SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER Vs. ARUN KUMAR PATTANAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal Under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act 1940 (in short, the 'Act') challenge is to the judgment dated 23 -7 -1993 passed by learned Subordinate Judge. Bhubaneswar making an award made by the Arbitrator, rule of the Court.

(2.) THE controversy has the following background: A dispute was raised relating to fixation of rent in respect of a house taken by National Water Development Agency (in short. oNWDA') on rent from Arun Kumar Pattanaik (hereinafter referred to as the 'landlord') Misc. Case No. 17 of 1991 was filed by the landlord Under Section 8(2) of the Act for appointment of an Arbitrator and accordingly, on 30 3 -1992 an Arbitrator was appointed. On 19 -12 -1992 award was passed by the Arbitrator and intimation was given to the parties. On receipt of the same. Original Suit No. 323 of 1993 was registered in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar. The same was admitted on 19 -1 -1993. Notice in the suit was issued to both parties by the Court, fixing 10 -5 -1992 for the purpose of service report. On 21 -1 -1993 landlord entered appearance through Advocate. Direction was given by the Court to put up the matter on the date fixed. On 19 -1 -1993 the memo of appearance for the NWDA and two other officials was filed. Prayer was made for grant of a month's time to file objection. Court directed to put up the matter on the date fixed. On 10 -5 -1993 NWDA and two officials filed objection which was registered as Misc. Case No. 188 of 1993. In the suit an application was filed by the landlord to make the award rule of the Court. Objection was raised by him relating to maintainability of the Misc. Case filed on the ground that the same was filed beyond permissible thirty days. Though the learned Subordinate Judge held that the Court can condone the delay, yet refused to do it in the instant case on the ground that there was no petition Under Section 6 of the Indian Limitation Act. 1963 (in short, the Limitation Act'). Accordingly, the award was made the rule of the Court.

(3.) SUB -section (1) of Section 14 of the Act requires the Arbitrator or the Umpire to give notice in writing to the parties of the making and signing of the award. Sub -section (2) of the said section requires the Court after filing of the award to give notice to the parties of the filing of the award. The difference in language in the two sub -sections with regard to giving of notice is significant and clearly indicates that the notice which the Court is to give to the parties of the filing of the award need not be a notice in writing. It can be given orally. No question of the service of the notice in the formal way of delivering the notice or tendering it to the party can arise in the case of a notice given orally. There is sufficient compliance with the requirements of Sub -section (2) of Section 14 with respect to giving of notice to parties if there is communication of the information that an award has been filed. Notice does not necessarily mean communication in writing. It means 'intimation' 'intelligence', warning' and has this meaning in expressions like 'give notice, have notice', and it also means 'formal intimation of something, or instructions to do something'. As observed by the apex Court in Nilakantha Shidramappa Ningashetti v. Kashinath Somanna Ningashetti : AIR 1962 SC 666, the expression 'give notice' in Sub -section (2) of Section 14 simply means giving intimation of the filing of the award. Notice to pleader is notice to the party in view of Rule 5 of Order 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which provides that any process served on the pleader of any party shall be presumed to be duly communicated and made known to the party whom the pleader represents and, unless the Court otherwise directs, shall be as effectual for all purposes as if the same had been given to or served on the party in person. Similar view was also expressed by the apex Court in Indian Revon Corporation Ltd. v. Raunag and Company Pvt. Ltd.: AIR 1988 SC 2054; and Food Corporation of India and Ors. v. E. Kuttapoan : AIR 1993 SC 2629.