Award originate from an International Arbitration Agreement. Contention that an action can be maintained only when a cause of action wholly or in part arises within jurisdiction of a Municipal Court concerned. Not right to urge that a Municipal Court can entertain an action against a foreigner only when he either permanently or temporarily resides within its limits or submits to its jurisdiction.   PLJ 1998 SC 1808 = 1998 SCMR 1618.


Arbitration award. Court while hearing objections could not undertake reappraisal of evidence to discover error or infirmity therein. Error or infirmity in award which would render the same invalid must appear on the face of award and should be discovered by reading the same. Where reasons recorded by arbitrator were impugned as perverse, such perversity in reasoning must be substantiated with reference to material considered by arbitrator in award. Court while hearing objections against award was not legally competent to reappraise award or to assess and examine evidence to determine whether another possible conclusion could be drawn. Award was not vitiated for having been made long after expiry of four months. Court was empowered to enlarge time for making award irrespective of fact whether time had expired or not and whether award had been made or not. Time for making award could be extended on oral application of parties or on court’s own accord. S. 3, of arbitration Act, 1940, postulates that arbitrator would make award within 4months after entering on reference of after having been called upon to act by notice in writing from any party to arbitration agreement or within such extended time as court might allow. Where after expiry of four months, parties had submitted themselves to jurisdiction of arbitrator and had taken part in proceeding enabling Arbitrator to make award, he cold not be deemed to have acted without jurisdiction. Conduct and participation in proceedings by respondent would clearly reflect that he had consented to continuation of proceedings even after expiry of 4 months’ period which was deemed to have been extended by consent of parties. Award was, thus, not vitiated reason of making it beyond time fixed by law. PLJ 1999 Kar. 4 = 1998 CLC 1671.


            Award written on plain paper instead of stamp paper. Held: Court” can impound award and can get stamp duty paid. PLJ 1988 Kar. 135  (DB).


            Principles to test validity of Award. Court while examining validity of an award cannot act as a Court- of Appeal. Therefore, a Court hearing objection to award cannot undertake reappraisal of evidence recorded by arbitrator in order to discover error or infirmity in Award. Error or infirmity in award which render it invalid must appear on face of Award and should be discoverable by reading Award itself where reason recorded by arbitrator are challenged as perverse, perversity in reasoning has to be established with reference to material considered by arbitration in award. PLJ 1997 SC 47 = PLD 1996 SC 108.


            Whether, award was liable to be set aside under Section 115 C.P.C– Although an award  can be set aside on grounds enumerated in Section 30, but when award is product of an illegal action after stay of proceedings by Court, it can be set aside without adhering to provisions of Section 30 of Act. being void and illegal. While exercising revisional jurisdiction, irregularities and illegalities cannot be allowed to go un-noticed. particularly in view of fact that arbitrator had anxiety to give award despite stay order. Conclusion is that arbitrator misconducted himself as well as proceedings. Arbitration award has been given by arbitrator without lawful authority and jurisdiction. PLJ 1994 Qta. 14 = PLD 1994 Qta. 99.


            Examination of award by Court. Fact that parties had agreed to refer disputes relating to immovable properties, subject matter of award, and fact that two arbitrators had given the award supported not only by pleadings of petitioners, but also facts on record. Generally, when award is given and it is disputed by one party, other party approaches Civil Court and prays for award to be made rule of court and once this is done and award having become rule of court, it has effect of decree passed by civil Court. However, decision is different where award is given without intervention by civil court and said award is accepted and acted upon by parties to award. In such case, party by relying upon such award can file suit on basis of such Award. Award, no doubt, related to ancestral properties but it also covered property in dispute and made decision as to whom it should belong. It has been admitted that from 1982, when award was given, till 1989, there was no dispute between parties and in fact, on basis of award, disputes pending between brothers in courts were disposed of. Appellate Courts, judgment which has been confirmed by High Court that award’ was accepted and implemented by parties is supported by evidence on record. There is no ground for interference in judgment PLJ 1998 SC 840 = 1998 SCMR 1304.


            Court while examining validity of an award does not act as Court of appeal and, therefore, a Court hearing objections to award cannot undertake re-appraisal of evidence recorded by arbitrator in order to discover error or infirmity in award. It was further held that error or infirmity in the award which rendered it invalid, must float on the surface of award and should be discoverable by reading award itself. Where reasons recorded by arbitrator are challenged as perverse; perversity in reasoning is to be established with reference to material considered by arbitrator in award. PLJ 1999 Kar. 407 = PLD 1999 Kar. 112.


            Glaring jurisdictional defects in the agreement and award would render them invalid and void. PLJ 2000 SC 352.


            Application for setting aside award of arbitrator in High Court at Karachi, All defendants were neither residents nor working for gain within Province to which jurisdiction of said High Court extended. Addresses of defendants in plaint related to N.W.F.P- Parties in agreement had agreed to refer their dispute to sole arbitrator or to his nominee who also resided outside jurisdiction of High Court at Kar.. Effect. High Court at Kar., thus. Had no jurisdiction to entertain application for setting aside award. Civil Court at Pesh. would be competent to entertain such suit/ application. Provisions of O.VII. R. 11, C.P.C. being not exhaustive, any incompetent suit must be buried at initial stage in order to save defendants from hardship and rigours of protracted trial. High Court at Kar., thus, had no jurisdiction, therefore, provisions of Ss. 31(2) & 32, Arbitration Act, 1940 were fully attracted, whereby plaint was liable to be rejected. PLJ 1999 Kar. 80. = 1998 CLC 1408.


            Rules of Conciliation and Arbitration of International Chamber of Commerce, Arbitration venue was England. Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court of Pakistan to consider as to what was effect of factuna that petitioners and respondents did not reside and were not located within Pakistan and whether procedural law/curial law as deemed to be ex arbitri or lexfori i.e. law of England, under which English Courts atone had jurisdiction in respect of proceedings for arbitration conducted in that country. PLJ 1998 SC 1808 = 1998 SCMR 1618.      Obtaining of mine for raising coal on royalty basis. Installation of new machinery. Differences arising of between new (partners) owners and respondents. Arbitration agreement thereof. Award entitling respondents to receive Rs. 28 lac from new owner without making it “Rule of Court”. Another Arbitration Agreement between appellant and respondent. Award announced by sole arbitrator behind back of – appellant. Application for making it as “Rule of Court” without mentioning of previous Award. Objections against. Award was made “Rule of Court”. Appeal and Revision against. Whether Revision petition can be filed for setting aside an Award, appeal would be competent u/S. 39(1) (vi) of Arbitration Act, and for purpose of examining validity of a Decree, as no specific provision has been incorporated, therefore, revision would be only remedy available to judgment Debtor. PLJ 1998 Qta. 252 =  1998 CLC 1684.


            Scope of said clause was main bone of contention between parties to arbitration. Even if parties had not specifically referred question of interpretation of said clause its interpretation fell within scope of reference, because without interpretation of referred clause, reference Co arbitrator could not be resolved. PLJ 1997 SC 47 = PLD 1996 SC 108.


             Proof of Misconduct of arbitrator – Where award is found ‘otherwise invalid’, it is not for a party to establish misconduct on the part of the arbitrator in every case – Court under S.30(c) of Arbitration Act, 1940, is empowered to set aside the same and refuse to make it rule of the Court. 2002 C LD 61


            Award on question of damages even if erroneous but cannot be said that an error of law is apparent on face of award. PLJ 1981 Kar. 95.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Related Case Law