Judgement

PUNCHHI, J.:- Leave granted.

2. These two appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dated January 4, 1990 passed by a learned single Judge of the Kerala High Court at Ernakulam in Civil Revision Petitions Nos. 1520 and 1527 of 1989 (reported in AIR 1990 NOC 132: (1990) 1 Ker LT 245).

3. The facts giving rise thereto are few and meaningful. The respondent filed two suits against the appellants praying under S. 20 of the Arbitration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for an appointment of an arbitrator to resolve the disputes said to have arisen out of contracts inter se. One B. S. Hegde was appointed as an arbitrator. He made awards on October 3, 1988. On that date itself, the arbitrator on his own had given notice to the parties under S. 14 (l) of the making and signing of the awards. The respondent, on October 4, 1988, requested the arbitrator by means of a letter to forward the awards to his counsel for filing the same in the Court. On October 12, 1988, the arbitrator forwarded the awards and the entire record to the advocate of the respondent by a forwarding letter with copy of the letter to the appellant. On October 25, 1988, respondents counsel filed the awards in the Court and intimated to the appellant to that effect on October 26, 1988. Later the Court as per its order dated November 3, 1988, directed the issuance of notice to the counsel appearing for the parties for November 7, 1988. The respondent filed objections under S. 14 (2) of the Act on December 5, 1988, computing the period of limitation of thirty days under Art. 119 of the Limitation Act, 1963, from November 7, 1988, the date for which counsel for the parties were summoned by the Court to be told of the filing of the awards. The appellants raised in defence the plea of limitation against the respondents objections and conversely prayed for making the awards the rule of the Court. The trial Court did not find favour with the objections of the appellant and proceeded to hear the objections of the respondent against the awards. The High Court declining to interfere in the two revisions separately filed by the appellants to press for the objection of limitation has led the appellant Food Corporation of India to come before us in these appeals.

4. Sub-section (1) of S. 14 of the Act says that when the arbitrator or umpire have made the 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. Sub-sec. (2) provides that the arbitrator 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 of 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. Art. 119 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides that an application under the Arbitration Act, 1940, for setting aside the award or getting an award remitted for reconsideration, the period of limitation is 30 days computable from the date of service of the notice of the filing of the award. Now what do the words "give notice" mean in the context has been subject of judicial exponance as also to the effect of filing of award in Court by a party (instead of the arbitrator) with or without the express or implied authority of the arbitrator. For the former, take the cases of 1962(2) SCR 551 : (AIR 1962 SC 666); (1988) 4 SCC 31 : (AIR 1988 SC 2054) and AIR 1962 Gujarat 317 and for the latter take the cases of 1953 SCR 878: (AIR 1953 SC 313) and AIR 1983 Pat 101.

5. In the case of Nilkantha Shidramappa Ningashetti v. Kashinath Somanna Ningashetti (1962) 2 SCR 551: (AI