CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (CDA) through Chairman CDA, Headquarter, Islamabad vs HABIB RAFIQ (PVT

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (CDA) through Chairman CDA, Headquarter, Islamabad VS HABIB RAFIQ (PVT.) LTD. Ss. 14(2) & 16---arbitration award filed in court by the arbitrator---Plea of petitioner-authority that award was not filed in court by the arbitrator but by the counsel for the respondent-company---Held, that from perusal of the record, it was evident that the award was signed, made and announced by the Sole arbitrator after due notice in writing to the parties and in presence of the parties --- award along with all the deposition and annexures was filed in Court on, though it was disputed whether it was filed by the counsel for the respondent or by the arbitrator, at the request of the respondent under S. 14(2) of the arbitration act, 1940---On the objections raised by the petitioner on the ground that the award was not filed in accordance with S. 14(2) and should be returned to the arbitrator, the Trial Court remitted/returned the award to the arbitrator to resubmit the same within 30 days---Subsequently the arbitrator filed a Statement before Trial Court with a request to treat said Statement as covering letter to the award that was already filed in court earlier---Said Statement recorded that the letter of respondent's counsel, was in fact addressed to the arbitrator requesting him, to file the award in Court, which letter of the counsel, was being treated as covering letter to the award---arbitrator was bestowed authority to file the award in Court at the request of any party or any person claiming through such authority---In the present case, the Sole arbitrator, through his Statement, acknowledged that the award was filed by him, at the request of respondent, which course was approved through the impugned judgment---In such circumstances the award was validly filed in terms of S. 14(2) of the arbitration act, 1940---Supreme Court observed that court of plenary jurisdiction could remit the award on any ground as recognized under S. 16 of the arbitration act, 1940, however once the award was filed in Court and a dispute arose, whether it was filed by the arbitrator or otherwise, could effectively be resolved by issuing notice to the arbitrator seeking clarification rather than remitting the award, as was done in the present case---Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and dismissed.

CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (CDA) through Chairman CDA, Headquarter, Islamabad vs HABIB RAFIQ (PVT — 2021 SCMR 1137 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2021 SCMR