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.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.255 of 1975, decided on 25th October, 1980.
(On appeal against the judgment and order dated 19-12-1974 passed by the Lahore High court in Civil Revision No.52 of 1974/BWP).
Arbitration Act (X of 1940)‑
Ss. 16 & 30‑Award, setting aside of‑Reasons given for award by arbitrator‑Decision must be based upon evidence produced before him and law applicable thereto‑Arbitrator having not done so, award, held, liable to be set aside‑[Award].
M. M. Saeed Baig, Advocate Supreme Court, instructed by Sh. Ijaz Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
S. M. Zamir Zaidi, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 25th October 1980.
MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN, J
.‑A dispute having been arisen between the parties relating to the execution of a contract entered into by them, Sufi Habib Ullah applied under sections 8 and 20 of the Arbitration Act in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Bahawalpur for referring the two points to arbitration. The Arbitrator gave his Award on 18‑11‑1965 and filed the same in Court. The respondents filed objections which were rejected on 20‑5‑1966 and a decree in terms of the Award was duly passed. An a0peal was dismissed by the District Judge, Bahawalpur on 12‑6‑1967. A revision petition filed by the respondent was accepted on 19‑12‑1974 by the Lahore High Court. The judgments and decrees of the lower Courts were set aside and a direction was issued to the trial Court to appoint an Arbitrator to adjudicate on the reference in accordance with the law. Hence this petition.
2. The submission made before us is based upon the Award itself. The High Court, after an elaborate judgment, has held that "the Award being laconic and totally silent as to the basis or reason thereof, could not have been, in the circumstances, legally given effect to". It has been stated before us that the Arbitrator was under no obligation to have given reasons for the Award that he had made. We find that in paragraph 3 of the petition the operative part of the Award, .has been reproduced by the petitioner. The mere fact that this is an operative part shows there must be another part of the Award in which reasons must have been given. If the Arbitrator was not to give reasons the observations of the High Court would probably not have been correct. But since reasons have been given they have to be based upon the evidence produced before him and the law applicable to it and if the Arbitrator has not done so, the Award is certainly liable to be set aside and that is what the High Court has done.
3. This petition is, therefore, dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer