ANGURI DEVI Vs. BAL RAM GANPAT RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE main point which arises for determination in this appeal is whether any period of limitation is prescribed for an application under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act for getting the award filed in Court and for giving notice to the parties of the same and if so, which Article of the Indian Limitation Act will apply.

(2.) THE facts may shortly be stated. It was alleged that some business was being carried on in partnership between the parties and disputes arose with regard to it which were referred it the arbitration of one Munshi Lal. Although an award is said to have been made in March 1948, the arbitrator gave no notice in writing of making of the award as required by S. 14(1) of the Arbitration Act. On 11-7-1953, an application was made by Balram respondent for filing of the award and for issue of a notice to the parties with regard to it. An objection was taken on behalf of the appellants that the application was barred by time. Notice was issued to the arbitrator who filed only a copy of the award. One of the issues that was raised was whether the application for the filing of the award was within time. THE Court of first instance held that an application made under S. 14(2) of the Arbitration Act was governed by Art. 181 of the Indian Limitation Act. Consequently the application was dismissed. An appeal was brought to this Court and the learned Single Judge was of the view that the matter was concluded by a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Ganga Ram v. Radha Kishan, 57, Pun LR 253: (AIR 1955 Punj 145) and that Art. 178 of the Indian Limitation Act did not apply. It was further considered that there was a clear declaration by the Supreme Court that Art. 181 of the Indian Limitation Act applied only to applications made under the Civil Procedure Code and therefore, that Article could not be made applicable. THE operative part of the judgment of the learned Single Judge runs as follows:

(3.) IT was contended by Mr. Tara Chand Brij Mohan Lal on behalf of the respondent that Art. 178 would be applicable but only the cause of action had not accrued when the application was filed as notice of service of making of an award had not been given. So long as the notice is not given the limitation does not begin to run and as no notice was admittedly given in the present case by the arbitrator of the making of the award the period of limitation could not commence to run at all. IT is not possible to accede to this argument because on the language of Art. 178 does not apply in circumstances that obtain the present case.