PROVINCE OF PUNJAB THROUGH COLLECTOR, BAHAWALPUR vs Sufi HABIB
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute regarding the execution of a contract, where the respondent had applied under the Arbitration Act for referring the matter to arbitration. An award was rendered by the arbitrator, and the trial court subsequently passed a decree in terms of the award, which was upheld by the appellate court. However, the Lahore High Court accepted a revision petition, setting aside the lower courts' judgments and directing the trial court to appoint a new arbitrator. The High Court held that the award was laconic and silent as to its basis or reasons, making it legally ineffective. The Supreme Court of Pakistan, in dismissing the petition, observed that while an arbitrator may not generally be obligated to provide reasons, where reasons are indeed given, they must be based upon the evidence produced and the applicable law. If the arbitrator fails to do so, the award is liable to be set aside.
- Whether an arbitration award is liable to be set aside if the reasons provided by the arbitrator are not based upon the evidence produced and the applicable law?
- Can a court set aside an arbitration award on the ground that it is laconic and silent as to its basis or reasons?
- Section 8, Arbitration Act 1940
- Section 20, Arbitration Act 1940
ORDER
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.
Cited by 10 cases
- Gerry's International (Pvt.) Ltd vs Aeroflot Russian International Airlines 2018 SCP 1089
- Gerry's International (Pvt.) Ltd vs Aeroflot Russian International Airlines 2018 P.C.T.L.R. 245
- GERRY'S INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LTD. vs AEROFLOT RUSSIAN INTERNATIONAL 2018 SCMR 662
- PEPSI COLA INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LIMITED Versus MAXIM INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LIMITED 2017 CLCN 176
- Messrs IBRAHIM FIBRES LIMITED through Managing Director vs HAMEED 2006 YLR 1523
- WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Through Chairman And Another vs Messrs ICE PAK INTERNATIONAL CONSULTING ENGINEERS OF PAKISTAN Through Chairman And Another 2003 YLR 2494
- MUHAMMAD UNIS ELAHI SETHI And Another vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN 1996 P.C.T.L.R. 966
- HAFEEZ CONSTRUCTION CO. Versus JAVEDAN CEMENT LTD. 1989 CLC 885
- PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Secretary,Irrigation and Power vs Ch. 1984 MLD 232
- WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through its. Chairman, Wapda H_3b49e708 2002 C.L.R. 747