JUDGMENT 1. 1. This Misc. Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(d) read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code and Section 41(a) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act'), has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 18.11.1991, passed by learned Distt. Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, refusing to set-aside the judgment and decree dated 23.3.1991, amended on 4.4.1991. 2. The brief relevant facts of the case are that the appellant invited tenders for supply of Aluminium Conductors. The respondent also submitted a tender for the same, which was accepted by the appellant. The parties entered into an agreement. There was a clause for referring the dispute arising between the parties to Arbitrator. Mr. M.L. Arora Advocate was appointed by the respondent as an Arbitrator to decide the dispute between the parties. On 2.11.1992, the appellant submitted an application under Section 11 read with Section 5 of the Act, before the learned District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, for removal of Mr. Arora as Arbitrator and to revoke his authority. Learned District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, vide order dated 30.11.1988, allowed the application, removed Mr. Arora as an Arbitrator and appointed Mr. N.L. Jain Advocate as sole arbitrator to decide the dispute between the parties. Shri Jain submitted his award before the learned District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, on 20.11.1990. On 23.11.1990, the learned District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, ordered to issue notices to both the parties for 16.1.1991. The notices were not served on the parties by that time and as such on 16.1.1991, the said Court directed for issuing of fresh notices for 4.3.1991. On 29.1.1991, the respondent submitted an application through its Advocate Shri Khemka and prayed that the Award may be made rule of the Court. On this application, the file was taken on 2.2.1991. On this date, the Court directed for issuing notice to the appellant. The notices were ordered to be issued for 4.3.1991. On 4.3.1991, Shri Khemka was present on behalf of respondent but none was present on behalf of the appellant. The notice issued to the appellant by registered post was received on its behalf by some one on 6.2.1991, which is apparent from A.D. receipt. On 4.3.1991, the Court ordered that a period of thirty days has not been expired and as such the Court adjourned the case to 13.3.1991. The notice issued to the appellant by registered post was received on its behalf by some one on 6.2.1991, which is apparent from A.D. receipt. On 4.3.1991, the Court ordered that a period of thirty days has not been expired and as such the Court adjourned the case to 13.3.1991. On 13.3.1991, Shri Khemka was present on behalf of the respondent but none was present on behalf of the appellant. The service of the appellant was held to be sufficient. Arguments of the respondent were heard and the case was adjourned for pronouncement of order on 23.3.1991. On 23.3.1991, the Court passed a decree against the appellant. On 4.4.1991, the respondent submitted an application under Section 152 Civil Procedure Code The Court without issuing notice to the appellant, vide its order dated 4.4.1991, amended the decree in accordance with the Award. The appellant has challenged the judgment and decree dated 23.3.1991, and also the order and amended decree dated 4.4.1991, in this appeal. 3. I have heard Shri B.P. Agrawal Senior Advocate with Shri G.C. Garg, Shri R.P. Agrawal and Shri J.M. Jain, counsel for the appellant and Shri R.P. Garg and Shri Khemka for the respondent. 4. Mr. Agrawal, counsel for the appellant argued that notice was not addressed to R.S.E.B. but was addressed to Shri N.L. Jain, and as such it was not served on the appellant. He argued that it was not mentioned in the notice that the award had been Tiled. He argued that the notice issued by the Court was not a notice under Section/14(2) of the Act. He contended that it was not mentioned on the envelope by the/process server that the addressee has not been found. He also, argued that the A.D.\receipt contains only signatures. There is no seal of R.S.E.B. It is not clear from the i A.D. Receipt as to who received the registered letter. He argued that service on a Corporation can be effected only in accordance with Order 29 Rule 2 Civil Procedure Code Under this Rule the summons may be served on the Secretary, or on any director, or other principal officer of the corporation, or by leaving it or sending it by post addressed to the corporation at its registered office, or if there is no registered office then at the place where the corporation carries on business. According to Mr. According to Mr. Agrawal, the registered letter was not addressed to the appellant at its registered office and as such even it be taken that the registered letter was received by an employee of the appellant, it can not be said that it was validly served on the appellant as the registered letter was neither addressed to the appellant not it was sent to the registered office of the appellant. There is no seal of R.S.E.B. He argued that under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the notice under Section 14(2) of the Act was ever served on the appellant. He also argued that a notice under Section 14(2) of the Act from the Court is mandatory before an Award is made rule of the Court. Under such circumstances, he argued that the decree passed by the learned Judge being ex parte, deserves to be set-aside. He further argued that the decree was amended on 4.4.1991, without any notice to the appellant and as such the amended decree dated 4.4.1991, and the order (passed by the learned Judge on 4.4.1991, are without jurisdiction and deserve to he set-aside. 5. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent argued that Award was made a rule of Court under Section 17 of the Act, that provisions of Order 9 Rule 13 are not applicable in such cases; that no objections to the Award was filed by the appellant and as such it was imperative for the Court to pass a decree in accordance with the Award; that in arbitration case, there is no plaintiff or defendant and the decree is based only on the basis of Award. 