| Case ID |
0b1b30cb-8dbf-427f-be27-276d06e215d3 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Regular First Appeal No. 126 of 1998 |
| Decision Date |
Mar 10, 1999 |
| Hearing Date |
Mar 10, 1999 |
| Decision |
The Lahore High Court upheld the appellant's right to revoke the appointment of the Referee before the recording of his statement. After thorough examination of the Arbitration Act (X of 1940), specifically sections 2(a), 11, and 39, the court determined that the parties retained the liberty to revoke the agreement to appoint a Referee prior to any action being taken based on that appointment. The appellant successfully demonstrated that his application for revocation was filed before the Referee's statement was recorded, thereby validating his decision to revoke. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and decree, and remanded the case back to the learned trial Court to proceed in accordance with the law from the stage of revocation of the Referee's appointment. |
| Summary |
In the landmark case of Rao INAYAT ALI versus DIWAN ALI (Regular First Appeal No. 126 of 1998), adjudicated by the Lahore High Court on March 10, 1999, significant legal precedents were reinforced under the Arbitration Act (X of 1940). The core issue revolved around the appellant's application to revoke the appointment of a Referee, Muhammad Sharif, citing partisan behavior and loss of confidence. Under sections 2(a), 11, and 39 of the Arbitration Act, the appellant argued that the revocation was both timely and justified as it occurred before the Referee acted upon his appointment by recording a statement. The trial court initially rejected the revocation, invoking the principles of approbation and reprobation, suggesting that once an agreement was made to appoint a Referee, it could not be easily rescinded. However, the High Court meticulously analyzed the statutory provisions and upheld the appellant's stance, emphasizing the contractual freedom and the right to revoke agreements prior to their execution. The judgment referenced the precedent set in Sher Zaman Khan v. Noor Zaman Khan and another PLD 1977 Lah. 672 ref., reinforcing the appellant's right to withdraw from the agreement before any substantive action was taken by the Referee. This case underscores the importance of adhering to procedural timelines and the flexibility provided under arbitration laws to ensure fairness and confidence in legal proceedings. The decision not only set aside the impugned judgment and decree but also mandated the trial court to proceed in accordance with the law from the point of revocation, thereby ensuring that the legal process remains just and equitable for all parties involved. This case is pivotal for legal practitioners and parties engaged in arbitration, highlighting the critical aspects of revocation rights and the interpretation of arbitration agreements within the parameters of established legal frameworks. Trending keywords associated with this case include 'Arbitration Act 1940', 'Referee revocation', 'Lahore High Court decisions', 'legal precedents in arbitration', and 'contractual freedom in arbitration'. These keywords are essential for legal research, case law analysis, and understanding the nuances of arbitration proceedings in Pakistan's judicial system. |
| Court |
Lahore High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Rao INAYAT ALI,
DIWAN ALI
|
| Judges |
SYED, JAMSHED ALI,
SYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, JJ
|
| Lawyers |
Ch. Abdul Ghani,
Ch. Muhammad Shafique
|
| Petitioners |
Rao INAYAT ALI
|
| Respondents |
DIWAN ALI
|
| Citations |
2000 SLD 670,
2000 CLC 27
|
| Other Citations |
Sher Zaman Khan v. Noor Zaman Khan and another PLD 1977 Lah. 672 ref.
|
| Laws Involved |
Arbitration Act (X of 1940)
|
| Sections |
2(a),
11,
39
|