CHAIRMAN, RAILWAY BOARD And Others vs Hafiz ABDUL QAYYUM
This civil petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute regarding a contract of work executed between Pakistan Railways and the respondent, which was referred to arbitration. The arbitrator submitted the award to the court on 11 May 1981 in the presence of counsel for both parties, and the court adjourned the matter to 28 May 1981 for filing objections. The petitioners filed their objections on 28 June 1981, which the trial court rejected as time-barred, subsequently making the award the rule of the court. The High Court dismissed the petitioners' appeal. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners contended that their objections were not time-barred and that the award was void on its face due to an incorrect rate allowed for dewatering charges. The Supreme Court held that since the award was filed in the presence of the petitioners' counsel, they had due notice, and their subsequent request for an extension on 23 June 1981 without raising any grievance of lack of notice confirmed this. Furthermore, the disputed rate change was unsigned and unagreed. The petition was dismissed.
- Whether the presence of a party's counsel at the time an arbitration award is filed in court constitutes sufficient notice to start the limitation period for filing objections?
- Can an objection to an arbitration award be entertained if it is filed beyond the prescribed limitation period without any valid grievance of lack of notice?
- Whether an unsigned and unagreed amendment to a contract rate can be used to challenge the validity of an arbitrator's award.
ORDER
M.S.H. QURAISHI, J.--On an application made by the respondent, the Senior Civil Judge, Peshawar, referred to arbitration the dispute arising in respect of a contract of work executed between the petitioners (Pakistan Railways) and the respondent. The arbitrator submitted his award to Court on 11-5-1981 and the same day the Court adjourned the matter to 28-5-1981 for filing of objections. The objection on behalf of the petitioners was filed on 28-6-1981 which was rejected as being the- barred and no objection having been filed to the award by the respondent, the same was made the rule of the Court. An appeal filed by the petitioners before the High Court having failed, they have now sought leave to appeal.
2. The contentions are to-fold, namely, (1) that the objection filed by the petitioners to the award was not the-barred, and (2) that the rate at which dewatering charges had been allowed by the arbitrator, not being in accord with the agreed rate, the award was void on the face of it. These contentions which had been taken before the High Court also, have been dealt with by that Court at length and repelled A for cogent reasons. On 11-5-1981, when the award had been filed in Court, the presence of counsel for the parties was duly noted and in their presence the matter had been fixed for 28-5-1981 for filing of objections. On that date the presiding officer was not present and the case was posted for 23-6-1981, on which date only a request was made for extension of the without raising any grievance that the petitioners had no notice or knowledge of filing of the award. As regards the second contention, the High Court noted that the rate of dewatering under the agreement, of which a copy had been delivered to the respondent, had been Rs.10.90 per 100 c.Ft that the amended rate of Rs.10.90 per 1000 c.Ft. Had not been signed by either party and that there was no other evidence on the record to show that the change in the rate had been agreed to by the respondent. We thus find that the view taken by the High Court is fully supported by the material on record and no interference is called for with the same. The petition is dismissed.