NANKOO RAM AND OTHERS Vs. KALYAN DAS AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order of the Addl. Civil Judge, Mirzapur, condoning the delay in filing an objection Under Section 30 of the Indian Arbitration Act. The award was given by the arbitrator on 3 -2 -1964 and was filed in the office of the lower court on 11 -4 -1964. The order sheet of 21 -4 -1964 states that the award has been filed and that 30 -5 -1964 was fixed for disposal. The objection was filed on 20 -5 -1964, praying that the award be set aside. The Applicants contended that the objection, having been filed beyond time, should be rejected. Their case was that the objectors had knowledge of the filing of the award through their counsel on 11 -4 -1964 or, in any case, on April 16 or 17 when their counsel was informed by some one of the filing of the award. The lower court held that the counsel for the objectors had knowledge on or about the 16th of April of the filing of the award and therefore, the objection should have been filed within 30 days of that date and since it was filed on 20 -5 -1964, it was time barred. It, however, condoned the delay in filing the objection Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It is against this order that the Applicants have filed this revision.

(2.) HAVING heard Learned Counsel for the parties, I am of Opinion that the objection was filed within time and no question of condoning he delay arose in the case. After the award is filed in court, the court is required by Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act to give notice to the parties of the filing of the award. Article 119(b) of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, provides the period of limitation of 30 days for an application under the Arbitration Act for setting aside an award and the time from which the period begins to run is the date of the service of the notice of he filing of the award. It is obvious that the starting point of limitation is the service of the notice required to be given by the court Under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act. The lower court has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court In Nilkantha v. Kashinath : AIR 1962 SC 666 for holding that the date off the knowledge of the party or of his counsel of the filing of the award would be the starting point of limitation. In my opinion, the lower court has misunderstood the decision of the Supreme Court. What the Supreme Court has decided in this case is that the notice which the court is required to give Under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act need not be a formal notice and need not be in writing. The Supreme Court has not held that no notice need be given by the Court and that limitation for filing the objection would start from the date when the parties or their counsel come to know of the filing of the award. The Supreme Court has observed that the expression "give notice" in Section 14(2) simply means 'giving intimation of the filing of the award'. It has further observed that the giving of this intimation need not be formal and it may be oral. But the Supreme Court has not said any where that no notice need be given at all and the knowledge of the party would be sufficient for starting of the running of the period of limitation. In Hasanalli Abdulalli v. Shantilal : AIR 1962 Guj 317, it was observed:

(3.) I am, therefore, of the opinion that the objection filed by the objectors to the award was filed within time and no question of condoning the delay in filing the objection arose. The objection was rightly entertained by the lower court.