NAFEES BEGUM Vs. HIKMATULLAH MOHAMED SAFI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under S. 14 of the Arbitration Act under which the petitioners have prayed that the arbitrators be directed to file the award dated 4th October, 1976 in court. The petitioners and the respondents 2 and 3 are heirs of one MOhamed Jan Chowdhari Abdul Kayum who died on 7th May, 1976. Mohamed Jan Chowdhari was carrying on business in partnership with the 1st respondent. After the death of Mohamed Jan the 1st petitioner who was the window of Mohamed Jan on behalf of herself and the heirs of Mohamed Jan who wer then minors. Preferred the disputes between them and the 1st respondent to arbitration. The arbitrators made their award on 4th October, 1976 which is Exhibit "A' to the petition. It seems that at the time when the award was made thumb impression of the 1st petitioner (who had referred the dispute to arbitration on behalf of the heirs and legal representatives of Mohamed Jan) as well as the 1st respondent were taken on the award. What requires to be determined is whether this amounts to the arbitrators giving to the petitioners a notice in writing of the making and signing of the award under S. 14 sub-sec. (1) of the Arbitration Act of 1940. If this amounts to a notice in writing as contemplated under S. 14(1), then under the provisions of Art. 119 (a) of the Limitation Act of 1963, the petitioners were required to file an application for filing the award in court within 30 days of the date of service of the notice of the making of the award. Since this period of 30 days of the date of service of the notice of the making of the award. Since this period of 30 days has expired long back, the present petition would become time-barred. If on the other hand, the 1st petitioner being shown the award and her putting of thumb impression on the award does not amount to a notice in writing under S. 14(1), the period of limitation under Art. 119 (a) has not begun to run so far, and the petitioners are entitled to maintain the petition.

(2.) UNDER S. 14 sub-sec (1) of the Arbitration Act it is provided as follows:-

(3.) THIS judgment along with some other similar judgments came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of Parasramka Commercial Co. Ltd. v. Union of India In that case, after the award was made and signed by the arbitra ors, the arbitrators sent a copy of the award to the parties. According to the arbitrators this copy of the award was accompanied by a covering letter giving notice of the making of the award. But the appellants denied having received such a covering letter. The Supreme Court held that sending of the copy of the award to the appellants amounted to a notice in writing of the making and signing of the award as contemplated under S. 14(1) of the Arbitration Act. Reterring to the various cases cited before him which included the abvoe Andhra Pradesh case, Mr. Hidayatullah, C.J. observed : "It is not necessary to go into the reasoning which made the learned Judges in these cases to lay down that there must be proper notice in writing of the making of the award. That follows in fact from the words of S. 14 of the Arbitration Act ......... What will be considered a sufficient notice in writing of the making and signing of the award is a question of fact .... It seems to us that we cannot limit the words "notice in writing" to only a letter. Notice may take several forms. It must to be sufficient, be in writing and must intimate quite clearly that the award has been made and signed. In the present case, a copy of the award signed by the arbitrator was sent to the company. It appears to us that the company had sufficient notice that the award had been made and signed". It was therefore, held that this amounts to a notice as contemplated under S. 14 sub-sec. (1) of the Arbitration Act of 1940.