IMPORTANT POINT
Period of limitation for filing objections seeking the setting aside of an arbitration award commences from the date of service of the notice issued by the Court upon the parties regarding the filing of the award u/s 14(2) of the Arbitration Act.

JUDGMENT

Dr. Anand, J. Leave granted.

2. When does the period of limitation commence for filing objections seeking setting aside of an arbitration award is the only question which requires our consideration in this appeal.

3. The question arises in the following circumstances :

The respondent was entrusted with contract work by the appellant for construction of a canal and cross drainage work from channel 0.8 km of Ravathanalla - Irrigation Project in Kanakpura Taluk. The cost of the project was Rs. 4.22 lakhs and the work was required to be completed; within a period of nine months commencing from 4.5.87, the date on which the work order was issued. During execution of tr(e contract, certain disputes arose between the parties which were referred to an arbitrator in terms of an arbitration agreement entered into between the parties. Sh. K.N. Venkatesh, Superintending Engineer PWD was appointed as the arbitrator who entered upon the reference and made an award on 22.4.93. The respondent filed a petition under Section 14 read with Section 17 of the Indian Arbitration Act (hereinafter the Act) before Civil Judge, Ramanagram on23.4.93 praying for making the Award a rule of the court. According to the respondent a signed copy of the award which had been given to him by the arbitrator was also filed along with the petition. Notice of that petition was issued by the Court to the appellant and other respondents on 24.4.93 and was made returnable by 22.6.93. The appellant was not served and on 22.6.1993 the service of notice was directed to await till 13.7.93. On 24.6.93, the learned Arbitrator himself filed the original award in the court of learned Civil Judge, Ramanagram along with certain connected documents. Before filing the award in the court, the arbitrator had procured an endorsement from the Government Pleader to the effect "Seen. subject to objections". The Court directed the award and the documents filed by the arbitrator to be taken on record. On 13.7:1993 a memo was filed on behalf of the respondent for final disposal of his petition filed under Section 14/17 of the Act on the ground that the appellant had not filed any objections to the award within-the prescribed period and therefore the award be made a rule of the court. Notice of the said memo was issued to the appellant and the case was adjourned till 31.7.93. for objections, if any. The A.G.P. representing the appellant was present in the court of the learned Civil Judge on 13.7.93. The appellant, however, did not file any objections to the memo till 31.7.93. On 31.7.93, the trial court accepted the plea raised on behalf of the respondent in his memo that since the appellant State had not filed any objections to the award within a period of 30 days as prescribed under the Act read with the relevant provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, the award be made a rule of the court. A decree in terms of the award was directed to follow. The appellant, thereupon, filed a Misc. First Appeal in the High Court against the order of the trial Court. The High Court, however, held, that the Misc. First Appeal was not maintainable but permitted the appellant, to convert the said appeal into a Civil Revision Petition which was accordingly done. By an order dated 12th July 1995, the High Court, after hearing submissions on Behalf of the parties, dismissed the Civil Revision Petition observing that the Additional Government Pleader representing respondents 1 and 2 before the court below has taken notice of the filing of the award by the arbitrator on 24.6.93 and as such it could not be accepted that the State had no knowledge of filing of the award into court "prior to 13.7.93" and since the State had not filed its objections within 30 days, the trial court was justified in making the award a rule of the court. The High Court observed "moreover the addl. Government Pleader representing Respondents 1 and 2 before the court below had taken notice of the filing of the award by the Arbitr