PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and another vs Malik SARFRAZ NAWAZ
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a civil revision by the High Court, which originated from arbitration proceedings. The petitioners challenged an arbitration award issued by a sole arbitrator, arguing that although the arbitrator was not required to provide reasons at the time of the award, the High Court erred by failing to direct the arbitrator to rewrite the award to include supporting reasons. The petitioners contended that this action was mandated by the amendment to Section 26-A of the Arbitration Act. The Supreme Court considered the arguments and reviewed the contents of the award. The Court held that the High Court's refusal to exercise its discretion to direct the rewriting of the award was legally sound and free from infirmity. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no justification to interfere with the High Court's decision and refused the leave to appeal. The judgment affirms that the High Court retains discretion regarding the remittal of awards for the inclusion of reasons under the relevant statutory framework.
- Is an arbitrator legally bound to provide reasons for an award at the time it is made?
- Does the High Court have the discretion to direct an arbitrator to rewrite an award to include reasons?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court's refusal to direct the rewriting of an arbitration award?
- Section 26-A, Arbitration Act 1940
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Petitioners have sought leave to appeal against the dismissal by the High Court of their Civil Revision. It had arisen out of an arbitration matter. The petitioners had raised objections to award of a sole arbitrator. They were dismissed by the trial Court. Their appeal and revision having been dismissed, they have now sought leave to appeal.
2. Learned counsel while agreeing with the High Court that the Arbitrator was not bound to give reasons on the day he made his award contended that the High Court was bound to direct the Arbitrator to re-write the award giving his reasons in support thereof. This according to the learned counsel, was made necessary by the amendment in the Arbitration Act section 26-A.
3. ' After hearing the learned counsel and taking into account the contents (reasons) of the award in question, we are satisfied that the refusal by the High Court to exercise its discretion for directing the re-writing of the award, did not suffer from any infirmity so as to justify interference by this Court. Leave to appeal, therefore, is refused.