- (1.) THIS application is for setting aside the award dated 28-8-82. By a contract in writing dt. 6-12-1978, the respondent agreed to construct a 25000 M.T. capacity godown for the petitioner. THIS contract contained an arbitration clause. During the execution of the work the government, by notification dt. 28-12-1979 increased the rates of building materials. Thereafter disputes and differences arose between the parties concerning the rates and other matters as well. The disputes between the parties were referred to arbitration and the arbitrator made his award dt. 28-8-1982 in favour of the respondent. The arbitrator duly intimated the parties about the making and signing the award. Thereafter by a letter dt. 21-5-1983, addressed to the Registrar, Original Side of this High Court, the arbitrator wrote as follows : - "In pursuance of the request of the Central Warehousing Corporation, New Delhi vide letter No. CWC/11-432/Const, dt. 16-11-1982 I file the award published by me in original along with the documents for necessary action according to law" .
(2.) COPIES of the said letter were duly sent to the parties. In the petition, it is alleged that the petitioner received notice dt. 4-7-1983 under S.14(2) of the Arbitration Act. The present application was taken out on 1-8-1983. This application is contested by the respondent mainly on the ground of limitation. Relying on AIR 1962 SC 666, AIR 1976 Cal 406 and AIR 1984 Cal 14, the respondent's counsel submits that time will run from the date of informal notice of filing of the award D/-21-5-1983 and the application is clearly barred by limitation. The petitioner did not dispute the receipt of the letter D/-21-5-1983. But the contention of the petitioner's counsel is that S.14(2) notice recorded that the award was actually filed on 16-8-1983. Therefore the contents of the earlier letter D/-21-5-1983 could not be correct and could not be treated as an informal notice of filing of the award. It was a false alarm only. He also points out that informal notices in AIR 1962 SC 666, AIR 1976 Cal 406 and AIR 1984 Cal 14 recorded actual filing of the award. Hence the letter D/-21-5-1983 in the present case cannot be treated as an informal notice as the award was not filed until 16-8-1983. In this case the time will run from the date of receipt of the notice under S.14(2) of the Act. This submission is very interesting. In fact what was communicated to the petitioner by the arbitrator's letter D/-21-5-1983 was that the arbitrator had submitted or transmitted the original award to the Registrar, Original Side, for the purpose of filing the same. Can this message amount to a notice of filing of the award by the arbitrator? S.14(2) of the Arbitration Act is as follows : - "The Arbitrators or Umpire 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 and charges of filing the award cause the award or signed copy of it, together with any depositions and documents which may have been taken and proved before them, to be filed in court and the Court shall thereupon give notice to the parties of the filing of the award."
(3.) THEREFORE, the duty of the arbitrator comes to an end when he takes step to cause the award to be filed. It has been repeatedly held by Courts that actual filing of the award is only a ministerial function. In AIR 1953 SC 313 (Kumbha Mawji v. Dominion of India) it was held : - "Under S.14(2) the actual filing by the umpire is not essential. It is sufficient if the Umpire causes the award to be filed. Where in response to a notice issued to him by the Court, the Umpire forwarded to the Court the award by post, there is sufficient compliance with S.14(2)." .;