Summary: The Court examined the order of the learned Civil Court that the parties were alleged to have violated or disobeyed. It emphasized that the Arbitrator, who was not a party to the suit, had been included in the array of respondents in the Criminal Original filed by respondent No. 1 to initiate contempt proceedings.The central contention of the appellant was that the Arbitrator was not a party before the learned trial Court, and no relief had been sought against him by the parties of the suit. The appellant argued that the learned Judge-in-Chamber exceeded his jurisdiction by issuing directions to the Arbitrator, as no direction, whether negative or positive, can be passed by a Court while exercising jurisdiction under Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003. The appellant cited various legal precedents to support this argument.The Court clarified that the learned Civil Judge had permitted the parties to avail the remedy provided under Article 18 of the agreement, which involved arbitration proceedings. Therefore, the proceedings pending before the Arbitrator, as well as the participation of the parties in these proceedings, could not be prima facie considered a violation of the order of the learned Civil Judge. However, the Court stressed that the condition imposed by the Civil Judge in his order must be followed by the parties until it is adjudicated by the learned District Judge. The Court suspended the operation of the impugned order and scheduled the main case for final arguments on 08.06.2017.

Summary: Arbitration Law, Arbitration Law (Section 20 of Arbitration Act, 1940 )The plaintiff in this matter has fairly invoked the jurisdiction of this Court in pursuance of the arbitration clause and not for any other remedy which may include reinstatement or declaration that it was unlawfully cancelled. --In the instant case the plaintiff is not seeking any injunctive relief and instead chose to file this application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act for referring this dispute of alleged termination. Whether or not it is lawful on the part of the licensor to terminate is not for this Court to comment.

Summary: Arbitration Act (X of 1940)-------Ss. 20 & 33---Award by umpire made rule of the court---Agreement between the parties forcompletion of construction project---Appointment of empire in wake of disagreement betweenthe parties to appoint Arbitrators and no objections was raised by the appellant (ProvincialGovernment) in the proceedings of the Court---Scope---Appellant/Provincial Governmentcontended that no claim of payment of extra work could be agitated as per the undertaking of therespondent/contractor and thus award of the umpire was unjustified---Respondent/contractorcontended that they completed work to the entire satisfaction of the Government but was deniedpayment without reason---Respondent/contractor further submitted that the award by the umpirewas justified and the umpire was appointed with consent as parties had failed to appointArbitrators---Validity---Record revealed that parties had suggested names of Arbitrators, butagreement was not arrived at, thus under the circumstances, Trial Court with consent of theparties nominated the umpire to make award independently within 30 days by providingopportunities to both the parties in accordance with law---Record further transpired that both theparties had put their claims before the umpire who, after hearing both the parties, passed award---Award was submitted before the Trial Court and the parties were directed to file theirobjections, if any, however, counsel for the respondent appeared before the Trial Court andraised no objection over the final award and despite of several opportunities, the appellant (State)had failed to file any objections as required under S.33 of Arbitration Act, 1940---Said order ofthe Trial Court was not assailed by the appellant before the appellate forum which attainedfinality, as such, the contentions of appellant with regard to non-providing opportunity of filingof objections was not tenable---In view of provisions of S.33 of Arbitration Act, 1940 theappellant had failed to comply with the provision of law---Findings of the umpire showed thatthe respondent/contractor had completed the work to the entire satisfaction of the department---Department had never raised any objection regarding the performance of work---Contractagreement being in existence, the work was completed on the instructions of ProvincialGovernment through its department, therefore, Government could not absolve itself from theliability---Impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court did not suffer frommisreading or non-reading of evidence---Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Summary: Arbitration Act, 1940 (X of 1940)------S. 33--Non-filing of objections by state--Award--Umpire made rule of Court--Challengeto--Held: Despite server opportunities state counsel was failed to file objections over awarddespite of fact that trial Court last opportunity was afforded to DA for state for filing ofobjections on next date fixed for hearing, and order sheet shows that DA was present andfailed to file objections and sought time for filing of objections which was opposed by otherside and ultimately right of appellant was strict of for filing objections--Validity--Accordingto findings of umpire contractor/respondent has completed work to entire satisfaction ofdepartment and department never raised any objection regarding performance of work, sincecontract agreement are in existence and work was completed on instruction of educationdepartment, therefore, they cannot absolve themselves from liability simply on ground thatproject has been wind up work so carried out by respondents, they are entitled to relief claimfor, A.A.G. has failed to point out any material illegality or irregularity in impugnedjudgment and decree passed by trial Court. [Pp. 29 & 30] A & B

