ASIT KUMAR BISI, J. ( 1 ) THE Court: Heard Mr. Amitesh Banerjee, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Ratnanko Banerjee, learned advocate for the respondent. ( 2 ) THE instant petition being A. P. 112 of 1999 has been filed by the petitioner Indian Oil Corporation Limited seeking direction upon the department of this Court to issue notice of filing of the award under section 14 (2) of the Arbitration Act 1940 (in short 'the Act') on the basis of the signed copy of the award sent to the Registrar, Original Side, High Court on 24th August 1993. ( 3 ) BEREFT of details the case of the petitioner is that the sole Arbitrator Mr. K. K. Rai entered upon reference on 31. 3. 1990. On 31. 5. 1993 the said Arbitrator made and published his award awarding a sum of Rs. 1,95,51. 83p in favour of the petitioner and the claim of the respondent was rejected by him. Unfortunately due to inadvertence the learned Arbitrator made over the original award to the respondent. By the letter dated 31. 7. 1993 the learned Arbitrator duly requested the respondent to return the original signed award to enable the Arbitrator to take further steps in terms of section 14 (2) of the Act. No response was received by the learned Arbitrator from the respondents whereupon on 24th August, 1993 the Arbitrator made over a copy of the award duly signed and certified by him along with the related papers and documents to the Registrar, High Court, Original Side, for being filed and notices being issued in accordance with section 14 (2) of the Act. Further case of the petitioner is that by a letter dated 3. 12. 1998 the petitioner duly requested the respondent to return the original award to the Registrar, Original Side, High Court and the said letter was received by the respondent on 4. 12. 1998 but no step had been taken in pursuance thereof. ( 4 ) THE respondent filed affidavit-in-opposition to the application filed by the petitioner denying the material allegation made in the application. It has been averred inter alia in the affidavit-in-opposition that the award was made after a long time and the Arbitrator sent only a copy of the award under cover of his letter dated 31. 5. 1993. From 31. 5. It has been averred inter alia in the affidavit-in-opposition that the award was made after a long time and the Arbitrator sent only a copy of the award under cover of his letter dated 31. 5. 1993. From 31. 5. 1993 till the present application no notice had been issued which is contrary to the law of limitation as more than six years elapsed in the meantime. It is also averred by the respondent in his affidavit-in-opposition that the application has been filed maliciously and fraudulently long after the period of limitation with the sole object of take advantage of the award which is untenable in law. ( 5 ) ON hearing Mr. Amitesh Banerjee, the learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Ratnanko Banerjee, the learned advocate for the respondent and going through the materials on record I find that on 31. 5. 93 the learned Arbitrator made and published the award but due to inadvertences made over the original award made and signed by him to the respondent. It is quite evident from the materials on record that by the letter dated 312. 5. 93 the learned Arbitrator informed the parties of publication of the award. Since the original award was sent by the Arbitrator to the respondent he sent the letter dated 31. 7. 93 to the respondent requesting him to return the original award which was sent through inadvertence so as to enable him to take further action in the matter. There is nothing on record to indicate in any manner whatsoever that the said request of the Arbitrator evoked any response from the respondent. When no response was received from the respondent regarding sending of the original award to the Arbitrator as requested in the aforesaid letter dated 31. 7. 93, the Arbitrator finding no other option informed the Registrar, Original Side of this Court of the above fact by his letter dated 24. 8. 93 and sent a copy of the award duly signed and certified by him to the Registrar, Original Side of this Court. ( 6 ) MR. 7. 93, the Arbitrator finding no other option informed the Registrar, Original Side of this Court of the above fact by his letter dated 24. 8. 93 and sent a copy of the award duly signed and certified by him to the Registrar, Original Side of this Court. ( 6 ) MR. Ratnanko Banerjee, the learned advocate for the respondent has contended that the application filed by the petitioner is hopelessly barred by limitation inasmuch as Article 119 of the Limitation Act, 1963 prescribes the period of thirty days from the date of service of notice of making of the award within which the application for filing in the Court of an award was required to be filed. He has cited the cases of Patel Mlotibhai Naranbhai and Anr. v. Dinubhai Motibhai Patel and Ors. reported in AIR 1996 Supreme Court 997 in support of his contention. ( 7 ) RELYING on the self-same decision in the case of Patel Motribhai Naranbhai (supra) Mr. Amitesh Banerjee, the learned Advocate for the petitioner has argued that Article 119 of the Limitation Act will apply on to an application made by a party and not by the Arbitrator land in case of the Arbitrator's making any application Article 137 of the Limitation Act which prescribed the period of three years from the date of making of the award will apply. ( 8 ) HE has drawn my pointed attention to the case of Patel Motibhai Naranbhai (supra) at page 998 (paragraph 9) wherein it has been laid down by the Supreme Court that even if it is held that Article 119 of the Limitation Act will apply only to an application made by a party and not by the Arbitrator, Article 137 will come in the way of the Arbitrator's making any application beyond the period of three years from the date of making of the award. ( 9 ) THE materials on record unmistakably point out that the learned Arbitrator made and published the award on 31. 5. 1993 and since the original award was sent by the learned Arbitrator to the respondent through inadvertence, request was made by the learned Arbitrator by his letter dated 31. 7. 93 to the respondent to return the original award immediately to enable him to take further action in the matter. 5. 1993 and since the original award was sent by the learned Arbitrator to the respondent through inadvertence, request was made by the learned Arbitrator by his letter dated 31. 7. 93 to the respondent to return the original award immediately to enable him to take further action in the matter. Since the request remained unheeded, no alternative was left before the learned Arbitrator than to send copy of the award to the Registrar, High Court Original Side duly signed and certified by him and it was admittedly sent on 24. 8. 1993. Thus I find that the Arbitrator took the required step well within the period of limitation as prescribed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act. The point of limitation as raised by Mr. Ratnanko Banerjee, learned advocate for the respondent cannot have any basis at all. ( 10 ) THE only question which remains for consideration is whether the Registrar, O. S. , of this Court can issue notice of filing of the award under section 14 (2) of the Act on the basis of the signed copy of the award sent to him on 24th August 1983. Mr. Amitesh Banerjee, learned advocate for the petitioner, has pertinently pointed out that since the copy of the award sent by the Arbitrator to the Registrar is an unstamped one, such defect in a situation like this can well be removed by impounding the award in exercise of powers of the Court under section 33 read with section 35 of the Stamp Act. He has cited the case of Khem Chand v. Union of India reported in 1987 Calcutta Law Times 56 in this regard. ( 11 ) FOR the foregoing reason, I find sufficient ground for allowing the petition for allowing the petition being A. P. No. 112 of 1999 filed by the petitioner. Since the copy of the award sent by the Arbitrator to the Registrar, O. S. , is an unstamped one, it is to be impounded for which the petitioner must pay the stamp duty chargeable under the relevant provisions of the Stamp Act. In such event the petitioner is directed to pay the stamp duty chargeable on the unstamped copy of the award sent by the Arbitrator to the Registrar, O. S. , of this Court within three weeks from this date. In such event the petitioner is directed to pay the stamp duty chargeable on the unstamped copy of the award sent by the Arbitrator to the Registrar, O. S. , of this Court within three weeks from this date. If the duty chargeable is paid by the petitioner within the period as mentioned above, the copy of the award is to be properly stamped and the Registrar, O. S. , will issue notice of filing of the award under section 14 (2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940, on the basis of such stamped copy of award. The application is accordingly disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. Registrar, O. S. and all parties to act on xerox signed copy of the dictated order upon usual undertaking. Application disposed of.