Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: constructive knowledge in Mangani Rai vs The State Of Bihar & Anr on 23 March, 2017Matching Fragments
Even though, the learned Writ Court has taken note of various judgments in the matter of actual and constructive knowledge about the award and has held that the appellant had knowledge of the award on 27.12.2017 and, therefore, the right to seek reference accrued to him within six weeks thereof, we are of the considered view that in this case, the principle of actual or constructive knowledge about the award cannot be applied in the peculiar facts and circumstances inasmuch as on 27.12.2007, the award was neither passed in favour of the appellant nor was any payment made in the name of the appellant. When the award was passed and served on the appellant on 27.12.2007, it was in the name of Tilakdhari Rai and when the appellant pointed out this defect, the award was corrected and after correction of the award, it was only on 14.07.2008 that the amount, as awarded, was paid to the appellant and after receipt of this on 18.07.2008, the appellant sought reference, i.e. within four days thereof.
Patna High Court LPA No.562 of 2016 dt.23-03-2017 In this case, it has to be held that the final award was served on the appellant only on 14.07.2008 and if he had sought reference within four days thereafter, the learned Writ Court has committed an error in dismissing the appeal. What was tendered to the appellant and what is held to be a constructive knowledge acquired by the appellant on 27.12.2007 was not an award passed in his name or in his favour. It was an award passed in the name of one Tilakdhari Rai and the appellant, not being Tilakdhari Rai, cannot seek any reference and, therefore, the appellant rightly pointed out that the award has been wrongly passed in the name of Tilakdhari Rai. It was only on 14.07.2008 when corrected award and amount were tendered to the appellant and if within four days thereafter, the appellant has sought reference, it cannot be said that the appellant had sought a reference beyond the period of six weeks. The finding recorded by the learned Writ Court that the appellant should have sought reference commencing from the date of receipt of the notice under Section 12(2) of the Act cannot be made applicable in the present case as the receipt of the notice and award under Section 12(2) made to the appellant on 27.12.2007, is not an award and the notice to him or issued to him. It was issued to Tilakdhari Rai and after objection by the appellant when it was corrected and actually tendered to the appellant by way of cheque on 14.07.2008; reference sought by the appellant on 18.07.2008 was within limitation. The learned Writ Court has not Patna High Court LPA No.562 of 2016 dt.23-03-2017 taken note of this aspect of the matter and, therefore, in dismissing the writ petition by accepting the preliminary objection of the respondents, an error has been committed by the learned Writ Court.