STACO-SHAHID BUILDERS JOINT VENTURE (JV) vs LAHORE CANTONMENT BOARD S

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

STACO-SHAHID BUILDERS JOINT VENTURE (JV) VS LAHORE CANTONMENT BOARD S.20(4)---Cantonments Act (II of 1924), S.84---Appointment of arbitrator---Dispute arose between the parties with regard to initial work order and subsequent changes/enhancement in the costs for the project---Appointment of arbitrator was to be made in such manner as may be agreed upon between the parties in terms of the contract---Contention of the appellant was that an independent arbitrator ought to have been appointed instead of appointment of the arbitrator in terms of the contract owing to his biasness and partiality being part of the respondent-department as its appellate authority---Validity---Whole object underlying the Arbitration Act, 1940 (Act) is to enforce the arbitration agreement whereby the parties bind themselves down to have their disputes, arising out of transaction to which such an agreement is applicable, adjudicated upon and decided by the domestic tribunal---Under clause (4) of S.20 of the Act, power of the Court to order reference to an arbitrator appointed by itself did not confer the authority on the Court to substitute the original agreement of the parties by an entirely new agreement of its own choice---If the parties out of their free-will and consent appointed a third person knowing fully well his relation with any one of the parties to dispute, such arbitration agreement shall not be invalided on the principle of bias and the arbitrator cannot be removed on this ground---Known interest of an arbitrator did not in any way invalidate his appointment, and it was only in a case where such an interest was concealed or came into existence after the appointment, that the appointment was rendered invalid or was liable to be revoked---Appellant was well aware of the authority and department of the arbitrator from the very first date and the Arbitrator was not the official of the respondent-department rather he was an Appellate Authority under S.84 of the Cantonments Act, 1924, who was appointed by the Government as defined under Pakistan Cantonment Service Rules, 1952---Arbitrator was not a participant in the meetings of Cantonment Board, therefore, any kind of allegation of biasness or partiality on his part was purely hypothetical and presumptuous, without any kind of evidence at all---Parties had already appointed the arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes arising out of the agreement and the appellant could not wriggle out from his commitment, and was precluded from approaching the court for appointing an arbitrator other than the arbitrator named in the agreement---Appellant could approach the already appointed arbitrator for redressal of his grievance and thereafter if there appeared any instance of biasness he could approach the Court for redressal of his grievance under relevant provisions of law---Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 CLD 138 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case STACO-SHAHID BUILDERS JOINT VENTURE (JV) VS LAHORE CANTONMENT BOARD Documents or statutes are to be interpreted in their entire context following a full consideration of all provisions of the documents or statute, as the case may be---Every attempt must be made to save the document and for this purpose a difference between general statements and particular statements of the document should be differentiated properly to save the document rather to nullify it---No provision of the document should be read in isolation or in bits or pieces, but the entire document is to be read as a whole to gather the intention of the parties---Court for this purpose can resort to the correspondence exchange between the parties---Court should lean towards an interpretation, which effectuates rather than one which invalidates an instrument.

STACO-SHAHID BUILDERS JOINT VENTURE (JV) vs LAHORE CANTONMENT BOARD S — 2025 CLD 138 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 CLD