JUDGMENT Devinder Gupta, J.—Petitioner was Principal of respondent No. 1, College which is affiliated to respondent No. 2, University. Services of petitioner were dispensed with by an order passed on 16th of December, 1987 by the Managing Committee of the College. Petitioner, thereafter approached respondent No 2, for constituting the Arbitration Tribunal in view of the provisions contained in Rule 37 of the Rules RELATING TO THE TEACHERS OF NON-GOVERNMENT COLLEGES framed under para 38.v of the 1st Ordinance of the H. P. University 1973, This request of the petitioner was acceded to and an Arbitration Tribunal was ordered to be constituted by respondent No. 2. Respondent No 5, was appointed by the petitioner and respondent No. 4, was appointed by respondent No. 1, as their nominees to the Arbitration Tribunal. In accordance with the aforementioned rule, respondent No. 2, appointed respondent No. 3, a retired Judge of this Court, as an Umpire of the Tribunal Arbitrators as well as Umpire made their separate awards which the Umpire forwarded to the Registrar of respondent No. 2 University. No notice was given either by the Arbitrators or by the Umpire to the petitioner of the making and signing of the award as per the requirement of sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, hereinafter referred to as the Act’. By moving this application, the petitioner has sought direction against the respondents for filing or causing the award to be filed in Court. 2. Notice of the application was given to the third respondent in response to which a reply was sent by him to the Court pointing out that the Tribunal conducted the arbitration proceedings and after conclusion of the proceedings, awards of two Arbitrators along with his own award dated 23-5-1990 in his capacity as Umpire, were handed over on 1-6-1990 in the office of the Vice-Chancellor of respondent No. 2, University, It is the stand of the Umpire that since he has already handed over the awards to respondent No. 2, University, it is only respondent No. 2, who can be directed to file arbitration award before ,the Court as no documents are available with him. 3. 3. Notice was also given to the first respondent who was duly served and one Datta Ram, Vice-President of the Managing Committee, pat in appearance on 6-11-1991 and stated that the Managing Committee has been superseded in the month of August, 1991 and now the same vests in Deputy Commissioner, Una. Fresh notice was directed to be issued to Deputy Commissioner, Una for today who has since been served but nobody has put in appearance on his behalf. Respondents 4 and 5 have, despite service, failed to put in appearance. 4. Respondent No. 2, has filed separate reply and congested the application by raising preliminary objection that a copy of the award made by the Umpire on 23-5-1990 was sent by the University to the applicant under registered cover on 11 -6-1990, who had due notice of the making and signing of the award by the Umpire and Arbitrators and the only remedy available to him was to assail the award. The application seeking direction for filing the same in Court is not maintainable at this belaged stage. In nutshull, the defence is that the application for seeking direction against the Arbitrators and Umpire for filing the award in Court is not within the period of limitation. 5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. It is the admitted case of the parties that neither the Arbitrators nor the Umpire, after they had made their award and signed the same, gave notice in writing to the petitioner of making and signing thereof as per requirement of sub-section (i) of section 14 of the Act The only objection of respondent No. 2, is that since intimation was sent through letter dated 11-6-1990 by the University to the Petitioner of making and signing thereof by the Arbitrators and Umpire, it is sufficient compliance of the requirement of sub-section (I) of section 14 of the Act. Since the petitioner through letter dated 11-6-1990, receipt of which is not disputed by the petitioner, had acquired knowledge of the award, the time for moving application would commence running from acquiring the knowledge. It was not necessary that the notice should have originated from the Umpire or the Arbitrators. Intimation by respondent No. 2, was sufficient. 6. Since the petitioner through letter dated 11-6-1990, receipt of which is not disputed by the petitioner, had acquired knowledge of the award, the time for moving application would commence running from acquiring the knowledge. It was not necessary that the notice should have originated from the Umpire or the Arbitrators. Intimation by respondent No. 2, was sufficient. 6. Whether such a notice given by a person other than the Arbitrator or Umpire can be said to be sufficient compliance of the requirements of sub-section (1) of section 14 or not and whether the fact of petitioner having knowledge of the Arbitrators and Umpire making and signing of the award without their being any notice from Arbitrators or Umpire can be said to be a relevant factor for computing limitation in Sling an application for direction to file the award requires consideration. 