PROVINCE OF PUNJAB Through COLLECTOR FAISALABAD And Others vs Mirza
This matter involves petitions for leave to appeal against the rejection of objections filed by the petitioners regarding an arbitration award. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in refusing to remit the arbitration awards to the arbitrator for failing to provide sufficient reasons, particularly in light of the Arbitration (Amendment) Ordinance, 1981. The Supreme Court held that the trial court's decision was correct because the objections were time-barred. Furthermore, regarding the petitioners' contention that the awards lacked sufficient reasoning and should have been remitted under Section 3(1) of the Arbitration (Amendment) Ordinance, 1981, the Court found no merit in this argument. The ratio of the decision is that a party cannot seek relief on appeal regarding the remission of an award for lack of reasoning if such a request was never formally made before the trial court or the appellate court below. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed as the petitioners failed to raise the specific prayer for remission at the appropriate stage of the proceedings.
- Can a party seek the remission of an arbitration award for lack of reasoning on appeal if the request was not made before the trial court?
- Are objections to an arbitration award filed outside the statutory limitation period maintainable?
- Does the Arbitration (Amendment) Ordinance 1981 mandate the automatic remission of awards lacking sufficient reasons without a request from the parties?
- Section 3(1), Arbitration (Amendment) Ordinance 1981
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--In these petitions the objections filed by the petitioners to arbitration award were rejected on the ground of limitation. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners we are satisfied that the objections were not preferred by the petitioners within the stat story period and as such no fault can be found with the decision of the trial Court in this regard.
2. The awards, were filed in the Court on 7-5-1981. On 11-5-1981 the Arbitration' (Amendment)
Ordinance, 1981 came into force. Section 3(1) of the Ordinance stated: "If in any case in which proceedings in relation to an award which has been filed in Court are pending in any Court immediately ,Before the commencement of this Ordinance, the Court finds that the award does not, or does not in sufficient detail,) states the reasons for the award, the Court may remit the award to the arbitrators or umpire with a direction to state the reasons for the award in sufficient detail."
The contention on behalf of the petitioners is that in these cases the arbitrator had not given reasons in support of his awards and, therefore, the Court ought not to have made them rule of the Court but should have remitted them to the arbitrator in accordance with section 3(1) ibid. We find no merit in this contention for the reason that no such prayer was made before the trial Court or the Additional District Judge on behalf of the petitioners. These are, therefore, not fit cases where leave should be granted to the petitioners. The petition are accordingly dismissed.