CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY OF PAKISTAN vs LTH JV S — 2024 CLD 1055 ISLAMABAD

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

CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY OF PAKISTAN VS LTH JV S.8---arbitration---arbitrators with divided opinion---Umpire, appointment of---Procedure---Statutory notice, non-issuance of---Effect---During arbitration proceedings between the parties, the umpire appointed recused from acting as umpire---Petitioner /Civil aviation authority was aggrieved of order passed by Trial Court for appointment of an umpire for arbitration proceedings between the parties---Held, that requirement for appointment of umpire is intended to meet contingency of arbitrators with divided opinion---Where arbitrators are not at variance there is no occasion to refer matter to umpire, who can only be appointed if there are even number of arbitrators---Contract between parties required the arbitrators and not the parties to appoint the umpire---Respondents / contractors did not address notice in question for appointment of substitute umpire to the arbitrators but to petitioner / authority---Such notice did not conform to requirements of S. 8(1)(b) of arbitration act, 1940---Respondents / contractors could not solicit concurrence in appointment of umpire from petitioner / authority but from arbitrators as that was what the relevant clause of the Contract had provided for---Without a notice by respondents / contractors to the arbitrators to appoint the umpire in place of umpire nominated in contract, the application under S. 8 of arbitration act, 1940 could not be entertained by Trial Court, which ought to have pointed out respondents / contractors to the arbitrators who were to concur in the appointment of substitute umpire---as arbitrators had not been required by respondents / contractors to supply vacancy created by recusal of umpire nominated in contract to sit as the umpire, the requirements of S. 8(1)(b) of arbitration act, 1940, were not fulfilled, therefore Trial Court did not have jurisdiction to appoint an umpire under S.8(2) of arbitration act, 1940---High Court set aside the order passed by Trial Court and respondents / contractors were at liberty to request arbitrators to supply vacancy created due to recusal of umpire nominated in contract---Respondents / contractors could send a notice in writing under S. 8(1) arbitration act, 1940, to arbitrators requiring them to supply the vacancy within fifteen days of such notice, in case they did not appoint an umpire---In case arbitrators did not appoint umpire even after notice, then respondents / contractors could apply under S.8(2) of arbitration act, 1940, to Trial Court to supply the vacancy---Revision was allowed accordingly.

CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY OF PAKISTAN vs LTH JV S — 2024 CLD 1055 ISLAMABAD

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 CLD