JAYANTILAL JAMNADAS Vs. CHHAGANLAL NATHOOBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition filed by the petitioner praying that the award dated July 14, 1943, be taken off the file of this Court. It seems that a suit was filed in the Small Causes Court, Bombay, by the respondent against the petitioner and that suit was referred to the arbitration of Chhotalal Jekissondas Ghia, an advocate practising in that Court. The arbitrator made and published his award on July 14, 1943. On July 15, 1943, he gave notice to the advocates of the petitioner and the respondent who had been appearing before him during the reference that he had published and signed his award on July 14, 1943. He again gave a notice on March 3, 1944, to the parties themselves of the fact of his having made and published the award. The ground on which the petitioner seeks to have the award taken off the file is that it is out of time under Article 178 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908.

(2.) THE first contention raised by Mr. M. V. Desai is that the notice given by the arbitrator on July 15, 1943, is not the statutory notice contemplated by Section 14(1) of the Indian Arbitration Act inasmuch as the notice should be served on the par-ties and not on their advocates. In view of my decision on the second contention urged by Mr. Desai, I do not think it necessary to express any opinion on this particular contention put forward by Mr. Desai.

(3.) THE position is very different when an arbitrator does not file the award and a party applies to the Court to direct him to file the award. THEn a formal application has got to be made by the party and on that application the Court makes the order. In my opinion it is only when such an application is made by a party to the reference that the application of Article 178 of the Indian Limitation Act is attracted. If such an application is beyond ninety days of the service of the notice on the party, then the Court would not entertain such an application as being barred. Whereas under the first part of Section 14(2) of the Indian Arbitration Act the arbitrator acts merely at the request of one of the parties, in the latter case he acts on an order of the Court made on an application presented by a party to the reference. Mr. Taraporewalla has drawn my attention to the inconsistency which would result from construing Article 178 of the Indian Limitation Act in the manner in which I am doing. Mr. Taraporewalla urges that whereas a party's application would be barred ninety days after the notice had been served upon him, an arbitrator would be at liberty to file the award at any time if so requested by one of the parties. I realise the force of this argument; but the answer to it is two-fold : firstly, it is not likely that an arbitrator would be permitted to allow a considerable period of time to lapse without his being called upon to file the award because the award is bound to be in favour of one or other of the parties and that party would be interested in seeing that the award was filed with due despatch. THE second answer is that inconsistencies in a Statute are for the legislature. To the extent that the language of a section is clear the Court must give effect to it and especially in a statute like the Indian Limitation Act which deprives a party of valuable rights.