Mehr SAKHI MUHAMMAD vs BOARD OF ARBITRATORS and another
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court in an Intra-Court Appeal, which had declared an arbitration award concerning a cotton sale contract to be without lawful authority and legal effect. The core legal questions involve whether the dispute fell within the proper jurisdiction of the Market Committee, Khanewal, and whether the contracting parties stood in the relationship of a dealer and a grower or two dealers, thereby affecting the validity of the arbitration reference. Additionally, a procedural question was raised regarding a judgment signed by only one of the two judges who heard the appeal. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised regarding jurisdiction and the nature of the relationship between the parties required detailed examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal, directed security for costs, and permitted the parties to complete the record.
- Whether a dispute arising out of a cotton sale contract falls within the jurisdiction of the Market Committee, Khanewal?
- Whether the relationship between the parties was that of a dealer and a grower validating the reference to arbitration?
- Whether an Intra-Court Appeal judgment signed by only one of the two learned judges who heard the appeal is legally sustainable?
ORDER
' SAAD SAOOD JAN. J.--There was a dispute between the petitioner and respondent No,2 arising out of a contract between the parties for the sale/purchase of cotton. At the instance of the petitioner the dispute was taken up by the Arbitration Board of Market Committee, Khanewal. The Chairman of the Board made an award on 8-10-1983 whereby he directed respondent No,2 to pay a sum of Rs,40,500 to the petitioner. Respondent No,2 invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court to challenge the award. A learned Single Judge dismissed his writ petition. He then filed an Intra- Court Appeal. In the Intra Court Appeal the award was declared to be without lawful authority and legal effect. The petitioner now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that although the Intra Court Appeal was heard by two learned Judges, the judgment has been signed by only one of them.
3. The Intra-Court Appeal was allowed on the basis of two findings, namely, first, the dispute referred to arbitration was not between a dealer and a grower but that between two dealers and as such there was no proper reference to arbitration; second, the Market Committee, Khanewal, had no jurisdiction in the matter. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that both the findings were erroneous inasmuch as the relationship between the parties was that of a dealer and a grower and the dispute between the parties arose within the territorial jurisdiction of Market Committee, Khanewal.
4. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner needs examination. Leave to appeal is granted.
Security for costs in the sum of Rs,5,000. The appeal may be made ready for hearing on the present record with permission to the parties to file all necessary documents within two months.