PAKISTAN RAILWAYS Through The Secretary/Chairman, Ministry Of Railways
This matter arises from arbitration proceedings wherein the appointment of a sole arbitrator was challenged before the High Court. During the proceedings before the Supreme Court, it was acknowledged by both parties that the appointed arbitrator, a retired judge, had passed away, thereby necessitating a fresh nomination and initiating new proceedings before the lower court. The core legal question concerned the procedural mechanism following the demise of a sole arbitrator and the validity of subsequent unilateral appointments without recourse to the competent court. The Supreme Court held that the death of the arbitrator and the subsequent notice of a new appointment created a changed factual situation requiring fresh objections and applications to be formally raised before the lower court concerned. The key principle laid down is that upon the demise of an appointed arbitrator, fresh appointment procedures and any related objections must be properly brought before the appropriate court of law rather than bypassed through unilateral notices.
- What is the legal effect of the death of a sole arbitrator on ongoing arbitration proceedings?
- Must fresh proceedings and objections be commenced before the lower court when a new arbitrator is to be nominated?
- Can a party circumvent the lower court by directly serving a notice for a new arbitrator appointment after the demise of the original arbitrator?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.---This matter relates to certain arbitration proceedings. The objection which was the subject-matter of the order of the High Court impugned before us in this petition for leave to appeal related to late Mr. Justice Mushtaq Hussain, who was allegedly nominated by the respondent side, as (sole) arbitrator.
2. After some discussion it was realised by both sides that Justice (Retd.) Mushtaq Hussain having died in the meanwhile a fresh nomination had become necessary. If so, fresh proceedings including objection, if any, will have to be commenced before the lower Court concerned.
3. Notwithstanding this realisation learned counsel for the petitioners rightly pointed out that the respondent side has already taken the next step by appointing another learned retired Judge of a superior Court as Arbitrator and notice in that behalf has already been served on the petitioners.
4. This, according to him, would obviate any fresh objection or application before the lower Court. We do not agree with him.
5. A new situation having developed not only by the death of Justice (Retd.) Mushtaq Hussain but also, as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner side by sending a fresh notice, to which the petitioners have, as contended by the learned counsel, a serious objection. If so advised the objections may be raised before the Court concerned. This petition, accor0ingly, with the said observation in the light of the changed circumstances, stands disposed of.
Cited by 1 case
- Syed GHULAM HYDER SHAHalias UMAZ SHAH and 4 others vs Mst. BIBI 2011 PLD Karachi 183