6. In support of his arguments, Mr. Garg, placed reliance on A.I.R. 1969 Calcutta 381 (Suraj Mai Nagarmal v. Golden Fibre and Products) , AIR 1985, A.P. 52, (Govt, of Andhra Pradesh and another v. Bactchalla Balaiah) and A.I.R. 1952 Calcutta 10 (Ganeshmal Bhanwarlal v. Kesoram Cotton Mills Ltd.) . 7. Mr. Garg further argued that the respondent submitted an application on 29.1.1991, before the learned District Judge and prayed that the Award be made rule, of the Court. Notice of this application was sent to the appellant through registered envelope, which was received by the appellant on 6.2.1991. A copy of the application of the respondent, dated 29.1.1991, was attached with the Notice. Notice of this application was sent to the appellant through registered envelope, which was received by the appellant on 6.2.1991. A copy of the application of the respondent, dated 29.1.1991, was attached with the Notice. In Para No. 2 of the application, it was mentioned that the Arbitrator had submitted his Award before the Court on 20.11.1991. It was prayed that the Award be made rule of the Court. He argued that this application of the respondent was sent by the Court itself to the appellant. From this application it should be presumed that the Court gave a notice to the appellant of filing of Award of the Arbitrator in Court and as such the requirement of Section 14(2) of the Act was fully complied with. He next argued that even after receipt of notice of filing of the Award on 6.2.1991, the appellant remained absent. On 4.3.1991, the Court waited for the appellant and fixed next date but still the appellant remained absent and as such the learned Judge was justified in passing a decree on basis of Award. He argued that the registered envelope containing the application and show cause notice was addressed to R.S.E.B. through the Superintending Engineer (Procurement-I), Jaipur. From the A.D. receipt also it is apparent that this notice was sent by the learned District Judge to R.S.E.B. through Supdt. Engineer(Proc. I), Jaipur. Next date was also mentioned on the A.D. receipt and as such it can not be said that the appellant had no notice of the proceedings before the learned District Judge. He' argued that the address of the appellant in the agreement and also in the Award was as below: 8. "R.S.E.B. through S.E. (Proc.-I), Jaipur."He further argued that the decree was also passed against the appellant on the same address and as such it can not be said that the appellant was not validly served. He also argued that without admission and even for the sake of arguments even it be taken that there were some irregularities in the service of notice, still decree cannot be set-aside on that ground as the appellant was aware of the passing of the decree. In support of his arguments, counsel for the respondent placed reliance on A.I.R. 1987 M.P. 240 (Babu Nazir Ahmad v. Ms. Premsukh Shyamsukh and Sons, Neemuch & ors. AIR 1988 S.C. 2054 (Indian Rayon Corp. Ltd. v. Raunaq and Comp. In support of his arguments, counsel for the respondent placed reliance on A.I.R. 1987 M.P. 240 (Babu Nazir Ahmad v. Ms. Premsukh Shyamsukh and Sons, Neemuch & ors. AIR 1988 S.C. 2054 (Indian Rayon Corp. Ltd. v. Raunaq and Comp. Pvt. Ltd.) and AIR 1962 S.C. 666 (N.S. Nyngasheti v. K.S. Ningashetti & Others) . 9. From going through the record, it is apparent that the arbitrator submitted his award dated 20.11.90, in the Court of District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur. On 23.11.90, the Court passed an order for issuing notice to both the parties. On 29.1.1991, the respondent submitted an application for passing a decree on the basis of Award. It was specifically mentioned in the application that the arbitrator had filed the Award in the Court. A show cause notice of this application was sent by registered post to the appellant alongwith a copy of this application. The address on the registered envelope was mentioned as under (R.S.E.B. through S.C. (Proc.-I), Jaipur. This was the address in the purchase order and also in the proceedings before the arbitrator and the lower court. The same address is given in the Award submitted by the arbitrator. From A.D. receipt, it is apparent that the registered envelope containing the application submitted by the respondent alongwith show cause notice was received in the office of the appellant on 6.2.1991. The case was listed before the learned Judge, on 4.3.1991. In the order sheet, it has been specifically mentioned that the appellant has been served through registered letter on 6.2.1991 but a period of thirty days has not been passed and as such the case was adjourned to 13.3.1991. The case was listed on 13.3.1991. By that time no objections were filed by any of the parties against the Award. The learned Judge heard arguments on the same day and adjourned the case to 23.3.1991, for pronouncement of order. On 23.3.1991, the decree was passed. As there were some clerical mistakes in the decree, the decree was amended on 4.4.1991, on the request of the respondent. From the order sheet, it is apparent that the registered envelope was served on the appellant. From the affidavit submitted by the respondent, it has been established that the copy of the application dated 29.1.1991, was also sent alongwith show cause notice sent by registered post. The appellant did not controvert the affidavit submitted by the respondent. From the order sheet, it is apparent that the registered envelope was served on the appellant. From the affidavit submitted by the respondent, it has been established that the copy of the application dated 29.1.1991, was also sent alongwith show cause notice sent by registered post. The appellant did not controvert the affidavit submitted by the respondent. From the receipt of the registered letter issued by the post office, it appears that postal stamps of Rs.11/- were affixed on the envelope. The minimum charges for registered envelope at the relevant time were Rs.8/- only. Which goes to show that the registered envelope also contained the copy of the application dated 29.11.1991. In para 2 of the application it has been specifically mentioned that the arbitrator submitted his Award