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.
Suit No. 672 of 1976, decided on 27th October, 1980.
---------S. 33 read with S. 30‑Objections to award‑Grounds of‑Plaintiff granted contract for construction of some work by Port Trust basing his claim for escalation on certain Government instructions and memo randa‑Question of applicability of such Government instructions and memoranda to plaintiff, held, altogether distinct from question of reasonableness of rates and within scope of arbitration clause in instant case.‑.[Award].
Thawardas Pherumal v. Union of India A I R 1955 S C 468; Muhammad Fazil Muhammad Azam & Co. v. Messrs N. A. Industries P L D 1977 Kar. 21 Jaffar Brothers Ltd. v. Pakistan P L D 1978 Kar. 585; Davis Contractor v. Farshan Urban District Council (1956) 2 A E R 145; Abdul Mannan v. Province of N.‑W. F. P. P L D 1973 S C 577; WPIDC v. Aziz Qureshi 1973 S C M R 555; Russel on Arbitration, 17th Edn., p. 48 and Ghulam Jillani v. Muhammad Hasan 29 1 A 51 ref.
Co‑operative Development and Marketing Union Ltd. v. Ganesh Sugar Mils Ltd. A I R 1956 All. 601; Javantilal Keshavlal Dave v. Surandra Gangsa Johrapurkar A I R 1956 Nag. 245 and Alpol Prasad & Sons Ltd. v. Union of India A I R 1960 S C 588 distinguished.
------S. 33 read with S. 30‑Obiections to award‑Grounds of‑Govern ment instructions and memoranda not forming part of agreement --Contract a fixed rate contract without escalation clause but subject to Government approval‑Government issuing instructions regarding payment of additional amounts on account of escalation‑Plaintiff claiming that Government instructions and memoranda entitled him to additional payment for work done under contract‑Held such Government instructions and memoranda "relevant documents" relating to work done under contract and their interpretation and applicability within condition of contract‑Arbitrator, held further, authorised to decide whether such instructions and memoranda "relevant documents or not".‑[Award].
Ruseel on Arbitration, 17th Edn., p. 48 ref:
----S. 33 read with S. 30‑Objections to award‑Grounds of‑Award non -speaking and silent on legal issues‑Held, not necessary for arbitrator to give separate reasons or findings on each issue and arbitrator presumed to have rejected legal and preliminary objections in ‑_‑circumstances.‑[Award].
Trading Corporation of Pakistan Ltd. v. Aslam Saeed & Co. P L D 1973 Kar. 65 and Abdul Halim v. Faizurnnissa Bibi P L D 1969 Dacca 670 ref.
---------S. 33 read with S. 30‑Objections to award‑Grounds of‑Award non‑speaking‑‑No reasons given by arbitrator in. his award‑Held, at erroneous decision in law does not make award bad on its face unless from award itself it can be determined or found that some legal proposition (being the basis of award) is erroneous.‑[Award].
Alopi Prasad & Sons Ltd. v. Union of India A I R 1960 S C 588 ref.
------S. 33 read with S. 30‑‑Objections to award‑‑‑Grounds of‑Award merely referring to evidence or documents‑Held, such evidence or documents do no form part of award and a party cannot refer to them and point out inadequacies therein as ground of objections‑ Held further, unless evidence led by parties or documents produced before arbitrator set out and discussed in award, Court would not consider evidence or documents for purpose of challenging award. [Award].
Sideman Haji Muhammad & Co. v. State Bank of Pakistan P L 'I) 1960 Kar. 78 rel;
Alopi Prasad & Sons Ltd. v. Union of India A I R 1960 S C 588; Bijoy Singh v. Bilasroy do Co. A I R 1952 Cal. 440 and Champsey Bhara & Co. v. The Jivraj Balloo Spinning & Weaving Co. Ltd. A I R 1923 P C 66 distinguished.
Shah Jamil Alam and Iqbal Siddiqi for Plaintiff.
Abbas Ahmed for Qamarul Islam Abbas for Defendants.
Dates of hearing : 13th and 15th October, 1980.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer