STATE OF BIHAR Vs. LIASON AND CONTRACTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the appellants, the State of Bihar and its officers against the order of the court below making an award rule of the court. The question of law which arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether a notice under Section 14 (2) of the Arbitration Act (the Act) has got to be issued to the party who has himself filed the award.

(2.) THE facts are that the respondent No. l had entered into a contract for executing certain works of the Irrigation Department in the district of Dhanbad in the year 1966. Under the agreement contained in the arbitration clause, on some difference arising between the parties, the dispute was referred to the named arbitrator, defendant No. 3 who gave an award in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 1,14,715/-. THE plaintiff made an application for making the award a rule of the court.

(3.) MR. J.P. Shukla, learned Government Pleader No. 2, as already said earlier, has made an argument that issuing a notice within the scheme of Section 14 (2) of the Arbitration Act was mandatory. It is no doubt true that Sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Arbitration Act enjoins upon the court to give notice of the filing of the award and similarly Clause (b) of Article 119 of the Limitation Act also prescribes a period of 30 days for filing an application for setting aside an award or getting an award remitted for reconsideration "from the date of service of the notice of the filing of the award", but it must be held that if the aggrieved party has already got knowledge of the filing of the award, as in the present case, where the award was filed by defendant No. 4, who had appeared in the proceeding jointly with the State of Bihar, separate notice of the filing of the award is not necessary to be issued. A Bench of this Court as far back as in 1927 in the case of Bholanath Roy v. Bata Krishna Roy (AIR 1927 Pat 135) observed that "the materiality of the service consists in the fact that the party is properly made aware of the matter contained in the notice, but if the party or his pleader, where notice is served on him, dispenses with the compliance of the correct formalities prescribed he cannot afterwards object that although he in fact had notice the service was not directly in accordance with the formalities prescribed." The Supreme Court in the case of Nilkantha Sidramappa Ningashetti v. Kar shinath Somanna (AIR 1962 SC 666) has made the matter all the more clear and beyond all reasonable doubt. In that case also no separate notice was issued, but on the relevant date the pleaders of the parties were present, according to the entry against the date in the roznama of the court and it was held to be sufficient notice to the parties as "notice to the counsel of the filing of the award means or amounts to notice to the party." In the 8th paragraph of the report the learned Judge made the following observation (at p. 668):--