Appeal No 2532 of 1966
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated August 8 1963 of the Punjab High Court Circuit Bench at Delhi in Civil Revision No 330 D of 1954
BP Maheshwari and SM Jain for the appellant
VA Seyid Muhammad and SP Nayar for the respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hidayatullah CJ
This is an appeal against a judgment and order of the Circuit Bench of the Punjab High Court at Delhi 137 Single Judge in a matter arising under the 
By m agreement dated April 28 1948 the appellant company entered into a contract with the Chief Director of Purchase Food acting on behalf of the Government of India
It is not necessary to give the details of this contract because the matter was referred to arbitration under an arbitration clause included in the agreement between the parties
The award was made and signed on April 26 1950
The Arbitrator awarded Rs 17080 2 9 with costs in favour of the company
The Arbitrator however did not send a notice as such of the making and signing of the award but sent a copy of the award signed by him to the company
The company acknowledged the receipt of this copy by two letters which are dated May 5 and May 16 1950
It appears that in the original which was retained in the office of the Arbitrator it was stated that there was a covering letter giving notice of the making of the award but the company denied that any such letter had been sent
However nothing much turns on it as we shall show presently
After the copy of the award was received by the company it filed an application under section 141 of the in the Court of the Subordinate Judge Delhi on March 30 1951 for making the award ruIe of the court
It may be mentioned that on July 3 1951 the Arbitrator sent the original award to the court also
Before the Subordinate Judge objection was taken by the Union of India that the application of the company to the court was delayed since such an application under section 141 of the under article 178 of the Indian Limitation Act had to be made within 90 days of the receipt of the notice intimating that the award had been made and signed
This objection prevailed with the Subordinate Judge who rejected the application
A revision application was unsuccessfully made before the High Court and it is the order on the revision application which is the subject of appeal before us
Originally the revision application went before a learned Single Judge of the High Court
He referred the matter to a Division Bench which in its turn referred the case for decision to a Full  Bench
The Full Bench gave its opinion on November 17 1961
Although the Full Bench discussed the matter it did not reach any conclusion in the case because it felt that whether the application under section 141 of the had been made within 90 days or not was a question of fact which has to be decided by the learned Single Judge and as the learned Single Judge had not gone into that question the matter had to go back to him
When the case came before the learned Single Judge he took some evidence and examined the question in detail
We upheld the Sup CI 70 1o 138 decision of the Subordinate Judge and dismissed the revision application
It has been argued before us by Mr BP Maheshwari that the judgment under appeal is erroneous because section 141 of the requires that there should be a notice in writing and that notice had to be something besides the award of which a copy had been sent
He has cited a number of rulings in support of his contention that a notice in writing is incumbent before limitation under article 178 of the Limitation Act which applies to article 141 petitions can start
In chief he relies upon Ratnawa vs Gurishiddappa Gurushantappa Magavi  Ors
 1  Puppalla Ramulu vs Nagidi Appelaslwami  Ors2 Jagdish vs Sunder3 Ganga Ram vs Radha Kishan4 Badaria Ramakrishnarnma  Ors
vs Vattikonda Lakshmibayamma  Ors5
It is not necessary to go into the reasoning which made the learned Judges in these cases to lay down that there must be a proper notice in writing of the making of the award
That follows in fact from the words of section 141 of the 
That section says that when the arbitrators or umpire have given their award they shall sign it and shall give notice in writing to the parties of the making and signing thereof and of the amount of fees and charges payable in respect of the arbitration and award
What will be considered a sufficient notice in writing of the making and signing of the award is a question of fact
In the cited cases emphasis sometimes has been laid upon the latter part of the sub section which speaks of the amount of fees and charges payable in respect of the arbitration and award
Sometimes emphasis has been placed upon the opening words namely that there should be a notice in writing
Reading the word notice  as we generally do it denotes merely an intimation to the party concerned of a particular fact
It seems to us that we cannot limit the words notice in writing to only a letter
Notice may take several forms
It must to be sufficient be in writing and must intimate quite clearly that the award has been made and signed
In the present case a copy of the award signed by the arbitrator was sent to the company
It appears to us that the company had sufficient notice that the award had been made and signed
In fact the two letters of May 5 and May 16 to which we have referred quite clearly show that the company knew full well that the arbitrator had given the award made it and signed it
In these circumstances to insist upon a letter which perhaps was also cent though there is some doubt about it is to refine the law 1 AIR 2 AIR 1957 AP 11
3 ILR 27 Pat 86
4 ILR 1955 Punj
5 ILR 139 beyond the legitimate requirements
The only omission was that there was no notice of the amount of the fees and charges payable in respect of arbitration and award
But that was not an essential part of the notice for the purpose of limitation
To emphasise the latter part as being the essential part of the notice is to make the first part depend upon the determination of the fees and charges and their inclusion in the notice
A written notice clearly intimating the parties concerned that the award had been made and signed in our opinion certainly starts limitation
In this view of the matter we are in agreement with the decision of the learned Single Judge who has endorsed the opinion of the Subordinate Judge that limitation began to run from the receipt of the copy of the award which was signed by the Arbitrator and which gave due notice to the party concerned that the award had been made and signed
That is how the party itself understood when it acknowledged the copy sent to it
Therefore the application must be treated as being out of time and the decision of the High Court to so treat it was correct in all the circumstances of the case
We therefore do not see any reason to interfere in this appeal and it is dismissed
But we make it clear that the other part of the case namely what is to happen to the award sent by the Arbitrator himself to the court has yet to be determined and what we say here will not affect the determination of that question
Obviously enough that matter arises under the second subsection of section 14 and will have to be considered quite apart from the application made by the company to have the award made into rule of Court
It was represented to us by Dr Syed Mohammad that objections had been taken to the validity of the award and they remain still for decision
Those of course must fall to the ground with the application which we have found to be out of time
As to whether similar objections can be raised in answer to the award filed at the instance of the arbitrator is a question which we cannot go into in the present appeal and no expression of opinion must be attributed to us on that point
In the circumstances of the case we leave the parties to bear their own costs
VPS Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The disputes between the appellant and the respondent arising out of a contract between them were referred to
arbitration under the arbitration clause in the contract
The award was made and signed on April 26 1950
The arbitrator did not send any notice of the making and signing of the award but sent a copy of the signed award to the appellant
The appellant acknowledged receipt of the copy by two letters dated May 5 1950 May 16 1950
On March 30 1951 the appellant filed an application in the Subordinate Judge s Court for passing a decree in terms of the award
On the question whether the application was out of time because under article 178 of the Indian Limitation Act 1908 the application had to be filed within 90 days of the date
of service of the notice of the making of the award HELD Under section 141 of the  when the arbitrators have given their award they shall sign it and shall give notice in writing to the
parties of the making and signing thereof and of the amount of fees and charges payable in respect of the arbirtation and the award
The notice need not be in the form of a separate letter
It is sufficient if it is in writing and intimates clearly that the award has been made and signed
The non mention of the amount of the fees and charges payable in respect of the arbitration and award will not affect the notice as it is not an essential part of it for the purpose of limitation
In the present case since the appellant had sufficient notice that the award had been made and signed when a copy of the award signed by the arbitrator was sent to the appellant the application for passing a decree in terms of the award was out of time
138 B F G 139  A C D