before the learned Judge. Thus, it is clear from the aforesaid circumstances that the appellant had notice from the Court] of filing of the Award. In Para No. 4. of the application submitted under Order 9 Rule 13, it was mentioned by the appellant that he went to the Court on 10.4.1991, with Shri Gururaj Saraswat Advocate, colleague of Shri G.C. Garg, counsel for the appellant in connection with setting-aside the ex parte Award. From this assertion of the appellant, it is also clear that the appellant had notice of the Award. If the appellant had no notice of filing of Award, there was no question of taking steps for setting-aside the Award. A party is required to take steps for setting-aside the Award only when a party is served with a notice of filing of Award under Section 14(2) of the Act. Under these circumstances, I am of the confirmed view that the appellant had already received notice which was sent by the Court by registered post. 10. A party is required to take steps for setting-aside the Award only when a party is served with a notice of filing of Award under Section 14(2) of the Act. Under these circumstances, I am of the confirmed view that the appellant had already received notice which was sent by the Court by registered post. 10. In Babu Nazir's case (supra), it was held as under : "Where the notice of filing of the award was issued to a party on the address as given by the party in the arbitration agreement, it was held that the presumption that arose in favour of due service, did not at all get rebutted and it could not be said that the notice was not properly addressed and consequently the objection petition filed by the party for setting-aside the award would be liable to be dismissed when filed much beyond the period of 30 days from the date of notice of filing of the award." 11. In the present case also notice of filing of the award was given to the appellant on the same address which was mentioned in the agreement and also in the award submitted by the arbitrator. 12. In Ningashetti's case (supra) the Apex Court held that a notice in writing is not necessary. Notice can be given orally. The communication of the information to the pleader, that an award has been filed is sufficient- compliance with the requirements of sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Act. 13. In the case of Indian Rayon Corp. (supra), the same view was taken. It was held that if the substance is clear, the form of the notice is irrelevant but the notice of the award having been filed in the Court, is necessary. 14. From the facts mentioned above, it has been established beyond doubt that notice of filing of award was given by the court to the appellant and the same was served on it. Thus, in my opinion, the appellant had intimation of filing of award. 15. The next question in the present case is as to whether the application filed by the appellant under Order 9 Rule 13 for setting-aside the decree is maintainable or not ? 16. Thus, in my opinion, the appellant had intimation of filing of award. 15. The next question in the present case is as to whether the application filed by the appellant under Order 9 Rule 13 for setting-aside the decree is maintainable or not ? 16. In my view, when an award is filed and a notice of filing of the award has been served on the parties, the parties had a right to file objections for setting-aside the award within 30 days from the date of service of notice. But in this case, no such objections have been filed and the decree has been passed on the basis of Award under Section 17 of the Act. As such no application for setting-aside the award under Order 9 Rule 13 is maintainable. My view is based on the authorities reported in A.I.R. 1968 Calcutta 381 and A.I.R. 1985 A.P. 52. The authority reported in 1992(1) W.L.C. 286, Raj. is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The case reported in A.I.R. 1962 Raj. 12 (Ram Chander and others v. Jamna Shankar and others) , is also not applicable to the facts of present case. In that case, it has been held that though Order 9 Rule 13 is not applicable but the principles mentioned in the said provision should be followed in cases where a decree is passed under section 17, without giving notice of filing of award to a party. In the present case, I have already held that the notice of filing of Award was already served on the appellant. 17. Regarding the last argument of Mr. Agrawal that the order dated 4.4.1991, is without jurisdiction as the same was passed without any notice to the Appellant, it is enough to say that when the appellant did not file any objections against the Award, it was imperative for the court to pass a decree in accordance with award. The decree dated 13.3.1991, was not in accordance with the award as there were some clerical mistakes on account of accidental slip. Vide order dated 4.4.91, the learned Judge corrected the judgment and decree dated 13.3.1991, by removing those mistakes and consequently, the decree was passed in accordance with the Award on 4.4.1991. The decree dated 13.3.1991, was not in accordance with the award as there were some clerical mistakes on account of accidental slip. Vide order dated 4.4.91, the learned Judge corrected the judgment and decree dated 13.3.1991, by removing those mistakes and consequently, the decree was passed in accordance with the Award on 4.4.1991. It is pertinent to note that when the original award has not been challenged by the appellant by filing objections, it was the duty of the court to pass a decree in accordance with the award. Under these circumstances is cannot be said that the appellant was prejudiced on account of amended decree dated 4.4.1991, or by the order dated 4.4.1991, by which the decree was amended. Counsel for the respondent also raised an objection that the appeal filed by the appellant under Order 43 Rule 1(d) read with Section 141 Criminal Procedure Code and also Sections 41(a) of the Act is not maintainable. But since I have decided the appeal on merits, I do not want to decide this question and leave it open. Consequently, there is no force in the appeal and the same is dismissed without any order as to costs. 18. Record of the lower court be returned immediately.Appeal Dismissed. *******