B. K. BEHERA, J. ( 1 ) SAKHI Dibya, whose legal representatives figure as the appellants, had made an application under S. 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short, 'the Act') in Title Suit No. 41 of 1975 to direct the defendants opposite party Nos. 4 to 6, who were said to be the Arbitrators in possession of the award, to produce it in the court or causing the same to be produced together with any depositions and documents which might have been produced or proved before them and the alleged original arbitration agreement within a time to be fixed by the court and to have the effect thereof determined as the appointment of the Arbitrators was without her knowledge and no agreement had been executed by the parties. The Arbitrators filed a sealed cover purported to have contained the award without intimating the parties about the same and no formal notice or intimation about it was received by the parties from the court. However, an application was made by the petitioner under Sections 30 and 33 of the Act challenging the alleged award. The application was registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 154 of 1975 and had been made as a measure of abundant caution. This Miscellaneous case was dismissed for default. On the petitioner's death, the present appellants were substituted in her place being her legal representatives in November, 1976. A consolidated amended plaint was put in by the appellants in March, 1977. On November 10, 1980, a sealed cover which had remained untraced after its filing was opened in the presence of both the parties who were allowed to peruse the award with the documents filed with it. The appellants contended that as S. 14 (2) of the Act had not been complied with, the parties were to be given the statutory period provided under the Act to put in their objections to the award. The learned Subordinate Judge did not accept this contention by his order passed on the same day and the suit was heard on the following day and on Nov. 12, 1980, the award was made a rule of the court. ( 2 ) APPEARING on behalf of the appellants, Mr. Y. S. N. Murty has challenged the legality and propriety of the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge making the award a rule of the court. 12, 1980, the award was made a rule of the court. ( 2 ) APPEARING on behalf of the appellants, Mr. Y. S. N. Murty has challenged the legality and propriety of the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge making the award a rule of the court. He has urged that the statutory and mandatory notice under S. 14 (2) of the Act had not been given to the parties and neither the original petitioner nor the legal representatives had knowledge of the award and the learned Subordinate Judge was to give time to put in objections as provided in Art. 119 (b) of the Limitation Act. He has contended that no application having been made to make the award a rule of the court, the learned Subordinate Judge went wrong in passing the impugned order. He has also submitted that the award was not on stamp paper as required under the law and had not been registered although it was compulsorily registerable, and therefore, could not have been acted upon and made a rule of the court. Appearing in person and not through any counsel, the respondent No. 3 has supported the impugned order and the decree passed in accordance with it. The learned counsel for the other respondents who have appeared in the court did not assail the grounds taken on behalf of the appellants. The record of the trial court did not contain the record of Miscellaneous Case No. 154 of 1975. As the respondent No. 3 has not been represented and I wanted to find out as to whether in the application made in the aforesaid Miscellaneous Case, the petitioner had admitted her knowledge of the award, I called for the record of that case for my perusal. ( 3 ) SECTION 14 of the Act reads :"14. Award to be signed and filed.- (1) when the arbitrators or umpire have made their award, they shall sign it and shall give notice in writing to the parties of the making and signing thereof and of the amount of fees and charges payable in respect of the arbitration. ( 3 ) SECTION 14 of the Act reads :"14. Award to be signed and filed.- (1) when the arbitrators or umpire have made their award, they shall sign it and shall give notice in writing to the parties of the making and signing thereof and of the amount of fees and charges payable in respect of the arbitration. (2) the arbitrators or umpires shall, at the request of any party to the arbitration agreement or any person claiming under such party or if so directed by the court and upon payment of the fees and charges due in respect of the arbitration and award and of the costs and charges of filing the award, cause the award or a signed copy of it, together with any depositions and documents which may have been taken and proved before them, to be filed in the Court, and the Court shall thereupon give the notice to the parties of the filing of the award. (3) Where the arbitrators or umpires state a special case under clause (b) of Section 13, the Court, after giving notice to the parties and hearing them, shall pronounce its opinion thereon and such opinion shall be added to, and shall form part of the award. " ( 4 ) WHAT would be considered as sufficient notice is a question of fact. Reading the word 'notice', it denotes merely intimation to the party concerned of a particular fact. Notice may take several forms. The notice, which the court is to give to the party of the filing of the award, need not be a notice in writing and can be given orally. ( 5 ) SECTION 14 (2) of the Act casts a duty upon the court to issue notice to the parties intimating that the award has been filed. The provisions of this Section are mandatory and the court must give notice of the filing of the award to the parties. If a decree is passed under S. 17 on the basis of the award without giving the parties notice under Sub-Section (2) of S. 14 of the Act, the decree would be liable to be set aside. The provisions of this Section are mandatory and the court must give notice of the filing of the award to the parties. If a decree is passed under S. 17 on the basis of the award without giving the parties notice under Sub-Section (2) of S. 14 of the Act, the decree would be liable to be set aside. Communication of the information that an award has been filed is sufficient compliance with the requirements of Sub-S. (2) of S. 14 with respect to the giving of the notice to the