Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ISMAIL MUHAMMAD BHAI VS Respondent: YOUNUS ALI GAZDAR
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Nasim Hasan Shah, Shafi-ur-Rehman Title: ISMAIL MUHAMMAD BHAI vs YOUNUS ALI GAZDAR Case No.: Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No,103-K of 1990 Date of Judgment:1990-09-25 Reported As: 1992 SCMR 699 Result: Leave refused
Judgment ORDER ' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the appellate judgment/order of the High Court dated 30-11-1989 whereby his appeal against the decision of the learned Judge in Chambers making the award the decree of the Court was dismissed in limine. 2. The only contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Arbitrator had not decided all the disputes that were referred to the Arbitrator and instead he confined the Award to only few of the matters in dispute. Apparently, this contention of the learned counsel may look tenable as the Arbitrator had extracted the following terms of reference:- "(a) Measurement of the work actually done by the Contractor. (b) Evaluation of the work done. (c) Settlement of accounts between the parties. In other words: (i) how much money, Mr. Younus Ali received by way of goodwill; (ii) how much he had paid to the owner, or spent on his account; (iii) how much remained with him, after adjustment of the cost of construction; or (iv) he had to receive some amount towards cost of the construction." ' He dealt with all of them. In his Objection to the Award, though the petitioner dealt with each item referred to by the Arbitrator and dealt with by him, the Petitioner made no grievance at all of the fact that there was any aspect of the dispute between the parties which was left out for determination. Having not raised such an objection in writing when he was objecting to the Award, he cannot be allowed to raise it as an afterthought at a subsequent stage of the proceedings. 3. We find that no question of law such as may require our further examination arises in the case. Hence, leave to appeal is refused.