Summary: (a) Arbitration------Scope, purpose, and object---Arbitration is a concessional process, in which partiesvoluntarily agree for determination of their dispute through their chosen persons---When awardis completed, it is permissible only against a party to arbitration---Award is not enforceableagainst persons not party to arbitration agreement.(b) Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreements and Arbitral Awards) Act(XVII of 2011)------S. 6---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R.11---Enforcement of foreign arbitralaward---Rejection of plaint---Territorial jurisdiction---Plaintiff sought enforcement of awardannounced by London Maritime Arbitrators Association---Defendant sought rejection of plainton the plea of lack of territorial jurisdiction---Plea raised by plaintiff was that after passing ofaward, defendants were not permitted to sell the vessel, therefore, he wanted realization of awardthrough sale proceeds of the vessel---Validity---For the enforcement of award, the subject matterof which was money, the suit had to be filed in the Court, within whose jurisdiction, Bankaccount of defaulting party was located---Bank account of defaulting party i.e. the defendant wasnot located within the jurisdiction of High Court---High Court did not agree with the plea raisedby plaintiff, as vessel in question was not subject matter of award---Court could enforce moneyaward, either through Bank account or to order realization of amount through assets or saleproceeds of assets of defaulting party---Vessel was sold by one defendant to the other beforeenforcement of award, therefore, the vessel did not remain as their asset---No movable orimmovable asset of defendant existed within the jurisdiction of High Court, nor defendant wasparty to award, therefore, no effective order could be passed---Earlier, plaintiff had approachedthe Court at England, which not only recognized the award but also decreed the amount; it wasfor the Court in England to give effect to its own order---Application had already been filed in acompetent Court of law, which had passed order thereon, therefore, unless and until it wasproved that the award before said Court was unenforceable, second application was notcompetent--- Plaint was rejected in circumstances.

Summary: The appeals pertain to objections raised by the appellant regarding the limitation and delay in filing objections to an arbitration award. The judgment discusses the circumstances of the case, including the appointment of a sole arbitrator, the issuance of the award, and the subsequent filing of objections by the respondents. The appellant argued that the objections were time-barred based on the notice of filing of the award given by the arbitrator.The judgment addresses the issue of whether these appeals are maintainable under the Arbitration Act, as well as whether there can be independent orders under the Limitation Act. The court concludes that the appeals are not maintainable under the Arbitration Act, and the orders independently are not subject to appeal. The court dismisses the appeals, allowing the appellant to raise the issue of limitation if the objections to the award are decided against them and they decide to file an appeal against the final order under the Arbitration Act.

Summary: S 14(2) Arbitration Act.When law requires a thing to be done in a certain manner, it should be done in that manner.

Summary: Scope of Section 32 of Arbitration Act.

Summary: The background involved the deceased arbitrator, who filed applications to make an award the rule of court. The petitioner contested this, alleging fraud and misconduct during the arbitration proceedings. The Civil Judge, Mandi Bahauddin, initially set aside the award in 2006, but the Additional District Judge overturned this decision in 2010. The petitioner argued that the arbitration agreement specified two arbitrators, Sardar Khan and Aurangzeb Khan, and accuses the respondents of fraudulent inclusion of only Sardar Khan's name. The petitioner also claims that the award lacks validity due to malafide proceedings and misconduct by the arbitrator. The respondents defend the award, asserting that the matter was properly referred to the arbitrator, who conducted proceedings in accordance with the law. The judgment discusses the evidence presented by both parties, highlighting discrepancies in the appointment of arbitrators and raising questions about the validity of the award. The judge ultimately supported the decision of the Civil Judge to set aside the award, emphasizing the lack of reasoning in the arbitrator's decision, a crucial requirement under Section 26-A of the Arbitration Act, 1940.

Summary: Arbitration Law Discussion on Section 20 of Arbitration Act, 1940 )