PAK GULF CONSTRUCTION (PRIVATE) LIMITED vs GODWIN AUSTEN JOHNSON Ss — 2024 CLD 1451 ISLAMABAD

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

PAK GULF CONSTRUCTION (PRIVATE) LIMITED VS GODWIN AUSTEN JOHNSON Ss. 17, 18 & 39 (vi)---arbitration award---Rule of Court---appellant / employer hired services of respondent / consultant and entered into contract titled 'Design Consultancy Service-architecture, Interior and Specialty Design for 5 Star Movenpic Hotel, Centaurus Islamabad'---Dispute had arisen between the parties regarding right of respondent / consultant to invoice reimbursable expenses---Objections to award filed by appellant / employer were rejected by Trial Court and award was made rule of Court---Validity---It was not explained in award that, in absence of express words, how was it a valid construction of Schedule 4 to the Contract, read as a whole that appellant / employer agreed to pay for detailed drawings regardless of whether they were indeed final (i.e., useable for the project) or were mere garbage---In absence of express words to the contrary in Sched. 4 to the Contract, reasons for depriving appellant / employer of its final say in acceptability of work-products were absent in award---Out of two alternatives of respondent / consultant giving customary warranty of fitness for purpose versus appellant's / employer's right to reject deliverables and not pay final one-third of the Contract price for relevant phase, parties agreed on the latter in Sched. 4 to the Contract, but award did not expound such bargain of parties---award did not give sufficient reasons for not reading Sched. 4 of the Contract as a whole nor how the applicable stage for payment under relevant phase had been accomplished without appellant's / employer's approval of final drawings---appeal was precluded under S. 17 of arbitration act, 1940 from a decree but when the very award on which that decree rested was revisited (by setting aside, modifying or remitting the award) by appellate Court under S.39(vi) of arbitration act, 1940 then the foundation for that decree, to the extent the award was set aside, modified or remitted, had gone and lost all legal value---High Court set aside rule of Court and remitted the award under S. 26a of arbitration act, 1940 to arbitrator only to the extent of respondent's / consultant's right to invoice, and appellant / employer's obligation to pay, for the relevant phase of Schedule 4 to the Contract, in absence of appellant's / employer's approval of final detailed drawings---appeal was allowed accordingly.

PAK GULF CONSTRUCTION (PRIVATE) LIMITED vs GODWIN AUSTEN JOHNSON Ss — 2024 CLD 1451 ISLAMABAD

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 CLD