PAKISTAN TELEVISION CORPQRATION LIMITED versus INTERCONSTRUCT (PVT.) LIMITED THROUGH MANAGING DIRECTOR, PESHAWAR
The application of the objections filed by the appellant for awarding the principles of section 14 (2), 20, 33 and 39 was dismissed primarily on the basis of the limitations and non-compliance of section 33 of the Arbitration Act 1940 No directive was issued under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, for the submission or submission of security money was given to the appellant as the money is with the bank. Further awards were not examined by the court itself and the court also discussed these findings. Failed to do. The transfer, shallow and short-sighted view of the award by the arbitrator was not valid. Under the law, the court had to carefully consider every aspect of the award, even if the evidence listed by the arbitrator was appropriate by it. Appreciated and discussed in style. According to the law; whether it was in accordance with the terms of the award reference or not, the court did not have to seal the certification by making it the same principle of the court. The court had to review the evidence recorded by the arbitrator, considering the results. Read. By mediation and it was not required to act mechanically like a forwarding agency, while examining an award, the role of the court should be to be an active counselor rather than a non-controversial counselor trial court, in the present case, Failed to use 's jurisdiction. The High Court determined that the decision of the law and the trial court's order was accompanied by the observation that the objections of the appellant would be considered pending before the trial court and the court would be bound by the same decision on merit. A proper rule
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2010
