GHULAM NABI vs BIBI TAHIRA Ss — 2025 CLC 2053 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

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

GHULAM NABI VS BIBI TAHIRA Ss. 2(a) & 17---Party to dispute not included in arbitration proceedings---Whether award binding on such party---Suit was concurrently dismissed---Held: Record revealed that lady defendant (respondent) was the recorded owner of the land-in-question yet she was not party to the arbitration agreement, while she had not authorized anyone on her behalf to represent her in the reference and the arbitration proceedings---She had not authorized the arbitrators to make an award in respect of the land nor authorized her husband (respondent) through a legal instrument authorizing him to refer the differences to the arbitration on her behalf and then to join the arbitration proceedings---Section 2(a) of the Arbitration Act, 1940, defines an arbitration agreement as "a written agreement to submit present or future differences to arbitration, whether an arbitrator is named therein or not"---Lady defendant /respondent was owner and in possession of the land, whereas, she had not submitted any differences to the arbitration through a written arbitration agreement either in person or through a duly employed attorney---Reference to arbitration by an agent without having a written authorization is not binding against the principal---An arbitrator derives his power from an arbitration agreement or the terms of reference and he cannot decide differences unless he has been authorized to do so by the said person---In the present matter, the arbitrators had directed for the defendant / respondent, thus, the award was not binding on the defendant /respondent and she couldn't be obliged to transfer mutation on the strength of an award pursuant to an arbitration agreement which was not signed by her----There was no concept of employed authority that defendant / respondent had orally authorized her husband/ respondent to enter into arbitration agreement on her behalf---The arbitration agreement did not state that it was signed by the husband /respondent, or an attorney by or on behalf of the lady defendant /respondent---Witnesses of the petitioners/plaintiffs had admitted that the land was in the name of lady defendant / respondent on the date when the differences were referred to arbitration---Hence, the arbitration award was not binding upon the lady defendant / respondent---No illegality or infirmity had been noticed in concurrent judgments calling for any interference by the High Court in its limited revisional jurisdiction---Civil revision, filed by plaintiffs, was dismissed, in circumstances.

GHULAM NABI vs BIBI TAHIRA Ss — 2025 CLC 2053 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 CLC