In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 5221 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: September 25, 2009 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited .. Petitioner Vs. M/s Jagdish Raj & Brother & Others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Advocate for the petitioner. A.N. Jindal, J This revision petition is directed against the order dated 15.2.2000 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Amritsar, whereby the application filed by the respondent-beneficiary petitioner under the award (herein referred as 'the respondent'), to file objection against the arbitration award dated 28.9.1998 was rejected on the ground of limitation. It has been pleaded in the application that he received notice along with copy of the award under Section 14 (1) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (herein referred as 'the Act') on 7.10.1998. The court had issued notice of the application to the petitioner as per provisions of Section 14 (2) of the Act for 14.11.1998. The respondents were served with the notice for appearance for the said date. Thus, the period of limitation for filing the objection-petitioner started running from the receipt of notice under Section 14 (1) of the Act i.e. from 7.10.1998 when the Arbitrator had issued notice or, at least, for the date when the court sent notice under Section 14 (2) of the Act. As such the limitation having started running from 14.11.1998 had expired on 13.12.1998, therefore, the objection petition filed thereafter i.e. on 14.1.1999 should be dismissed being time barred. In reply, the petitioners-objector (herein referred as 'the objector') opposed the application and denied all the allegations including that award was received by it on 7.10.1998 along with notice or that he was sent notice under Section 14 (2) of the Act for 14.11.1998. He also denied if limitation commenced on 14.11.1998. It was submitted that the case was fixed for 15.12.1998, however, no award was placed on the case file by the Civil Revision No. 5221 of 2009 (O&M) -2- *** Arbitrator till the preparation of the reply of the application on 26.3.1999. It was also admitted that the respondent had moved an application directing the Arbitrator to place on record the original award dated 28.9.1998, therefore, he cannot claim that the original award was placed on the record. After considering the rival contentions, the trial court accepted the application and held that the objection petition filed by the petitioner was time barred. Heard. A findings of fact that at the time of filing of the application along with copy of the award, the respondent had also filed copy of notice dated 28.9.1998 sent by the Arbitrator to the parties to the award, in which the Arbitrator had duly authorised any of the interested parties to institute the proceedings in the competent court having jurisdiction in the matter for making the award rule of the court. There is also a no denying a fact that the objectors put in appearance before the court through counsel on 14.11.1998 and the trial court adjourned the case for 15.12.1998 for filing objections. On 15.12.1998, the objection petition was not filed and a date was requested by the learned counsel for the objector and the case was then adjourned to 14.1.1999 and it was on 14.1.1999 that the objections were filed. Due evidence has come on record that the Arbitrator while referring the matter for making it rule of the court was to issue notice to the parties under Section 14 (1) of the Act and the interested parties while making it rule of the court placed copy of the notice under Section 14 (1) of the Act and it has also come on record that notice was issued to the objectors and there is presumption of due service upon the objector. Since the petitioner had been served with notice, therefore, it would be presumed that when dispatched through the postal authorities, notice must have been received by the objectors unless it is received back by the postal authorities. Immediately after the completion of the formalities as enshrined under Section 14 (1) of the Act, the Arbitrator was to cause the award along with the record thereof to be filed in the Court. Section 14 (2) of the Act reads as under :- Civil Revision No. 5221 of 2009 (O&M) -3- *** “14. (2) The arbitrators or umpire shall, at the request of any party to the arbitration agreement or any person claiming under such party or if so directed by the Court and upon payment of the fees and charges due in respect of the arbitration and award and the costs and charges of filing the award, cause the award or a signed copy of it, together with any depositions and documents which may have been taken and proved before them, to be filed in Court, and the Court shall thereupon give notice to the parties of the filing of the award.” The Schedule (Third Division – Applications) of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides the period of limitation in specified cases, which reads as under :- “Sr. No. 119. Under the Arbitration Act, 1940 (10 of 1940) - (b) for setting aside an award or getting an award remitted for reconsideration thirty days from the date of service of the notice of the filing of the award.” Section 14 (2) further conveys a message that after filing of the award duly signed by the Arbitrator or the umpire, as the case may be, notice be given to the parties of filing of the award. This sub-section also requires that the arbitrator or umpire is to give notice in writing to the parties of the making and signing of the award. The mandate issued under Section 14 (2) of the Act is regarding mandatory requirement through the Section about the intimation to the parties affected but Section 14 (2) does not prescribe any form or mode for service of notice. The only essential of this section is that there must be service of notice and intimation or communication of filing of the award, by the court to the parties. Mode of service of such notice is immaterial. It is substance and not a form of notice which is relevant and once it is established that a notice or communication or information of filing of the award was made by the court then the statutory requirement would be deemed to have been satisfied. Keeping in view the difference of phraseology of Sections 14 (1) and 14 (2) of the Act, Civil Revision No. 5221 of 2009 (O&M) -4- *** it follows that the notice from the court under Section 14 (2) of the Act need not be in writing. It can be oral also but only essential is that it should be communicated to the parties. Similar view was taken by the Apex Court in case Secretary to Government of Karnataka and another vs. V. Harishbabu, (1996) 5 SCC 400. Here in this case, copy of the notice under Section 14 (1) of the Act is already on the record. In any case, compliance of Section 14 (2) of the Act also appears to have been made as the parties appeared in the court pursuant to the notice and sought date for filing objections. One thing is definite that party appeared and sought date for filing objections, at that time, the objectors never requested that they had not been served with notice under Section 14 (1) of the Act, nor they objected that copy of the arbitration award was not on the file. As such, in the absence of any objection on their part, it will be presumed that they had issued notice about the signing and filing of the award in the court and at the most limitation commenced to run from 14.11.1998 when they appeared in the court and the limitation expired on 13.12.1998. Consequently, the objection petition as preferred by the objector on 15.1.1999 could not, by any stretch of imagination, be said to be within limitation. Resultantly, finding no merit in the petition the same is dismissed. September 25, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge