1. The limitation period for filing an objection to an arbitration award is prescribed by Article 158 of the Limitation Act. 2. The transfer of an arbitrator does not necessarily terminate his jurisdiction to pass an award if the arbitration agreement does not provide otherwise. 3. A party who participates in arbitration proceedings without objecting to the jurisdiction of the arbitrator may be estopped from later challenging the award on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.

R. L. NARASIMHAM, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal from the decision of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Cut-tack, setting aside an award given by an Arbitrator in a dispute between the parties.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff-respondent was a contractor who entered into the usual working Agreement (Ex. A) dated 14th August 1942 with the appellant for the construction of a landing ground and other structures at Charbatia in Cuttack District. Clause 25 of the Agreement contains the usual arbitration clause to the effect that any dispute between the parties in respect of the contract

"shall be referred to the arbitration of the Superintending Engineer of the Circle for the time being in the manner provided by the law relating to arbitration for the time being in force who, after such investigation as he may think proper, shall deliver the award which shall be final, conclusive and binding on all the parties to the contract".

A dispute arose between the contractor and the Union of India regarding certain payments and adjustment of claims arising out of the contract and one Mr. B. K. Guha who was working as the Superintending Engineer, Calcutta Aviation Circle in the early part of 1952, took up the arbitration and issued notices to both parties. The Union Government's statement of the facts of the case was sent to him on the 14th July 1952 (Ex. C) and the. appellant's statement of facts was sent to him on the 6th August 1952 (Ex. D/1), some time later Shri B. K. Guha was transferred as Superintending Engineer, Planning Circle, New Delhi, but notwithstanding such transfer he continued to hear the arbitration dispute. The plaintiff also (though aware of the transfer) submitted a supplementary statement of facts to him on the 14th September 1953 (Ex. E) which he addressed to Shri Guha as : "arbitrator and Superintending Engineer Planning Circle New Delhi". He also had further correspondence with Mr. Guha on 21st September 1953 (Ex. F), on 2nd October 1953 (Ex. G), on the 10th December 1953 (Ex 4) and on 12th December 1953 (Ex. 5 ). It is further admitted by the plaintiff that Shri Guha held an enquiry in Calcutta on the 18th and 19th December 1953 in connection with the arbitration dispute, that the plaintiff appeared before him through an advocate of Cuttack (Shri Asoka Das) and participated in the proceeding. The arbitrator eventually gave an award on 5th January 1954 and also served a notice of the passing of the award on the plaintiff, on the 7th January 1954. On the 6th April 1954 the plaintiff filed an application before the lower Court tor a direction to the arbitrator to file the award in Court. This was registered as Title Suit No. 21 of 1954 and notice was issued on the 7th April 1954 to the arbitrator to file the award in Court. The award was actually filed on 30th April 1954, but on the next date of hearing, namely 5th May 1954, the plaintiff and the Government pleader on behalf of the Union of India were both present in Court and filed Hajiras. The order sheet of that day shews that a special entry was made to the effect that the arbitrator had filed the award. The Court thereupon issued notice to the arbitrator to give full information regarding costs, fees, charges, etc. due in respect of the arbitra-tion. The remaining portion of the order of that date has been torn--obviously by interested parties. There was some delay on the part of the arbitrator in informing the Court about the fees, charges etc. due in respect of the arbitration proceedings. But the plaintiff-respondent filed his objection only on the 27th August 1954.

( 3 ) THE learned lower court disallowed the objection on the ground that it was filed beyond tne period of limitation prescribed by Article 158 of the limitation Act (one month) and that the 5th May 7954 should be considered to be the date on which the plaintiff, being present in Court, was aware of the filing of the award by the arbitrator. He, therefore, refused to enter into the merits of the objections