ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that under Article 185(3) of the Constitution, it will not disrupt concurrent finding unless they are demonstrably shown to suffer gross misreading or non-reading of evidence, perversity, or arbitrariness.
A three-member bench of the apex court headed by Chief Justice Yahya Afridi and comprising Justice Irfan Saadat Khan and Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi announced the judgment in a case titled M/s Ghulam Siddiqe, Ghulam Habib and Company (Pvt) Peshawar verse Government of NWFP through chief engineer communication and others.
The petitioner had filed an appeal in the apex court against the judgment dated 29.02.2016 passed by the Peshawar High Court in R.F.A. No. 118 of 2008, whereby the regular first appeal filed by the petitioner company was dismissed and the order dated 13.05.2008 of the civil judge-V, Peshawar dismissing the petitioner’s application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, was maintained.
The SC, after hearing the matter in detail, dismissed the petition, declaring that it did not find any illegality and irregularity in the concurrent findings of the learned lower fora. It is a settled principle of law that this court under Article 185(3) of the Constitution will not disrupt concurrent findings of fact unless they are demonstrably shown to suffer gross misreading or non-reading of evidence, perversity, or arbitrariness, says a six-page judgment authored by Justice Irfan Saadat Khan.
The court noted that the petitioner has not pointed to any contemporaneous correspondence, protest, reservation, or objection indicating that the “No Demand Certificate” was executed under compulsion or without prejudice to its existing claims. “On the contrary, the record reflects an unequivocal acceptance of the final payment without any qualification whatsoever. In these circumstances, permitting the petitioner to reagitate claims that stood expressly settled would be contrary to the settled principles governing contractual finality,” says the judgment. As per facts of the case, the petitioner was awarded a contract on 16.12.1993 for the construction of a 240-bed facility at Hayatabad Medical Complex, Peshawar. During execution, disputes arose regarding delays in release of running payments, idle charges, and price escalation. After completion of the project, the petitioner accepted Rs8,85,55,647 as full and final settlement by submitting a “No Demand Certificate” on 08.02.1999. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 seeking reference of the disputes to arbitration.
