41. We may, at this stage, note that the learned counsel for the appellant relied on State of H.P.7 where, while considering the question of computation of three months’ limitation period and further 30 days within which the challenge to the award is to be filed, as provided in Section 34(3) and proviso thereto of the Arbitration Act, this Court held that having regard to Section 12(1) of the Limitation Act, 1963 and Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, day from which such period is to be reckoned is to be excluded for calculating limitation. It was pointed out by the counsel for the respondents that Section 43 of the Arbitration Act makes the Limitation Act, 1963 applicable to the Arbitration Act whereas it is held to be not applicable to the NI Act and, therefore, this judgment would not be applicable to the present case. We have noted that in this case reliance is not merely placed on Section 12(1) of the Limitation Act. Reliance is also placed on Section 9 of the General Clauses Act. However, since, in the instant case we have reached a conclusion on the basis of Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and on the basis of a long line of English decisions that where a particular time is given, from a certain date, within which an act is to be done, the day of the date is to be excluded, it is not necessary to discuss whether State of H.P.7 is applicable to this case or not because Section 12(1) of the Limitation Act is relied upon therein. 42. Having considered the question of law involved in this case in proper perspective, in the light of relevant judgments, we are of the opinion that Saketh2 lays down the correct proposition of law. We hold that for the purpose of calculating the period of one month, which is prescribed under Section 142( b ) of the NI Act, the period has to be reckoned by excluding the date on which the cause of action arose. We hold that SIL Import, USA3 does not lay down the correct law. Needless to say that any decision of this Court which takes a view contrary to the view taken in Saketh2 by this Court, which is confirmed by us, do not lay down the correct law on the question involved in this reference. The reference is answered accordingly.