parties concerned about the filing of the award. The notice that is to be issued to the parties is to inform them of the filing of the award and requiring them to file objections, if any, against it within thirty days, of the service of the notice. No particular form of notice nor any procedure as to its service has been prescribed in S. 14 of the Act and the order passed in the court and communicated to the parties that the objection should be filed by a certain date is sufficient notice under S. 14 (2) of the Act. ( 6 ) IN the instant case, the order passed by the court dated March 19, 1975 reads :"s. Rs. on the arbitrators are received. Sri D. Bhuyan and Sri R. C. Misra appear and file a closed cover containing award and documents as stated in the memo. Call on 25-3-85 for further orders. "there is nothing in the order to indicate that the parties were informed about the filing of the award. A closed cover had been handed over by the two Arbitrators purported to have contained the award. The parties had no notice of it and there is nothing to show that it had been perused by any of the parties. A perusal of the application made under Ss. 30 and 33 of the Act would show that the original petitioner had no notice of the award and it had specifically been mentioned in paragraph 3 thereof that no copy of the award had been served on the petitioner who did not know the contents of the sealed cover and it had been stated that the Arbitrators were said to have produced the 'alleged' award and the connected documents in a sealed cover. As would appear from the orders passed in the order-sheet, the sealed cover remained untraced and it was found out and opened in the presence of the parties on Nov. 10, 1980 who were allowed to peruse the original award with the documents filed with it on that day. The court had passed the following order on Nov. 10, 1980 : "as per the provisions contained under S. 14 (2) of the Arbitration Act on receipt of the award the court is to give notice to the parties of the filing of the same. In the instant case no formal notice has been served on the parties intimating them regarding the filing of the award in the court, however, it is manifest that the parties are fully aware of the filing of the award in the court by the Arbitrators. In fact on 30-6-1975 the plaintiff petitioner prayed for opening the sealed cover to inspect the documents. The petition filed under S. 30 of the Arbitration Act and numbered as Mis. case No. 154 of 1975 reveals that the plaintiff-petitioner was fully aware of the filing of the award in the court on 19-3-1975. Similarly the counters filed by the opposite party to the aforesaid Misc. case suggests that the opposite parties also are aware of the filing of the award in the court. I, therefore, consider that the provisions of mandatory notice as envisaged under S. 14 (2) of the Arbitration Act has been sufficiently complied with. " ( 7 ) AS recorded by the trial court, no notice had been served on the parties intimating them regarding the filing of the award in the court. The matter was heard on Nov. 11, 1980 and the impugned order was passed on the day following. The learned trial Judge did not accept the contention with regard to noncompliance of S. 14 (2) of the Act by the court and passed the following order :"i am unable to accept the views of the learned advocate for the plaintiff. The arbitrators along with the sealed cover filed a memo declaring that as per the notice of the court they filed the award along with the relevant papers. There is hardly any scope to, suspect the conduct of the arbitrators. I therefore, take it that award was in fact filed in court on 19-3-1975. The arbitrators along with the sealed cover filed a memo declaring that as per the notice of the court they filed the award along with the relevant papers. There is hardly any scope to, suspect the conduct of the arbitrators. I therefore, take it that award was in fact filed in court on 19-3-1975. I do not accept the argument of the learned advocate of the plaintiff that the award must be deemed to have been filed on the day the sealed cover was opened that is, day before yesterday (10-11-1980 ). As regards the mandatory notice as contemplated under S. 14 (2) of the Arbitration Act I still stick to my view in my order dated 10-11-1980 that the provision has been sufficiently complied with. Now that there is no subsisting objection to the award, this court is duty bound to proceed under S. 17 of the Arbitration Act to make the award rule of Court. " ( 8 ) THE impugned order cannot be sustained in law owing to non-compliance of S. 14 (2) of the Act as a sealed cover purported to contain the award had been filed by the Arbitrators in March 1975 which was untraced until it was traced out and opened in the presence of the parties on Nov. 10, 1980. On that day, the parties could be said to have notice of the award, and therefore, it was incumbent on the court to have given thirty day's time to the parties to put in their objections, if any, as provided in Art. 119 (B) of the Limitation Act, but this had not been done. Instead, rejecting the contention raised by the appellants with regard to non-compliance of S. 14 (2) of the Act, the impugned order making the award a rule of the court was passed two days after the appellants had notice of the award. As held in AIR 1970 SC 967 , Dewan Singh v. Champat Singh notice under S. 14 (2) of the Act is mandatory. In the instant case, S. 14 (2) of the Act has not been complied with. ( 9 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the decree passed by the learned First Additional Subordinate Judge making the award a rule of the court must be set aside because of non-compliance of S. 14 (2) of the Act. In the instant case, S. 14 (2) of the Act has not been complied with. ( 9 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the decree passed by the learned First Additional Subordinate Judge making the award a rule of the court must be set aside because of non-compliance of S. 14 (2) of the Act. It is not necessary to examine the other contentions raised on behalf of the appellants. ( 10 ) THE appeal succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order passed by the learned First Additional Subordinate Judge and the decree passed by him are hereby set aside. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are to bear their own costs of this appeal. It would now be open to the parties, if so advised, to take such steps as are considered by them to be legal and proper. Appeal allowed. .