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 No. 962 of 1979, decided on 24th February, 1985.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore. High Court, Lahore, dated 3‑10‑1979 in Civil Revision No. 1109 of 197).
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Arbitration Act (X of 1940), S. 17‑‑Award made rule of Court‑‑Plea that Arbitrator had misconducted himself not sustained as no case of misconduct was made out‑‑Award, held, not liable to interference by Court‑‑No question of law requiring further consideration being involved, leave to appeal refused.
Gulzar Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ijaz Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
M. A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 24th February, 1985.
A dispute between the parties with regard to the payments outstanding against each other was referred to arbitration and in terms of the award the respondent was granted a decree for a sum of Rs.20,964.45. The petitioner wanted to avoid it but the Senior Civil Judge made the award the rule of the Court rejecting all the objections filed by the petitioner. Its appeal failed before the District Judge and finally the revision in the High Court.
The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the claim of the respondent which was accepted by the arbitrator was barred by time, that he was estopped from making a claim of that amount and that he was not entitled to it.
The only question in issue between the parties was "whether the arbitrator has misconducted himself". All the Courts dealing with the question have on the factual and legal plane found out concurrently that no case of misconduct was made out. What was established during the proceedings was only a typographical error which was corrected by the Courts. In other respects, the award was found not liable to interference by the Court. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner do not make out to be a case of misconduct such as may vitiate the award itself. No question of law arises in the petition which may require further examination in this Court. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused.
M.I. Leave refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer