TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1961 (4) TMI 101
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....filed against defendants 1 to 10 and 12, members of a joint family. Defendant no. 1 was father of the appellant, who was then a minor, defendant no. 12. Defendant no. 11 was an outsider, he being a partner in the partnership shop of the family. Parties other than defendant no. 11 referred the matters in difference to an arbitrator. The arbitrator filed the award in Court on February 18, 1948. On February 21, 1948, the Civil Judge adjourned the matter "for parties' say to the arbitrator's report", to March 22, 1948. On March 16, i 1 948, an application was presented on behalf of defendant no. 1 praying that certain papers and documents be called for from the arbitrator. On March 22, 1948, an application was presented on behalf of defendant n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sues, was served on her. On September 7, 1948, she applied for, and was granted, one month's time for submitting the written statement with regard to the claim and the award in the said matter. On October 7, 1948, she applied for, and was granted, another one month's time for the same purpose. On November 9, 1948, she filed a written statement on behalf of defendant no. 12, with regard to the suit and the award, questioning the validity of the award and praying that it be declared null and void and that the suit be heard after taking into consideration the interest of the minor. On August 24, 1949, the Civil Judge ordered that the award be filed, that a decree be drawn tip in terms of the award and that the decree should further contain ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....According to Art. 158 of the First Schedule to the Indian Limitation Act, the period of limitation for an application to set aside an award under the Arbitration Act, 1940, begins to run from 'the date of service of the notice of the filing of the award'. No notice in writing was issued by the Court to the appellant or his guardian intimating that the award has been filed in Court. It is therefore urged for the appellant that the period of limitation for filing an application to set aside the award never began to run against him. There could be no date of service of notice, when no notice had been issued. On the other hand, it is submitted for the respondents, that- the limitation began to run from February 21, 1948, the date on which the C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....riting'. 'Notice', according to the Oxford Concise Dictionary, 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' and has such a meaning in expressions like 'notice to quit, till further notice'. We are of opinion that the expression 'give notice' in sub-s. (2) of s. 14, simply means giving intimation of the filing of the award, which certainly was given to the parties through their pleaders on February 21, 1948. Notice to the pleader is notice to the party, in view of r. 5 of O. III, Civil Procedure Code, which provides that any process served on the pleader of any party shall be presumed to be dul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ther actually or constructively, in such manner as is prescribed by law'. Oral communication will therefore amount to service too, when no particular mode of service is prescribed. We see no ground to construe the expression 'date of service of notice' in col. 3 of Art. 158 of the Limitation -Act to mean only a notice in writing served in a formal manner. When the Legislature used the word 'notice' it must be presumed to have borne in mind that it means not only a formal intimation but also an informal one. Similarly, it must be deemed to have in mind the fact that service of a notice would include constructive or informal notice. If its intention were to exclude the latter sense of the words ,;notice' and 'service' it would have said....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ling of the objection on November 9, 1948, was beyond the period of thirty days prescribed in Art. 158 of the Limitation Act. We therefore see no justification for the contention that the period of limitation had not begun to run against the appellant and that the objection filed on his behalf on November 9, 1948, was within the period of limitation prescribed under Art. 158 of the First Schedule to the Limitation Act. We therefore agree with the High Court that the intimation to the pleaders of the parties on February 21, 1948, amounted to service of the notice on the parties about the filing of the award and that the objection filed on behalf of the appellant was filed after the expiry of the period of limitation. The second questio....