PROVINCE OF PUNJAB And Others vs Messrs MIAN MUHAMMAD SALEEM &.Co.
This matter originated from a contractual dispute between the Province of Punjab and Messrs Mian Muhammad Saleem & Co. regarding outstanding payments, which was referred to arbitration. The arbitrator issued an award in favor of the respondent for Rs. 20,964.45. The petitioner challenged the award, but the Senior Civil Judge made it the rule of the court, rejecting the petitioner's objections. Subsequent appeals to the District Judge and a revision petition to the High Court were unsuccessful. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that the respondent's claim was time-barred and that the respondent was estopped from asserting it. The Supreme Court addressed the core legal question of whether the arbitrator had misconducted himself. Finding that the lower courts had concurrently determined no misconduct occurred—noting only a minor typographical error that was duly corrected—the Court held that the petitioner failed to establish grounds to vitiate the award. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming that in the absence of proven misconduct, an arbitral award remains immune from judicial interference.
- Does a typographical error in an arbitration award constitute misconduct sufficient to vitiate the award?
- Can an arbitral award be challenged on grounds of limitation and estoppel when concurrent findings of fact by lower courts have rejected claims of arbitrator misconduct?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with an arbitral award that has been made the rule of the court?
ORDER
1. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--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.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the claim of the respondent which was accepted by the arbitrator was barred by the, that he was estopped from making a claim of that amount and that he was not entitled to it.
3. 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. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.
Cited by 5 cases
- Muhammad Kamran Khan Mulakhail vs Shoukat Ali Rakhshani 2023 MLD 974
- ZAKIR ALI vs AQEEL AHMED 2002 YLR 1492
- M. IFTIKHAR & COMPANY (PVT) LTD vs PAKISTAN. STEEL MILLS LTD 2002 YLR 1494
- MUHAMMAD ITTAYAT KHAN vs Mst. REHMAT KHATOON And Other 2001 MLD 1083
- Chief Engineer (West) Pakistan Public Works Department, Quetta vs M/S 2024 MLD 1918