7. Sub-section (2) of section 14 of the Act enjoins a duty upon the Arbitrators(s) or Umpire(s) to file or cause the filing of the award or a signed copy thereof together with any depositions and documents which may have been taken and proved before them in court when a request in that behalf is made by any party to the arbitration agreement or by any person claiming under them, if so directed by the Court. Under subsection (2) of section 14, the actual filing of the award by the Umpire himself is not essential. It is sufficient if the Umpire causes the award to be filed in Court. This provision also does not require a party to make a request to the Arbitrators or Umpire first to cause the award to be filed in Court before a request is made to the Court to direct the Arbitrators or Umpire to file the award in Court. It is the admitted case of the parties that no request was made either by the petitioner or by respondent No. 1, to the Arbitrators or Umpire for filing of the award in Court. The Umpire, of his own, without any request in this behalf instead of filing the award in Court, caused the same along with other documents including proceedings and depositions etc f handed over in the office of the Vice-Chancellor of respondent No. 2, University. Respondent No. 2, is neither a party to the Arbitration Agreement, nor is a party claiming under such parties. Respondent No. 2, is neither a party to the Arbitration Agreement, nor is a party claiming under such parties. It is only a Statutory Authority who is required to constitute an Arbitration Tribunal or in case of the arbitration proceedings being delayed in terms of Clause (c) of Rule 37 aforementioned, is competent to give his award. 8. Language of sub-section (2) of section 14 farther indicates that the award should be filed in Court under the authority of all the Arbitrators or under the authority of the Umpire. Clause (a) of Article 119 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to cases where a party approaches the Court with a prayer for filing in Court the award. The starting point of limitation is the date of service of notice of the making of the award. The notice contemplated is provided for in sub-section (I) of section 14. Neither in Article 119 of the Limitation Act, nor in sub-section(1) of section 14, there h any indication that the knowledge by a party of the signing and making of the award by the arbitrator is the starting point of limitation. Limitation has to commence from the date of service of the notice which should be in conformity with tae requirements of sub-section (1) of section 14, namely, notice originating from the Arbitrators or Umpire that they have made their award and signed it. A Full Bench of Mysore High Court in Ratnawa appellant v Guri Shiddappa Gurushantappa Maqavi, Respondent, AIR 1962 Mys. 135, while considering the question of the starting point of limitation where parties were aware of the making of the award, in the absence of any notice under sub-section (1) of section 14, held that before time begins to run. the parties concerned must have been notified by means of a notice in writing, as contemplated in sub-section (1) of section 14 read with section 42 of the Act and the fact that the parties were aware of the making of award is a wholly irrelevant for the purpose of computing the period of limitation While holding so the Full Bench approved the decisions rendered in Puppala Ramulu v, Naqidi Appalaswami, AIR 1957 AP II ; Jagdish Mahton v. Sunder Mahton, AIR 1949 Pat. 393; Misri Lai v. Bhagwati Prasad, AIR 1955 All 573 and Ganga Ram v. Radha Kishan(S) AIR 1955 Punj. 393; Misri Lai v. Bhagwati Prasad, AIR 1955 All 573 and Ganga Ram v. Radha Kishan(S) AIR 1955 Punj. 145 On consideration I am also in full agreement with the ratio of Full Bench judgment of Mysore High Court in Ratnawas case supra. What should be the form of notice is not in dispute. However, as held in Parasramka Commercial Co. Ltd Appellant v. Union of India, Respondent, AIR 1970 Supreme Court 1654 and Indian Rayon Corporation Ltd. Appellant v Raunag and Company Pvt. Ltd Respondent, AIR 1988 St 2054, notice may take several forms It must be sent in writing and must intimate quite clearly that the award has been made and signed. Sending of the copy of the award has been held to be sufficient notice that the award has been made and signed The fact of receipt of letter dated 11-6-1990 by the petitioner from respondent No 2, can be said to be the petitioner having knowledge of the signing and making of the award by the Arbitrators and Umpire but in view of the ratio in Ratnawa’s case it is not a relevant factor in computing the limitation for filing an application in Court seeking direction for filing in court the award. 9. Sending of notice by respondent No. 2, to the petitioner informing of the submission of the award by the Umpire before it cannot be said sufficient compliance of the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 14 since the notice which is required to be served upon the parties is the notice by the Arbitrator or Umpire. In view of this, it cannot be said that limitation had commenced the day when respondent No 2, served notice upon the petitioner. The resistence put forth by respondent No. 2, as such, is wholly unsustainable Section 14 of the Act purports to regulate the procedure after the making of the award. As noticed above, sub-section (2) contemplates a move by a party to secure the help of court for securing the filing of the award, if the same has not been filed by the Arbitrator or the Umpire and provides for a direction by the Court for filing or causing the award to be filed. As noticed above, sub-section (2) contemplates a move by a party to secure the help of court for securing the filing of the award, if the same has not been filed by the Arbitrator or the Umpire and provides for a direction by the Court for filing or causing the award to be filed. Respondent No, 2, otherwise has no locus standi to thwart an attempt on the part of one of the panics to the arbitration agreement by resisting the prayer for direction to file or cause the filing of the award in court. 10. In view of the above, the application is allowed. Respondents No. 2 and 3 are directed to file or cause the filing of award or a signed copy thereof together with any depositions and documents which may have been taken and proved before the Arbitration Tribunal in court within a period of four weeks from today. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Application allowed.