vil Appeal No 2746 of 1988
From the Judgment and Order dated 2581987 of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal from Original Order No 158 of 1982
D Bhandari for the Appellant
SK Dholakia and Vineet Kumar for the Respondent
PG NO 233 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI J
Special leave granted
The appeal is disposed of by the order herein
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court 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
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
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 lst February 1978 Ms 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 Ms Khaitan  Co searched the records of the High Court of Calcutta
On 4th February 1978 the appellant filed an affidavit stating that the award had been wrongly filed in the High Court of Calcutta and it should be taken off the file
On 3rd May 1978 an order was passed as prayed in the affidavit and the Master s Summons and on 30th July 1981 a notice under Section l42 of the hereinafter called the Act  was served on the appellant
Section 142 of the Act enjoins the arbitrator or the umpire to give notice to the parties of filing of the award in order to facilitate the passing of the order thereon
On 18th August 1981 the appellant applied for a certified copy of the award and the application for setting aside the award under Section 30 of the Act was filed on 8th September 1981
Under clause b of Article 119 of the the time for setting aside an award or getting an award remitted for reconsideration is 30 days from the date of the service of the notice of the filing of the award
Hence there must be filing of the award in Court
A notice must be given to the partyparties concerned of such filing of the award in the Court and on the expiry of 30 days from the service of the said notice limitation for setting aside an award expires
ln this case it appears PG NO 234 that the appellant applied for a certified copy of the award on 18th August 1981 and on lst September 1981 the appellant received the certified 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 l981
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 has therefore acknowledged that the award had been filed and a notice was issued to it in respect of the said award
ln our opinion this conclusion irresistibly follows from the narration of events mentioned hereinbefore
ln order to be effective both for the purpose of obtaining the judgment in terms of the award and for setting aside the award the award must be filed in the Court
There must be service of notice or intimation or communication of the filing of the said award by the Court to the parties
If all these factors are established or are present the mode of service of the notice would be irrelevant
If the substance is clear the form of the notice is irrelevant but the notice of the award having been filed in the court is necessary
The filing in the Court is necessary and the intimation thereof by the Registry of the Court to the parties concerned is essential
Beyond this there is no statutory requirement of any technical nature under Section 142 of the Act
This conclusion in our opinion irresistibly follows from the principles enunciated by this Court in Nilkantha Shidramappa Ningashetti vs Kashinath Sommanna Ningashetti  Ors where this Court held that the communication by the Court to the parties concerned or their counsel of the information that an award has been filed was sufficient compliance with the requirements of sub section 2 of Section 14 of the Act
ln the aforesaid decision this Court reiterated that the notice need 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 PG NO 235 principles this Court at page 555 of the said report observed as follows Sub section 1 of section 14 of the 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 to give notice to the parties of the filing of the award
The difference in the provisions of the two sub sections with respect to the giving of notice is significant and indicates clearly 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
The notice 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 notice given orally
The communication of the information that an award has been filed is sufficient compliance with the requirements of sub s2 of section 14 with respect to the giving of the notice to the parties concerned about the filing of the award
Notice  does not necessarily mean communication in writing 
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 section
2 of section 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 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
 The aforesaid question was again examined from a slightly different angle later in Dewan Singh vs Champat Singh  Ors  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  held that the said PG NO 236 Article gave 30 days  time for applying to set aside the award from the date of service of the notice of the filing of the award
As mentioned hereinbefore the notice of the service of the award may be communicated in any form
It need not necessarily be in writing
If that is the position in law then in view of the facts of this case the conclusion would irresistibly be that the notice was served at least either on 3rd or 4th February 1978 because at that time the appellant had acknowledged that the award had been filed in view of the affidavit filed by it in the High Court of Calcutta and that the award had been filed in a wrong Court according to the appellant and that he had notice of the said filing communicated to him by the Court
That would be natural and ordinary inference to draw from the conduct of the parties as narrated before
lf that is the position then the application in our opinion for setting aside the award was indisputably barred by limitation
Counsel for the appellant however drew our attention to the statement recorded by the High Court where it was stated as follows The learned counsel for both parties have agreed the service of notice under section 142 of the is a mandatory provision and an application for setting aside of the award shall not be time barred so long as the aforesaid notice is not served
 It was however submitted on behalf of the appellant that there cannot be any concession on a question of law
We are of the opinion that this concession does not as such help the parties very much
The fact that the parties have notice of the filing of the award is not enough
The notice must be served by the Court
We reiterate again that there must be a filing of the award in the proper court b service of the notice by the court or its officer to the parties concerned and c such notice need not necessarily be in writing
It is upon the date of service of such notice that the period of limitation begins and as at present under clause b of Article 119 of the Act the limitation expires on the expiry of the thirty days of the service of that notice for an application for setting aside of the award
The importance of the matter which need be emphasised is the service of the notice by the Court
It is not the method of the service that is important or relevant
In this case as both the Courts have in fact found that the notice was issued and served and in our opinion that finding is based on cogent material and relevant evidence prior to 30th July 1981 the application made in this case was clearly barred by lapse of time
PG NO 237 We find therefore no ground to interfere with the decision of the High Court
The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed without any order as to costs
PSS Appeal dismissed


Summary:
This writ petition arose upon a letter received from a voluntary organisation alleging that the female inmates of a Care Home  in Bihar were compelled to live in inhuman conditions
Pursuant to a direction made by the court the District Judge Patna visited the Care Home  and submitted a report on the conditions actually prevailing there
Disposing of the writ petition  HELD Every person is entitled to a quality of life consistent with his human personality
The right to live with human dignity is the fundamental right of every Indian citizen under article 21 of the Constitution
And so in the discharge of its responsibilities to the people the State recognises the need for maintaining establishments for the care of those unfortunates both women and children who are the castaways of an imperfect social order and for whom therefore of necessity provision must be made for their protection and welfare
Both common humanity and considerations of law and order require the State to do so
To abide by the constitutional standards recognised by well accepted principle it is incumbent upon the State when assigning women and children to these establishments to provide at least the minimum conditions ensuring human dignity
758D F India is a welfare State governed by a Constitution which lays special emphasis on the protection and well being of the weaker sections of society and seeks to improve their economic and social status
It shows a particular ragard for women and children and notwithstanding the pervasive ethos of the doctrine of equality it contemplates special provision being made for them by law
758B C What we see before us in the instant case is a crowded hovel in which a large number of human beings have been thrown together compelled to subsist in conditions of animal survival conditions which 756 blatanly deny their basic humanity
It is clear that the Welfare Department of the State Government of Bihar views its responsibilities in regard to these women with a lightness which ill befits its existence and the public funds appropriated to it
The name of Care Home given to these establishments is an ironic misnomer
The primitive conditions in which the inmates are compelled to live shock the conscience
758G 759A B The State Government should provide suitable alternative accommodation expeditiously for housing the inmates of the present Care Home
It is necessary meanwhile to put the existing building in which the inmates are presently housed into proper order immediately and for that purpose to renovate the building and provide sufficient amenities by way of living room bathrooms and toilets within the building and also to provide adequate water and electricity
A suitable range of furniture including Cots must be provided at once and an adequate number of blankets and sheets besides clothing must be supplied to the inmates
The Welfare Department of the State Government will take immediate steps to comply with these directions
759D F H The inmates have been committed to the care of this Home under orders issued by various Courts in Bihar or by different Executive authorities
The Welfare Department will submit a report within one month from today detailing the particulars of these cases and mentioning the judicial or executive authority concerned to the High Court and the High Court will thereupon issue necessary instructions to the pertinent District autority for taking appropriate steps in the different cases for their early disposal
760B C