| Case ID |
0c002e2d-0c2c-471e-8e75-97c7cf91714a |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
C.R. No. 50-B of 2009 |
| Decision Date |
Jul 22, 2014 |
| Hearing Date |
Jul 22, 2014 |
| Decision |
The Peshawar High Court dismissed the revision petition filed by the respondents, maintaining the appellate court's remand order. The court found that the trial court erred in dismissing the applicants' request without providing an opportunity to present evidence regarding the notice of the award. The appellate court's decision to condone the delay by excluding the month of August was deemed incorrect under the Limitation Act, 1908. Consequently, the High Court upheld the appellate court's remand order, directing the trial court to reconsider the case in accordance with the law, ensuring both parties have the opportunity to present their evidence. |
| Summary |
In the case of C.R. No. 50-B of 2009, adjudicated by the Peshawar High Court on July 22, 2014, the court addressed pivotal issues concerning arbitration and limitation laws. Petitioners, led by Sajjad Ahmad and eight others, contested the respondents, including Muhammad Khalid Khan, challenging the dismissal of their application to make an award rule of the court under the Arbitration Amendment Ordinance, 1981. Central to the case were Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act and Section 178 of the Limitation Act, 1908. The trial court had dismissed the applicants' request to condone delay, citing the limitation period. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, erroneously excluding the month of August from the limitation calculation, thereby condoning the delay. The High Court scrutinized this exclusion, referencing critical case laws like Messrs Waseem Construction Co. v. Province of Sindh and Mushtaq Ahmad alias Mastay Khan v. Ahmad Yar, emphasizing that limitation periods commence from the official notice of the award's making, not merely from the parties' awareness. The High Court observed that the trial court failed to allow both parties to present evidence on whether proper notice was given, leading to a miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the High Court upheld the appellate court's remand order, directing the trial court to re-evaluate the case, ensuring adherence to the Limitation Act and providing both parties the opportunity to substantiate their claims. This judgment underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding procedural fairness and the accurate application of legal provisions in arbitration-related disputes. |
| Court |
Peshawar High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
Muhammad Daud Khan, Justice
|
| Lawyers |
Muhammad Nisar Khan Sokarri,
Syed Fakhrudin Shah,
Ali Gohar
|
| Petitioners |
8 others,
Sajjad Ahmad
|
| Respondents |
others,
Muhammad Khalid Khan
|
| Citations |
2017 SLD 2017,
2017 MLD 656
|
| Other Citations |
Messrs Waseem Construction Co. v. Province of Sindh and others 1991 CLC 1081,
Mushtaq Ahmad alias Mastay Khan and another v. Ahmad Yar and 9 others 2000 CLC 1518 rel.,
Muhammad Shafi and others v. Muhammad Sabir and others PLD 1960 Lah. 591
|
| Laws Involved |
Arbitration Amendment Ordinance, 1981,
Limitation Act, 1908
|
| Sections |
14,
17,
178
|