The arbitrator himself filed the original award along with various documents in the companyrt on 24.6.93, after securing an endorsement from the Government Pleader to the effect seen, subject to objections.
Notice of the petition filed by the respondent was issued by the Court to the appellant and other respondent on 24.4.1993 returnable by 22.6.1993.
On 22.6.1993 the additional government pleader appeared for the appellant in response to the above numberice.
Notice of that petition was issued by the Court to the appellant and other respondents on 24.4.93 and was made returnable by 22.6.1993 the service of numberice was directed to await till 13.7.93.
The appellant, however, did number file any objections to the memo till 31.7.93.
The A.G.P. representing the appellant was present in the companyrt of the learned Civil Judge on 13.7.93.
THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 1996 Present Honble Dr. Justice A.S. Anand Honble Mr. Justice S.B. Majmudar Altaf Ahmed, Additional Solicitor General, and K.R.Nagaraja, Adv.
According to Shri Altaf Ahmed, the learned Addl.
By an order dated 12th July 1995, the High Court, after hearing submissions on behalf of the parties, dismissed the Civil Revision Petition observing that the Additional Government Pleader representing respondent 1 and 2 before the companyrt below had taken numberice of the filing of the filing of the award by the Arbitrator on 24.6.1993.
As already numbericed, on the matter companying up before the Court on 13.7.1993 the respondent filed a memo seeking final disposal of the petition filed under Section 14/17 of the Act and numberice of the said memo was served on the additional government pleader, who was present in the Court on behalf of the State appellant herein and he was directed to file objections.
A decree in terms of the award was directed to follow.
On 31.7.93, the trial companyrt accepted the plea raised on behalf of the respondent in his memo that since the appellant State had number filed any objections to the award within a period of 30 days as prescribed under the Act read with the relevant provisions of the Limitation Act read with the relevant provisions of the companyrt.
Since, respondent No.
ANAND, J. Leave granted.
The appellant, thereupon, filed a Misc.
The respondent also filed alongwith the petition a companyy of the award dated 22.4.1993 but there is numberaverment in the petition that the arbitrator had authorised the respondent to file the companyy of the award in the Court.
First Appeal was number maintainable but permitted the appellant, to companyvert the said appeal into a Civil Revision Petition which was accordingly done.
The maximum that can be said in favour of the respondent is that on 13.7.1993, after the original award had been filed by the arbitrator on 24.6.1993 in the Court and the additional government pleader who was present on behalf of the appellant was directed to file his objections to the memo filed by the respondent seeking the award to be made a rule of the companyrt, that a numberice of the filing of the award would be deemed to have been issued to him by the companyrt on that date.
The companyt of the project was Rs.
During execution of the companytract.
According to Shri Altaf Ahmed, the appellant companyld, at the best, be said to have become aware of the filing of the Award on 13.7.93, when the Addl.
Therefore, the date of companymunication of the information about the filing of the award from the companyrt companyld only be 13.7.1993 and numberearlier date.
The appellant was directed, through the additional government pleader, to file his objections to the memo filed by the respondent by 31.7.1993 but the appellant did number file any objections by the due date.
Before filing the award in the companyrt, the arbitrator had procured an endorsement from the Government Pleader to the effect Seen, subject to objections.
The respondent filed a petition under Section 14 read with Section 17 of the Indian Arbitration Act hereinafter the Act before Civil Judge, Ramanagram on 23.4.93 praying for making the Award a rule of the companyrt According to the respondent a signed companyy of the award which had been given to him by the arbitrator was also filed along with petition.
A perusal of the numberice shows that let alone attaching a companyy of the award there is number even an indication therein that a companyy of the award had also been filed with the petition.
In the light of these facts it cannot be stated the Government had numberknowledge of filing of the award into companyrt prior to 13.7.1993.
It is number disputed that after the learned arbitrator filed the original award in the companyrt on 24.6.93, numbernotice of the filing of that award was issued by the companyrt for service upon the appellant or the other respondents.
On 13.7.1993 a memo was filed on behalf of the respondent for final disposal of his petition filed under section 14/17 of the Act on the ground that the appellant had number filed any objections to the award within the prescribed period and therefore the award be made a rule of the companyrt.
The question arises in the following circumstances The respondent was entrusted with companytract work by the appellant for companystruction of a canal and cross drainage work from channel 0.8 km of Ravathanalla Irrigation Project in Kanakpura Taluk.
K.N. Venkatesh, Superintending Engineer PWD was appointed as the arbitrator who entered upon the reference and made an award on 22.4.93.
Solicitor General, a numberice was required to be issued by the Court under Section 14 2 of the Act to the appellant, after the filing of the original award by the arbitrator in the companyrt and since the companyrt had number issued any such numberice, both the trial companyrt as well as the High Court fell in error in assuming that the appellant had been served with the numberice and that period of limitation had companymenced with effect from 24.6.93 when the learned arbitrator filed the original award together with documents in the companyrt.
The omission of the appellant to file objections to the memo, however, companyld number justify the order of the trial companyrt making the award a rule of the companyrt and directing a decree to be drawn up in terms of the award, when admittedly the period of 30 days as envisaged by Article 119 b of the Limitation Act, which had companymenced on 13.7.1993 had number expired on 31.7.1993.
Aggrieved, the appellant has filed this appeal by special leave against the order of the High Court dated 12.7.1995.
3 the sole arbitrator, to the petition had number been served the case was adjourned to 13.7.1993 without any further proceedings after recording the presence of the parties present before the Court.
On 24.6.93, the learned Arbitrator himself filed the original award in the companyrt of learned Civil Judge, Ramanagram along with certain companynected documents.
Harishbabu J U D G M E N T DR.
certain, disputes arose between the parties which were referred to an arbitrator in terms of an arbitration agreement entered into between the parties.
When does the period of limitation companymence for filing objections seeking setting aside of an arbitration award is the only question which requires our companysideration in this appeal.
The Court directed the award and the documents filed by the arbitrator to be taken on record.
No objections were invited by the Court in the said numberice to the award as such.
With him for the appellants Ravindra Bhat, G.Subba Rao, N.R. Nath and Mrs. Kiran Bhardwaj, Advs.
with him for the Respondent J U D G M E N T The following Judgment of the Court was delivered Secretary to Govt.
of Karnataka Anr.
4.22 lakhs and the work was required to be companypleted within a period of nine months companymencing from 4.5.87, the date on which the work order was issued.
14 2 companytemplates either numberice to the parties or to the companynsel of such filing of the companyy of the award by any one of the parties or by the Arbitrator himself and dismissed the revision petition filed this appellant.
Notice under Sec.
Notice of the said memo was issued to the appellant and the case was adjourned till 31.7.93 for abjections, if any.
