taken in Letters Patent Appeal No. 33 of 1962 which was disposed of by judgment dated the 18th June 1969. The Letters Patent Bench upheld the judgment given by the learned Single Judge. The petitioner seeks permission to file an appeal against the said order.

In support of the petition, Mr. S. M. Suhail, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the view of the High Court that the award could be set aside under section 33 of the Arbitration Act without the award being filed in Court is not bayed on proper appreciation of the law on the point in question. It is unnecessary for us to decide this question because admittedly, in the present case, respondent No. 1 has filed a copy of the award and, therefore, the question whether the award could be set aside without filing the original award is purely an academic one. The provisions of the Arbitration Act are for advancement of justice. It is admitted by the petitioner that a copy of the award was also supplied to him by the Arbitrator. He can, therefore, easily file a duplicate copy before the Court for consideration of the objections raised on behalf of respondent No. 1. Moreover, even if he is not in position to produce the duplicate copy of the award, he can ask respondent No. 1 to produce the duplicate copy of the award supplied to him. In any case, respondent No. 2 can be called upon to file the award in Court. It is, therefore, not one of those cases in which award cannot be filed in Court. We, therefore, do not consider it as fit case for interference by this Court. The petition is dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.