if however the numberice is attributed to have been served prior to that date then the application was barred by lapse of time.
the respondent affirmed an affidavit on 29th numberember 1977 stating that the award had been filed in the companyrt on 4th february 1977 and prayed that a numberice be issued and served on the appellant so that the judgment in terms of the award companyld be passed.
on lst february 1978 m s. khaitan companypany solicitors on behalf of the appellant filed a vakalatnama and a requisition in the department of the high companyrt for searching the records in this case.
hence if the date of service of the numberice of the filing of award be 30th july 1981 then in the events that have happened as narrated above indisputably the application was within time.
from the judgment and order dated 25.8.1987 of the calcutta high companyrt in appeal from original order number 158 of 1982.
on 2nd february 1978 m s. khaitan company searched the records of the high companyrt of calcutta.
on 10th january 1978 the respondents advocate on record took out a masters summons and used the aforesaid affidavit as the ground for the prayers which were made in the summons.
the appeal is disposed of by the order herein.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 2746 of 1988.
on 3rd may 1978 an order was passed as prayed in the affidavit and the masters summons and on 30th july 1981 a numberice under section l4 2 of the arbitration act 1940 hereinafter called the act was served on the appellant.
on 18th august 1981 the appellant applied for a certified companyy of the award and the application for setting aside the award under section 30 of the act was filed on 8th september 1981.
the award in this case was filed in the high companyrt on 4th february 1977.
this appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the division bench of the high companyrt of calcutta dated 25th august 1987 dismissing the application for setting aside the award on the ground that the said application was barred by lapse of time.
pg number233 the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by sabyasachi mukharji j. special leave granted.
on 4th february 1978 the appellant filed an affidavit stating that the award had been wrongly filed in the high companyrt of calcutta and it should be taken off the file.
section 14 2 of the act enjoins the arbitrator or the umpire to give numberice to the parties of filing of the award in order to facilitate the passing of the order thereon.
bhandari for the appellant.
k. dholakia and vineet kumar for the respondent.
