AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT AGENCY LTD vs Messrs M.Y. CORPORATION and others
This matter concerns the enforceability of an arbitration award following the filing of objections by the plaintiff. The core legal question was whether the objections to the arbitration award were filed within the statutory limitation period prescribed by law. The Court examined the timeline of service of notice and the subsequent filing of objections. It observed that the service was effected on September 12, 1995, and the objections were filed on October 17, 1995, thereby exceeding the 30-day limitation period stipulated under the Limitation Act. The Court held that since the objections were filed beyond the statutory period without any application for condonation of delay or justification for the lateness, they could not be taken into consideration. Consequently, the Court dismissed the objections and made the arbitration award a rule of the Court. The judgment reinforces the principle that strict adherence to statutory limitation periods for filing objections to arbitration awards is mandatory, and failure to comply without valid grounds for condonation renders such objections inadmissible.
- Is an objection to an arbitration award filed after the 30-day statutory period admissible without an application for condonation of delay?
- From what date is the 30-day limitation period for filing objections to an arbitration award computed?
- Can an arbitration award be made a rule of the Court if the objections filed against it are time-barred?
- Article 158, Limitation Act 1908
ORDER
1. This is a matter in which an Arbitrator was appointed by this Court through C.M.A. No,1501 of 1995 dated 9-4- 1995. The award was given on the 31st July, 1995. Notices were issued and objections had been filed. Today the matter was fixed for hearing. Nobody was present on behalf of the plaintiff. Mr. Sami Ahmed learned counsel for the defendant pointed out that the objections were not filed within statutory period of 30 days as provided under Article 158 of the Limitation Act. He has further pointed out that since the period of 30 days is to be computed from the date when the notice is served, therefore, he has drawn my attention to the various dates which are as follows:-- "Bailif f report dated 17-9-1995 shows that the service had been ef fected upon the parties on 12-9-1995. The diary sheet of the Additional Registra r shows that service was held good on the 18th September , 1995 and 30 days were given to file objection from the date of service. Objections were filed on 17-10-1995. Therefore, the objections cannot be taken on consideration as they have been filed beyond the prescribed period as provided under the law ."
2. In this respect Mr. Syed Sami Ahmad has relied upon 1998 MLD 659, 1987 MLD 416, PLD 1984 Pesh. 2 and 1983 SCMR 716. In all these cases the question of limitation in respect of filing of objections has been discussed. Since nobody was present on the last date and even today nobody was present on behalf of the plaintif f therefore, all that which Mr. Syed Sami Ahmed has stated goes clearly unrebutted. It goes without saying that it is by now a settled law that objections have to be filed within 30 days and if they are filed beyond statutory period then they cannot be taken into consideration especially in the absence of any application for cond onation of delay and possible justification as to why the objections were not filed within the prescribed time. The award is, therefore, made rule of the Court and the objections are dismissed.
Cited by 5 cases
- National Highway Authority vs M/S Hussain Cotex Limited & Another 2025 IHC 88, 2025 CLD 598
- Messrs FABNUS CONSTRUCTION (PVT.) LTD. through Chief Executive/Director 2010 PLD Lahore 452
- Mst. PARVEEN vs JEHANA and 7 others 2007 CLC 1877
- SAFDAR ALI KHAN vs AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE JAMMU AND KASHMIR 2010 MLD 1980
- SAFDAR ALI KHAN vs AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR through Chief Secretary, Muzaffarabad and 2 others 2011 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 10