Find a Lawyer

Suit No.199 of 1983, decided on 26th August, 1986.

---Ss. 14 to 16--Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 158--Filing objections to arbitration award--Starting point for limitation--Starting point for prescribed thirty days for filing objections to arbitration award, in case where defendants were served through publication in newspaper, relevant date, held, would be on which notice for filing of award was published in newspaper.

---O. V, R.20--Substituted service through publication--Non-reading of newspaper by defendants--Effect--Contention of defendants that they did not read newspaper, therefore, they had no knowledge about publication of notice therein, held, would be of no avail in case where defendants failed to make such assertion in re-joinder to counter-affidavit filed by plaintiff.

---Ss. 14 to 16--Filing objections to arbitration award after expiry of prescribed period--Effect--Objections to filing of arbitration award filed after expiry of prescribed limitation period of thirty days were dismissed as time-barred and award was made rule of the Court.

Iqbal Ahmad for Plaintiff.

Mehar Hussain Masawa for Defendants.

These objections have been filed against the award of the sole arbitrator namely, Mr. S. Murtaza Hussain, dated 11-12-1979. According to award the defendants, were directed to pay Rs.3,77,520 as damages to the plaintiff and Rs.33,720 by way of reimbursement. The defendants were also directed to pay a sum of Rs.15,000 and Rs.55 on ,4ccount of costs of structure built by the plaintiff on the disputed site and stamp paper and other incidental expenses respectively.

The main contention of Mr. Mehar Hussain Masawa has been that there was no dispute. which could be referred to arbitration. In this respect the learned counsel has relied upon the terms of agreement marked as Annexure P/1 which has been filed by the learned Arbitrator with the documents. After going through the record of the case, I find that this contention has no force as order of this Court dated 22-2-1978 passed in Suit No. 262 of 1977 clearly shows that the matter was referred to the learned arbitrator by consent of both the parties. Under such circumstances the objection raised by Mehar Hussain Masawa cannot be sustained.

Mr. Iqbal Ahmad, learned counsel, for the plaintiff has further pointed out that the objections are time-barred. It may be pointed out that according to Article 158 of the Limitation Act the period of limitation provided for filing such objections is thirty days, commencing from the date of service of notice of filing of award. Admittedly the defendants were served by publication of notice in daily Mashriq dated 14-1-1985. However, besides that notice was also sent to them by registered post A. D. which appears to have been received by them on 19-1-1985 as is evident from the postal acknowledgment receipt. The contention of Mr. Mehar Hussain Masawa is that if this date, that is 19-1-1985 is taken to be the material date then the objections which were presented by defendants on 18-2-1985 were within time. This contention is contested by Mr. Iqbal Ahmad, according to whom the material date would be 14-1-1985, since notice to the defendants was first published in the newspaper on that date.

After considering the respective contentions of the counsel I have no hesitation in agreeing with Mr Iqbal Ahmad that the material date for the purpose of Article 158 of the Limitation Act would be the date on which notice was published in the newspaper. According to the order of the Court the defendants were to b served by publication as well as by registered A.D. notice, besides the other usual modes of service as contemplated by Order V, Rule 20, C.P.C. Since the notice to the defendants was published in the newspaper on 14-1-1985, the said date should be counted, as the material date for service of (notice) because the notice received by the defendants by post on 19-1-1985 had come thereafter become redundant. The contention of Mr. Mehar Hussain Masawa is that the defendants did not read the newspaper therefore, they had no knowledge about its publication therein. If that was the case then the defendants should have made such assertion in a re-joinder to the counter-affidavit filed by the plaintiff as objections to limitation had clearly been taken therein by the plaintiff. Since no re-joinder had been filed by the defendants, the contention raised by Mr. Mehar Hussain Masawa cannot now be considered.

For the aforesaid reasons objections are dismissed and the award may be made rule of the Court and decree may be passed against the defendants in terms of the award.

H.B.T./V-1/K Award made rule of Court.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.