ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI.
Suit No. 1266 of 2009
__________________________________________________________
Dated Order with signature of Judge.
__________________________________________________________
1. For orders on CMA No.12469/2010 (U/R 50 SCCR)
2. For hearing of CMA No.9412/2009 (U/S 151 CPC)
3. For hearing of objection to the Main Award.
30.11.2012.
Mr. Badar Alam, advocate for the plaintiff.
Mr. Abdul Haleem Siddiqui, advocate for the defendant.
--------------
1. Through this application Syed Tanweer Ashraf advocate of M/s. Zahid & Tariq advocates has prayed that he may be discharged in this case from appearing on behalf of the defendant. The application is supported by a notice alongwith its dispatch receipt as required under Rule 50 of the Sindh Chief Court Rules (O.S.). The above named learned counsel as well as M/S Zahid & Tariq are discharged from appearing in this case on behalf of the defendant. Their names may be struck off by the office from the file cover.
2. This is an application filed by the defendant praying that the plaintiff be directed to supply to him the copy of the Award along with all its annexures to enable the defendant to file objections to the Award. The Award was filed before this Court on 05.09.2009, whereafter notices to both the parties were issued by the office. The said notices were returned duly served as recorded by the Additional Registrar (O.S) on 06.10.2009. Thereafter, the defendant filed objections to the Award through C.M.A.No.10232/2009 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The plaintiff filed counter affidavit to the said application / objections, and the defendant filed his affidavit-in-rejoinder in reply thereto.
Mr. Abdul Haleem Siddiqui, the learned counsel for the defendant, submits that it was the duty of the Arbitrator to supply copies of the Award and the annexures thereto to the parties, which has not been done by the Arbitrator in this case. He further submits that he approached the office many times to collect the copies of the Award and its enclosures, but the same were not supplied to him.
Mr. Badar Alam, the learned counsel for the plaintiff, has invited my attention to the letter dated 08.12.2009 issued by the Arbitrator to the Assistant Registrar (O.S.-II) of this Court, which is annexed to his counter affidavit. In his aforementioned letter, the Arbitrator had confirmed that the copies of the Award alongwith its annexures were sent through TCS to both the parties, and copies of the delivery confirmation certificates issued by TCS were also filed by him.
The object of Section 14(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1940, relating to notice of the making of the Award is only to inform the parties that the Award has been made so that they may file an application for the filing of the Award. Such an application has to be filed within ninety (90) days of the service of the notice of the making of the Award under Article 178 of the Limitation Act, 1908. Similarly the object of notice of the filing of the Award is to enable the parties to file an application for setting aside of the Award, for which the limitation under Article 158 is thirty (30) days from the service of the notice of the Award. There is no provision in the Arbitration Act, 1940, which casts a duty on the Arbitrator to supply copies of the Award and its annexures to the parties. The Arbitrator is required under law only to file the Award in Court, whereafter his responsibility comes to an end. After filing of the Award, notices to the parties are issued by the office. If the parties are duly served, then in order to safeguard their interest, it becomes the duty of the parties to pursue the matter vigilantly by obtaining copies of such documents which have not been received by them.
In this case, filing of objections to the Award by the defendant shows that he must have received the copy of the Award. The learned counsel for the defendant submits that the objections were filed by way of abundant caution only as preliminary objections so that his objections may not become time barred. He further submits that he will be entitled to file further and detailed objections after receiving copies of the annexures filed by the Arbitrator along with the Award. This contention has no force, as objections to the Award can be filed by the parties within thirty (30) days from the date of service. Once objections are filed and the limitation for filing objections expires, no further or additional objections can be entertained.
As the defendant had received notices directly from the Arbitrator and also from this Court, and objections to the Award were admittedly filed after receiving such notices, the submission made by the learned counsel is not tenable. Even otherwise, the prayer made in this application is that the plaintiff should be directed to supply copies of the Award alongwith all its annexures to the defendant. It is certainly not the duty or responsibility of either of the parties to supply copies of the Award and its annexures to the other party. Instead of expecting copies from the Arbitrator or demanding the same from the plaintiff through this application, the defendant could have very easily obtained certified copies from the office. Admittedly, no such application for obtaining copies or certified copies was filed by the defendant. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.
3. At the request of Mr. Abdul Haleem Siddiqui advocate, adjourned to a date to be fixed by the office in the second week of January 2013 on a day other than Monday.
J U D G E
Riaz/P.A*