Summary: ----Issues: 1) Whether the objections to the arbitrators' award were disposed of properly by the Civil Judge without framing issues and allowing evidence. ---2) Whether the arbitrators' award was improperly procured and lacked proper reasoning. ---3) Whether the modification of the award by the Civil Judge regarding the adjustment and reimbursement of the mobilization advance was justified. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Objections to Arbitrators' Award: The court found that the objections were not addressed properly by the Civil Judge. The objections raised by the department included claims of arbitrators' misconduct, lack of opportunity to defend, and improper procurement of the award. The court emphasized that such objections require framing issues and allowing evidence, which was not done in this case. ----Improper Procurement and Lack of Reasoning: The court observed that the arbitrators' award lacked detailed reasoning and supporting evidence for the amounts awarded. The Civil Judge failed to consider these objections and assumed that the court could not look into the reasoning or basis of the award. ----Modification of Award: The court found that the modification of the award by the Civil Judge regarding the adjustment and reimbursement of the mobilization advance was not properly justified. The court noted that the mobilization advance was not a matter of dispute nor a subject-matter of reference. The court set aside the impugned order and remanded the case to the Civil Judge for fresh decision after framing issues, recording evidence, and considering the legal aspects discussed. ----Citations/Precedents: ----A. Qutubuddin Khan v. Chec Millwala Dredging Co. (Pvt.) Limited (2014 SCMR 1268) Court's duty to examine the validity and legality of an award, even if objections are time-barred. ----M/s. Awan Industries Ltd. v. The Executive Engineer, Lined Channel Division and another (1992 SCMR 65) Court's power to set aside or remit an award if it finds patent illegality. ----Karachi Dock Labour Board v. Messers Quality Builders Ltd. (PLD 2016 SC 121) Court's duty to examine the award for validity and legality, not merely endorse it. ----Karachi Metropolitan Corporation v. Associated Constructors Ltd. (1984 CLC 1077) Importance of articulating reasons for an award to allow court scrutiny. ----Umer Din through L.Rs. v. Mst. Shakeela Bibi and others (2009 SCMR 29) Requirement for arbitrators to provide detailed reasons in their awards. ----Allah Din & Company v. Trading Corporation Of Pakistan and others (2006 SCMR 614) Court's power to reverse arbitrators' findings if unsupported by evidence. ----The Director Industries And Mineral Development v. Dada Bhoyhormusjee & Sons (1990 MLD 301) Arbitrators' misconduct by ignoring important evidence. ----Section 26-A of the Arbitration Act, 1940 Requirement for arbitrators to state reasons in the award for court consideration. ----The court concluded by accepting the appeal, setting aside the impugned order, and remanding the case for fresh decision on the objections to the award.

Summary: Accidental omission in a award by the arbitrator could be rectified under section 152 of the Civil Procedure Code

Summary: The Court can take further proceeding, inter alia, as provided under Section 3 of the above Act, 2011, that is, invoking Civil Procedure Code. It must be clarified that grant of interim relief is not prohibited under the scheme of Arbitration Act, 2011, inter alia, in view of Section 3 thereof,but, in exceptional circumstances.

Summary: [Civil Procedure Code CPC, Arbitration Law]principal of awarding demurrage charges and analysis of Force Majeure clause of COA

Summary: Section 64-A of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925.The proceedings of Arbitration and that of the Appellate forum, under the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, are to be executed as a decree of Civil Court, hence, the same cannot be overturned or interfered with by exercising administrative revisional jurisdiction, under Section 64-A of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, by the Provincial Government. Proceeding declared coram non judice and impugned Order quashed.

Summary: Arbitration Law (Arbitration Act,1940 Section 15) if illegallity is separable from the main award, the same can be modified / corrected by invocking section 15 of the Arbiration Act, 1940.

Summary: [Arbitration Law (Arbitration Act,1940 Section 34)] The issue involved was that whether the Notification dated 28.4.2020 under the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 has been validly issued and applied on the employees of PIA and whether the Notice dated 30.04.2020 terminating the Working Agreement has been issued validly and whether the proceedings in the Suit should be stayed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act as there is an arbitration clause. The injunction application has been dismissed; and application under Section 34 has been allowed by staying the proceedings of Suit, as provisions of Section 41 of the Arbitration Act cannot be invoked by a Plaintiff for an interim relief who has filed a Suit for Declaration instead of invoking the provision of the Arbitration Act, and further that the notification for placing the employment of PIA under Essential Services has been validly issued.

Summary: [Arbitration Law (Section 32 and 33)] Stranger to an arbitration award cannot file objections.

Summary: [Arbitration Law (Award set aside)] Section 30 of the Arbitration Act 1940 - Arbitration Award of Umpire on issue not referred to him by the Arbitrators cannot be sustained- Set aside - Award by Arbitrators should be in conformity with the Agreement between parties.

Summary: [Arbitration Law (Section 20 of Arbitration Act, 1940 )] Court having jurisdiction under section 20 Arbitration Act, 1940----The plaintiff alleged that the defendant's Engineer did not act independently and unjustly declined to certify certain bills, resulting in a breach of contract. After initial attempts at resolution, the plaintiff invoked the arbitration clause stated in clause 50.4 of the Conditions of Contract. The judge concluded that the plaintiff's cause of action for a breach of contract and the submission of bills partly arose in Karachi, giving both Khairpur and Karachi civil courts concurrent jurisdiction. The judge explained that section 20 of the Arbitration Act governed pre-arbitration proceedings, while section 31 dealt with post-arbitration matters such as filing an award. The judge determined that the plaintiff's application under section 20 met the criteria established by section 2(c) of the Arbitration Act. Consequently, the court dismissed the defendant's application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, affirming the plaintiff's application under section 20 as maintainable in the Karachi court. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff's application, finding it maintainable in the Karachi court due to concurrent jurisdiction.