| Case ID |
090a513e-e040-4af1-895b-ebabc9c050e8 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Suit No. 1325 of 1999 |
| Decision Date |
Jun 12, 2017 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The Sindh High Court addressed objections raised under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, concerning an award made by the sole arbitrator. The court clarified that it does not function as a court of appeal and does not reassess the evidence unless a clear error is found on the face of the award. In this case, it was determined that the award was invalid as the payment deadline was miscalculated, leading to the conclusion that the defendant, WAPDA, had not defaulted on the payment. The court ultimately set aside the arbitrator's award, reaffirming that the plaintiff had no grounds for termination of the contract due to non-payment, as the payment made was considered valid and within the contractual timelines. |
| Summary |
In the case between CHINA INTERNATIONAL WATER AND ELECTRIC CORPORATION and PAKISTAN WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (WAPDA), the Sindh High Court focused on the objections to an arbitration award under the Arbitration Act, 1940. The primary issue was whether WAPDA had defaulted on the payment as per the contract terms. The court emphasized that the arbitrator's award could only be set aside if a clear error was evident. It was concluded that the payment timeline had been miscalculated, and the cheque issued was valid, leading to the determination that WAPDA had fulfilled its obligations. The court's ruling highlighted the importance of accurate interpretation of contract terms and the distinction between contractual obligations and the role of arbitration in resolving disputes. This case underscores the significance of adhering to contractual timelines and the legal interpretations surrounding them in arbitration cases. |
| Court |
Sindh High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
CHINA INTERNATIONAL WATER AND ELECTRIC CORPORATION,
PAKISTAN WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (WAPDA)
|
| Judges |
MUHAMMAD JUNAID GHAFFAR
|
| Lawyers |
Muhammad Amin Bandukda,
Badar Alam
|
| Petitioners |
CHINA INTERNATIONAL WATER AND ELECTRIC CORPORATION
|
| Respondents |
PAKISTAN WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (WAPDA)
|
| Citations |
2018 SLD 425,
2018 CLC 188
|
| Other Citations |
PLD 1959 Daaca 551,
2002 CLD 1071,
AIR 1952 Travancore-Cochin 181,
AIR 1954 S.C. 236,
AIR (23) 1947 Madras 122,
2001 YLR 2191,
AIR 1965 Orissa 71,
AIR 1953 Madras 602,
2011 CLD 995 (Kar),
1996 SCMR 1646,
2002 SCMR 1903,
AIR 1957 Madhya Bharat 83,
AIR 1957 Madhya Bharat 90,
AIR 1989 SC 1553,
PLD 1969 Karachi 176,
PLD 1983 Quetta 36,
AIR 1954 SC 429,
AIR 1936 Patna 96,
PLD 1977 SC 237,
PLD 1978 Karachi 585,
PLD 1974 Karachi 155,
AIR 1999 SC 2262,
1991 CLC 66 (DB),
1988 CLC 430 (Kar),
PLD 1999 Karachi 112,
1992 SCMR 65
|
| Laws Involved |
Arbitration Act, 1940
|
| Sections |
3,
30,
33
|