PAKISTAN MEDICAL COMMISSION ('PMC') through Secretary (Successor of Registrar PMDC), Islamabad vs CONSTRUCTION

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

PAKISTAN MEDICAL COMMISSION ('PMC') through Secretary (Successor of Registrar PMDC), Islamabad VS CONSTRUCTION EXPERTS (PVT.) LIMITED Ss. 5, 11, 20, 30 & 39 (iv)---appointment of arbitrator---Designated arbitrator, change of---Influence on arbitrator---Dispute was with regard to appointment of arbitrator other than the one nominated in arbitration agreement between the parties and influence of National accountability Bureau over the arbitrator so appointed---Validity---Basic idea of arbitration was settlement of disputes by tribunals chosen by parties themselves whose decision was to be accepted as final between themselves---Due weight had to be given to arrangement made by parties themselves relating to personnel and machinery for settlement of their disputes---In the case of a named arbitrator, reference had to be made to him and a party was precluded from approaching the Court for appointing an arbitrator other than the named arbitrator---Once a party entered into an agreement with eyes wide open, it could not wriggle out of the situation on the claim that designated person would not be impartial or objective---If at the conclusion of arbitration proceedings respondent felt that arbitrator had not acted independently or impartially or had suffered bias while rendering the award, it was always open to it to take such as a ground in its application under S. 30 of arbitration act, 1940 for setting aside the award---During the course of arbitration proceedings, if arbitrator had proceeded with the reference in a manner as to give reason to respondent to believe that he was misconducting the proceedings, he could file application under S.5 of arbitration act, 1940 to revoke authority of arbitrator---application under S. 11 of arbitration act, 1940 could also be filed for removal of arbitrator---If NaB were to interfere with arbitrator, it would not just amount to perversion of the course of justice but would also be an actionable wrong---Where the arbitrator let himself be influenced by such a rank outsider to the contract while rendering an award, it would amount to "misconduct" not just as is understood in the arbitration parlance but also in the true sense of the word, i.e. wrongdoing---Very essence of impartial adjudication was defeated where an adjudicator would allow his mind to be influenced by a third party who did not have any statutory power or contractual authority to administer the contract---adjudicator must not let himself be coerced into deciding a claim one way or the other---High Court maintained order of Trial Court referring the disputes between the parties to arbitration but set aside appointment of arbitrator other than the one designated by parties---appeal was allowed accordingly.

PAKISTAN MEDICAL COMMISSION ('PMC') through Secretary (Successor of Registrar PMDC), Islamabad vs CONSTRUCTION EXPERTS (PVT — 2023 PLD 1 ISLAMABAD

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 PLD