STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. MONDAL AND CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application by the State of West Bengal for setting aside the award dated 22-4-32. In the petition it is alleged that the petitioner received the notice under Section 14 (2) of the Arbitration Act on 13-8-82 informing the petitioner that the award had been filed on 16-7-80. In para. 12 of the Affidavit-in--Opposition the respondent alleged that the petitioner had notice of filing of the award by respondent's letter dated 16-7-82 which was received by the petitioner's Executive Engineer on 17-7-82. In reply dated 30-7-82 the petitioner informed the respondent , that the petitioner was taking steps for making payment under the award. According to the respondent the present application was taken out on 13-9-82, clearly beyond 30 days from 17-7-82 and the application was barred by limitation. In the Affidavit-in-reply the petitioner did not dispute the receipt of the respondent's letter dated 16-7-82 on 17-7-82. THIS letter dated 16-7-82 and the petitioner's reply dated 30-7-82 are Annexures 'C' and 'D' to the Affidavit-in-Opposition.

(2.) THE counsel for the petitioner submits that under Section 14 (2) of the Arbitration Act it is the duty of the Court to give notice of filing of the award. He, however, concedes that for the purpose of limitation it is not necessary that a formal notice under Section 14 (2) of the Arbitration Act has to be served. Any informal notice, even an oral notice of filing of the is sufficient for attracting Article 119 of the Limitation Act as held in But he contends that this informal or oral notice must be by the court, as under Section 14 (2) of the Arbitration Act notice must be given by court. In support of his contention, he relies on AIR 1978 J and K 85 where it has been expressly held that knowledge of the filing of the award must be one which directly or indirectly emanates from the court in which the award has been filed. Knowledge from any other source if permitted to be treated as equivalent to knowledge acquired in or from the court, it would destroy the very purpose of Section 14 (2) of the Act. According to the petitioner's counsel, petitioner's know- ledge of filing of the award from the respondent's letter dated 16-7-82 is no notice at ail under Article 119 of Limitation Act. THE time will not run from 17-7-82. THE application is perfectly within time.

(3.) IN this case, the petitioner was informed by a letter about the filing of the award in court. Of course, from the judgment, it is not clear as to who wrote this letter. But this court did not hold that the informal notice must emanate from court. IN the petitioner came to know about the filing of the award in court on 26-6-78 from the report dated 29-6-78 submitted by one G. K. Dutt, the Administrator appointed by court. IN that case it was urged on behalf of the respondent that the application was barred by limitation as the same was made beyond 30 days from 29-6-78. The court, thereupon held :--