INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE and others vs Dr. AFTAB AHMAD
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed an appeal against a decree making an arbitration award the rule of the court. The dispute arose from the non-payment of consultancy fees and software development costs owed to the respondent by the Punjab Police department for a project initiated in 1982. Following prolonged litigation and the filing of a constitutional petition, the parties mutually agreed to refer the dispute to an arbitrator, who subsequently issued an award. The petitioners challenged the inclusion of mark-up charges in the award, despite having failed to make timely payments for nearly two decades. The Supreme Court found that the respondent had been unfairly deprived of his earned remuneration for over a decade and forced into unnecessary litigation. Consequently, the Court held that the impugned judgment was legally sound, finding no merit in the petitioners' challenge. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower court's decision to uphold the arbitration award.
- Whether an arbitration award made the rule of the court can be challenged on the basis of mark-up charges when the underlying payment was significantly delayed?
- Does a party have the right to challenge an arbitration award after having previously agreed to the appointment of the arbitrator and the terms of the award?
ORDER
' TANVIR AHMAD KHAN, J.--- Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment, dated 19-1-2000 whereby the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dismissed F.A.O. No,274 of 1995 filed by the petitioner.
2. Facts briefly are that the respondent undertook a work order to prepare feasibility report and software for the project of conversion of Punjab Police Management Control and Information System into computerized network and settings up a computer centre at Lahore vide Circular No,5410/C-IV dated 27-7-1982 issued by petitioner No,
1. A dispute arose between the parties after the completion of work qua the payment to be made for the work undertaken by the respondent.
Accordingly the respondent was constrained by the circumstances to file Constitutional petition bearing W.P. No,17071 of 1993 seeking direction for the payment of his consultancy fee and preparation of software etc. However, during the pendency of the proceedings before the Lahore High Court both the parties agreed to refer the matter to an Arbitrator. Ultimately an arbitration agreement was executed between the parties on 27-9-1994 whereby both the parties agreed to accept the appointment of Al-Haj Habib-ur-Rehman, former Inspector-General of Police as an Arbitrator. The matter was taken up by the Arbitrator who gave his award detailing out each and every item on 29-11-1994. It was stated by the Arbitrator as under:-- "In case the full payment of the award of Rs,4,00,000 is made by the Inspector-General of Police before the day of thirty-first January, 1995, the petitioner would not be entitled to any mark-up."
3. The award was made rule of the Court through judgment dated 28-5-1995. The petitioners filed F.A.O. No,274 of 1995 which has been dismissed through the impugned judgment. Hence this petition.
4. It has been argued by the learned counsel that the decretal amount had already been paid on 28-3-1995. He has only taken exception to the charge of mark-up. We have considered the contentions and have gone through the documents appended with this petition.
5. It is reflected from the perusal thereof that the work was completed as far back as 17/18 years ago. The recommendation for the payment of amount of Rs,4,95,000 were made to the respondent as far back as in the year 1985. Through memo. Dated 20-3-1985. The Home Department conveyed the sanction of the Governor of the Punjab providing lump sum amount of Rs,20,00,000 for the said project. There was further sanction of Rs,20,000 through memo. Dated 8-10-1986. The total sanctioned amount granted to the petitioner was Rs,37.20 lacs. In spite of all this the recommended amount was not paid to the respondent who was made to run from pillar to post.
He was not only embroiled in the uncalled for litigation by the petitioner department but was also deprived of his .Earned money for all this period. He was constrained to file the Constitutional petition bearing W.P. No,17071 of 1993 where a former Inspector-General of Police was appointed Arbitrator with the concurrence of the parties who gave sufficient time to make the payment of amount to the respondent. The respondent was deprived of all his due amount for a period extending over more than a decade.
6. The learned counsel has not been able to point out any illegality in the impugned judgment. The learned Single Judge while dismissing the impugned F.A.O. Has given cogent reasons.
7. This petition has therefore, no merit and is accordingly dismissed. Leave refused.