TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1988 (8) TMI 428
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The award in this case was filed in the High Court on 4th February, 1977. The respondent affirmed an affidavit on 29th November, 1977 stating that the award had been filed in the Court on 4th February, 1977 and prayed that a notice be issued and served on the appellant so that the judgment in terms of the award could be passed. 3. On 10th January, 1978 the respondent's advocate-on-record took out a Master's Summons and used the aforesaid affidavit as the ground for the prayers which were made in the summons. On 1st February, 1978 M/s. Khaitan & Company, solicitors, on behalf of the appellant, filed a Vakalatnama and a requisition in the department of the High Court for searching the records in this case. On 2nd February, 1978, M/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rtified copy from the Court. The application under Section 30 of the Act, for setting aside the award was made on 8th September, 1981. Hence, if the date of service of the notice 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. If, however, the notice is attributed to have been served prior to that date then the application was barred by lapse of time. The High Court held that the notice in this case was served prior to 30th July, 1981. 6. It appears as mentioned before that on 4th February, 1978 an affidavit had been filed in the High Court, stating on behalf of the appellant that the award had been wrongly filed in that Court. The appellant h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed not necessarily mean "communication in writing". The expression "give notice" in Sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Act simply means giving intimation of the filing of the award. Such intimation need not be given in writing and could be communicated orally or otherwise. That would amount to service of the notice when no particular mode was specified. Elaborating the aforesaid principles this Court at page 555 of the said report observed as follows: Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (X of 1940) requires the arbitrators or umpire to give notice in writing to the parties of the making and signing of the award. Sub-section (2) of that section requires the Court, after the filing of the award,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der III, Civil Procedure Code, 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. 8. The aforesaid question was again examined from a slightly different angle later in Dewan Singh v. Champat Singh and Ors. [1970]2SCR903 where this Court while dealing with Article 158 of the Limitation Act, 1908 which was the previous Article corresponding to Clause (b) of Article 119 of the Limitation Act, 1963, held that the said Article gave 30 days' time for applying to set aside the award, fr....