Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
J. Miscellaneous No. 67 of 1975, decided on 12th December 1975.
-- S. 28-Enlargement of time to make award-Contention that subject-matter of arbitration being Rs. 42,123.68-Karachi High Court had concurrent jurisdiction with Court of Civil Judge ; hence application to High Court was not maintainable and must be filed in Court of lowest grade-Held, not correct-Karachi High Court, held,. possesses jurisdiction in respect of matters valued between Rs. 25,000 and Rs. 50,000.
-- Bye-law No. 39-1(k)-Contention that time for making award having expired umpire ought to have entered on reference under Bye-Law No. 39-1(k)-Held, misconceived-Award-Cannot be made until respondent served with notice to appear before arbit rator.
Nafisuddin for Plaintiff.
Abdus Samad for Defendant.
Mr. Samad opposes this application for grant of time to the Arbitrator t make his award. The first objection is that the subject-matter of the Arbitration, alleged by the applicant is Rs. 42,123.68 and that as this Court has co-current jurisdiction with the Court of the Civil Judge, the application to the High Court is not maintainable as it must be filed in the Court of the lowest grade competent to try it, under section 15, C. P. C. namely in the Court of the Civil Judge. The view which has prevailed in this Court is that this Court has jurisdiction in respect of matters in which the subject-matter is valued at between Rs. 25,000 and Rs. 50,000. Therefore, this submission in my opinion has no force.
The next objection of Mr. Samad is that under Bye-Law No. 39-1(b) of the Bye-Laws of the Karachi Cotton Association Limited, if the time has already expired for making the award, the Umpire should have entered on the reference. This contention also in my opinion is misconceived and has no force. An award cannot be made until the respondent has been served with the notice to appear before the Arbitrators.
No case has been made out of any negligence or slackness on the part of the Arbitration. On the contrary, their plea is that the respondent is trying. to frustrate the arbitration by avoiding service.
The application is allowed as prayed.
S.A.H Application allowed
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer