ATHAR MINALLAH, HCJ.--- Through this consolidated order. I shall decide the instant appeal alongwith FAO No. 238/2019 tit led "Capital Development Authority v. M/s. Habib Rafiq (Pvt.) Ltd".
The facts, in brief, are that Capital Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the "Authority") invited applications for pre-qualification through an advertisement published in the daily Dawn on 19.11.2009. Pre-qualification offers were sought from reputable contractors/firms for construction of additional family suites for parliamentarians in Sector G-5/2, Islamabad (hereinafter. referred to as the Project"). M/s. Habib Rafiq (Pvt.) Limited (hereinafter referred to as the "Contractor") was declared as successful bidder and therefore, Letter of Intent, dated 12.02.2011. was duly issued. The Contractor filed. a civil in 2015" because disputes had arisen between the parties obit of and in connection with the contractual obligations. The parties agreed to refer the disputes to an arbitrator. This agreement was subject to, withdrawal of the suit which had been tiled by the Contractor. The suit was therefore withdrawn and the parties consented-to appointment of Justice (Rtd) Nasir Aslam Zahid as the sole "Arbitrator-, the parties voluntarily joined the arbitration 'proceedings and on conclusion the Arbitrator announced the -Award" on 20.08.2018. The Award was tiled before a competent Court at Islamabad on 11.09.2018. The Authority tiled an objection petition. Alongwith the objection petition. a separate application was tiled. It was asserted that the "Award- under section 14(2) or the Arbitration Act. 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1940"). The learned trial Court vide order, dated 15.05.2019. allowed the application, and ordered the "Award- to be remitted 'returned to the learned -Arbitrator- for its resubmission within thirty days: The 'order dated 15.05.2019 'has been assailed by the Contractor in FAO No. 92/2019.
3. The learned counsels were heard on 20.08.2019 and an order was also announced in the open Court. However, the appeals were fixed for rehearing because while going through the record it appeared that further assistance was required regarding the question whether in the facts and circumstances of the instant: case, the learned trial Court was competent to return the -Award-, and direct its resubmission within thirty days. In the meanwhile, the learned "Arbitrator" had formally tiled the Award alongwith his covering, letter. The learned counsel for the Authority raised an objection before the learned trial Court that pursuant to order dated 15.05.2019, the learned "Arbitrator" had not tiled the Award within the time specified i.e. thirty days. The objections raised by the Authority Were dismissed vide order 22.11.2019 and the said order has been assailed in FAO No. 238/2019.
4. The learned counsels for the parties have been heard at length. It is the case of the Authority that the "Award" was in breach of the provisions of the Act of 1940 and. therefore, the learned trial Court had rightly returned the "Award by directing its resubmission within thirty days. The learned counsel has referred to sub-section (2) of section 14 of the Act of 1940 in support of his contention that the "Award" ought to lime been tiled in accordance with the statutory requirements.
5. The learned counsel for the Contractor, on the other hand, has stated that no time limitation is provided for filing of an "Award" in the Court. He has further stated that the learned trial Court was not vested with jurisdiction to return, the award and, therefore, the impugned order, dated 15.05.2019, was without lawful authority and jurisdiction. He has further argued that order, dated 22.11.2019 is well-reasoned and does not require interference.
6. The learned counsels have been heard and the record perused with their able assistance.
7. Section 14 of the Act of 1940 provides that when the arbitrator or umpire has made an award, the latter shall sign it and shall give notice in writing to the parties of such making and signing thereof.
Sub-section (2) provides that the arbitrator shall, at the request of any party to the arbitration agreement or any person claiming under such party or if so directed by the Court and upon payment of the fees and charges due in respect of the arbitration and award and of the costs of the charges of filing the award, cause the award or a signed copy of it, together with any depositions and documents, which may have been taken and proved before him/her to be filed in the Court, and the Court shall thereupon give notice to the parties of the filing of the award.
8. A plain reading of section 14 unambiguously shows that no time limitation has been prescribed for filing of the award. Moreover, the language of the statute does not contemplate returning or refusing to accept the award after it has been filed. The Act of 1940 empowers the learned trial Court to modify or to remit the award under sections 15 and 16, respectively. Both these provisions do not empower the learned Court to remit or return the award on the ground that it was not properly filed under sub-section (2) of section 14. The learned Court in this case could have sought confirmation from the "Arbitrator" through the parties rather than passing order, dated 15.05.2019.
The learned trial Court vide order, dated 15.05.2019 had not raised doubts regarding the authenticity of the "Award" signed and announced by the "Arbitrator", namely Justice (Rtd) Nasir Aslam Zahid. It is also not the case of the Authority that the "Award" brought on record was different from the one signed and announced by the "Arbitrator". In the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, the learned trial Court was bereft of jurisdiction to remit the "Award" and, therefore, the impugned order, dated 15.05.2019 was passed without lawful authority. The learned "Arbitrator" confirmed the signing and announcement of the Award, dated 20.08.2018, therefore, the matter has become infructuous. The "Award" initially brought on record met the statutory requirements and in case the Court had any doubt, the proper course was to have sought confirmation through the parties.
9. For the above reasons, FAO No. 92/2019 is allowed and consequently order, dated 15.05.2019, is hereby set aside. FAO No. 238/2019 is thus dismissed because order, dated 22.11.2019 does not suffer from any legal infirmity requiring interference by this Court. The conduct of the Authority has unnecessarily led to delaying the arbitration process and enforcement of the "Award".