LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through Chief Engineer-I vs ZAHIR KHAN AND BROTHERS through Chief Executive Offic

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

LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through Chief Engineer-I VS ZAHIR KHAN AND BROTHERS through Chief Executive Officer Ss.11, 28 & 31(3)---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115---Agreement for Package-2, 'Orange Line Metro Train Project'---Arbitration clause---Reference to arbitral tribunal---Application for bifurcation/separate adjudication of multiple sub-claims, dismissal of---Interlocutory order of arbitral tribunal---Challenge before the civil court, legality of---Judicial non-interference in ongoing arbitration---Scope---Expiry of initial arbitral period (four months where contract silent)---Effect---Order passed after expiry but before formal enlargement of time---Enlargement of time by court for making award, powers of---Where such enlargement is granted after statutory time-limit---Legality---Retrospective operation of enlargement of time---Scope---Facts: Lahore Development Authority (LDA) and respondent executed a contract for Package-2 of the Orange Line Metro Train Project containing an arbitration clause; upon disputes, arbitration proceedings commenced before an arbitral tribunal where the respondent filed multiple sub-claims, and LDA applied to the tribunal for separation/bifurcation and separate adjudication of each sub-claim; the tribunal dismissed that application, LDA challenged the said order before the civil court, which dismissed the challenge and affirmed the tribunal's decision, leading the LDA to file present civil revision petition before the High Court---Issues: (i) "Whether an interlocutory/procedural order of an arbitral tribunal (refusing bifurcation of sub-claims) was independently amenable to challenge before the civil court?"; (ii) "Whether the tribunal's order, made after expiry of the initial arbitral period but before formal enlargement of time by court, was legally sustainable?"; and (iii) Whether petitioner's application for separation and individual adjudication of sub-claims was rightly dismissed?---Held: As regards issue (i); there was no independent substantive right to challenge each interlocutory or procedural order passed by the arbitral tribunal---The legislature's deliberate omission of such a right in the Act of 1940 underscored the principle that the arbitral tribunal was considered to be the master of its own procedure, particularly where it was composed of technical experts best suited to manage complex factual and procedural issues---Thus, the petitioner's application for separation of sub-claims constituted a challenge to the tribunal's case management discretion, which was not permissible under the Act---As per the principle of judicial non-intervention, arbitration had to proceed without interruption or judicial oversight of interlocutory matters---The application filed by the petitioner before the civil court challenging the arbitral tribunal's order was thus not maintainable and was rightly dismissed---Consequently, the present civil revision, being an extension of the same challenge, was also not maintainable---As regards issue (ii); where the extension in time was granted by court after the expiry of the original period but before the making of the award, the order operated retrospectively, thereby validating the proceedings conducted beyond the original time limit---Similarly, where the extension was granted after the making of the award, it encompassed the situation where the award was rendered after the expiry of time and the subsequent enlargement by the Court related back, rendering the award valid as if made within the extended period---In such circumstances, there could be no doubt that the extension of time operated retrospectively---As regards issue (iii); while subscribing to the principle of minimal judicial intervention in arbitral proceedings, High Court observed that the expert arbitral tribunal was the master of its own procedure---In the absence of any allegation of bias, violation of the principles of natural justice, or a demonstrable and grave prejudice that could not otherwise be compensated, a court should be loath to interfere with such procedural determinations---Therefore, on the merits of the application itself, High Court found no compelling reason to substitute its own view for that of the expert arbitrators---Impugned order was passed in accordance with law---Present civil revision petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through Chief Engineer-I vs ZAHIR KHAN AND BROTHERS through Chief Executive Officer Ss — 2026 CLD 369 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 CLD