Find a Lawyer

Suit No. 325 of 1980, decided on 30th October, 1983.

-- S. 14 (2) Award of a sole arbitrator filed in Court by plaintiff's counsel Court expressly ordered notice to be issued to defendant only Plaintiff neither claiming notice of tiling of award in Court nor raising any objection thereto Both parties appearing in Court through their counsel on adjourned dates of hearing Contention that since notice of filing of award was not served on plaintiff, time for filing objections had not yet started against him, held, had no force--Plaintiff was represented through counsel throughout proceedings No notice of filing of award was required to be served on him in circumstances Parties not filing objection to award No illegality on face of award appearing Award made rule of Court in circum stances.

Nasim Farooqui for Plaintiffs.

S. Inayat All for Respondent.

Dates of hearing: 27th September and 3rd October, 1983.

This suit under section 14 (2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 is filed for making the award, dated 18th November, 1972 given by the sole arbit rator in a dispute between the parties as rule of the Court.

The award was presented in the Court on 25th February, 1980 by the Advocate for the plaintiff with a request that the same may be filed in the Court. The office raised an objection on the application of the plaintiff that the award is under stamped. The office objections were latter referred to the Court and a learned Single Judge before whom the matter was fixed passed the following order:

"Mr. Arif Hussain, for Mr. K.A. Ghani, Advocate for plaintiff.

Mr. Arif Hussain states that the objections to the award not being properly stamped may be heard at the time of hearing. Second objection that relevant document, if any, has not been filed concerns the arbitrator. Let the matter be registered and notice to the defendant be issued.

(Sd.)

.

Judge"

Thereafter notices were issued to the defendant and when the matter came up before the Court on 8th September, 1982 the Advocate appearing for plaintiff stated that the plaintiff had taken away the brief from him as he wanted to engage some other Advocate. The plaintiff's representative who was present in the Court confirmed the statement made by the counsel for the plaintiff and the learned Judge accordingly allowed the plaintiff's counsel to withdraw from the case and the plaintiff was allowed time to engage some other counsel. The Court specifically ordered on that date that no notice of the future date of hearing be issued to the plainitiff. Thereafter Mr. N.A. Farooqi, learned counsel for the plaintiff filed his power in Court on 17th October, 1982. On 18th October, 1982 the matter again came up in the Court in presence of a representative of the defen dant and Mr. N.A. Farooqi, for the plaintiff and was adjourned to 2nd November, 1982 at 11 a.m. On 2nd November, 1982 both Mr. Nasim Farooqi and Mr. Syed Inayat All, were present for the plaintiff and defendant respectively and at the request of the latter the case was adjourned to a date in office. Thereafter the case was fixed before me on 13th September, 1983 when I found that none of the parties have filed any objection to the award. However, Mr. Nasim Farooqi, learned counsel for the plaintiff contended before me that the plaintiff has not been serv ed with any notice of the filing of the award in the suit, and therefore, the time prescribed for filing of the objection to the award has not yet started running against the plaintiff. As the plaintiff was represented in the suit throughout by a learned counsel I pointed out to Mr. Nasim Farooqi, that in these circumstances no notice was required to be served on the plaintiff of the filing of award as the order sheet in the suit shows that the plaintiff had the notice of the filing of the award in the case. Mr. Nasim Farooqi, then requested for time to make his submission on the above point and the case finally argued by him on 3rd October, 1983. In support of his conten tion the learned counsel has referred to an unreported judgment in the case of Pheroze Jehangir Dubash v. Dr. Peshotan S. Dobash L. P. A. No. 82 of 1965) decided on 4th September, 1975. In the above-cited case the objections were duly filed by the defendant within 30 days of the receipt of the notice of filing of the award issued by the Court. It was however, contended in that case by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the objections filed by the defendant were time-barred as it was within the knowledge of the counsel of the defendant that the award was filed in Court on 25th May, 1964 while he was present in the case. The Court repelled the above contention, firstly on the ground that such information could not amount to a notice to defendant within the meaning of section 14 (2) of the Arbitration Act read with rule 283 of Original side Rules, and secondly that the Court in spite of the presence of the counsel for the defendant in the case on the date the award was filed in the Court had specifically ordered for issuance of notice to the defendant. The case relied by the learned counsel is quite distinguishable on facts and in my humble opinion has no application to the fact of the present case. In the present case the matter when came up before the Court on 5th April, 1980 in presence of the plaintiff's counsel the learned Single Judge specifically ordered issuance of notice of the filing of the award to the defendant only. The plaintiff neither claimed notice of the filing of award in Court nor raised any objection thereto. On the contrary he continued to appear in the case thereafter both before the Additional Registrar (O.S.) as well as in the Court to persue the matter. In these circumstances in my humble opinion no further notice was required to be served on the plaintiff of the filing of the award in the Court. As the parties have not filed any objection to the award and there appears to be no illegality on the face of the award, I make it the rule of the Court. Decree to follow accordingly.

M. B. A. Award made rule of Court.

***