The notice of filing of an arbitration award under Art. 119, Limitation Act, must emanate from the Court, and the period of limitation for setting aside the award should be computed from the date of receipt of the notice under S. 14 (2), Arbitration Act.

( 1 ) THIS appeal has been preferred by the appellant, the State of West Bengal, against the judgment and order D/- March 1, 1984 of a learned single Judge of this Court dismissing the application of the appellant under Ss. 30 and 33, Arbitration Act, 1940.

( 2 ) THE appellant invited tenders for the construction of a Primary Health Centre at Madhab Nagar, P. S. Pathar Pratima, District 24 Parganas. The appellant accepted the tender of the respondent and entered into a contract with it for the construction of the said Primary Health Centre at the rate mentioned in the contract. The contract also contained an arbitration clause.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to the appellant, the construction work was completed by the respondent on 8-11-1974, but according to the respondent the work was completed before June 15, 1976.

( 4 ) THE respondent by its letter D/- August 21, 1981 raised a dispute claiming, inter alia, the enhancement of the rate by 30% in respect of the work done by the respondent during the extended period. By the said letter the respondent also claimed the appointment of an arbitrator within a period of fifteen days of the date of the letter. After the expiry of the said period, the respondent filed an application before a learned Judge of this Court under S. 8. Arbitration Act praying for the appointment of an arbitrator. The appellant opposed the said application on the ground that the claim of the respondent was barred by limitation. The learned Judge, however, by her order D/- March 12, 1982 appointed Sri D. M. Mukherjee, a retired Chief Engineer of the Government of West Bengal, the arbitrator.

( 5 ) AS per the direction of the arbitrator, the parties submitted their respective written statements. The appellant in its counter statement specifically took the plea that the claim of the respondent was barred by limitation. It appears from the minutes of the proceedings of the 7th hearing before the arbitrator that the arbitrator took the view that the Court's order appointing him as arbitrator implied that the appellant's plea that the respondent's claim was barred by limitation was turned down. Accordingly, the arbitrator directed that the arbitration proceedings would continue in terms of the order of the Court. There is no dispute that the arbitrator did not entertain and decide the appellant's plea that the claim of the respondent was barred by limitation.

( 6 ) ON 22-9-1983, the arbitrator made an award whereby he directed the appellant, the State of West Bengal, to pay to the respondent contractor a sum of Rs. 1,98,483/- with interest at the rate of 10% per annum with effect from March 12, 1982, the date of reference to arbitration, till the date of payment of the amount under the award or the date of the decree, whichever is earlier.

( 7 ) THE award was filed in Court by the arbitrator on 29-9-1983. It appears that the respondent by its letter D/-29-9-1983 informed the Executive Engineer, 24 Parganas, South Division, Construction Board Directorate, Government of West Bengal, of the filing of the award in this Court by the arbitrator on 29-9-1983. It is the case of the appellant that after receipt of the said letter of the respondent, the appellant had taken steps in regard to the filing of an application for setting aside the award. On October 28, 1983, the appellant, however, received a letter from its Advocate, Mr. R. C. Deb that an application for setting aside the award could be made within thirty days of the date of receipt of the notice under S. 14 (2), Arbitration Act.

( 8 ) IT is the specific case of the appellant that on 27-10-1983, the appellant had received the notice under S. 14 (2), Arbitration Act issued by the Registrar, Original Side of this Court. It is alleged that the entry in the Receipt Register of the appellant showing that the said notice under S. 14 (2) was received on 12-10-1983 and not on October 27, 1983, is wrong and has been so entered by the employee concerned in collus