The Supreme Court has held that the appropriate relief for a legal representative to challenge an arbitral award is under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and not under Article 227 of the Constitution or Section 115 of the CPC. The Apex Court was of the view that denying a legal representative the right to challenge an award under Section 34 would defeat the very object of the Act.

The Apex Court was considering an appeal preferred against the judgment of the Madras High Court whereby a Civil Revision Petition preferred by the appellant against the arbitral award in an Arbitration Case came to be dismissed.

The Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi held, “In the considered view of this Court, the appropriate relief for a legal representative to challenge an arbitral award is under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act and not under Article 227 of the Constitution/Section 115 of the CPC.”

“Taking into view the above observations, denying a legal representative the right to challenge an award under Section 34, would defeat the very object of the Arbitration Act, and its purpose as a self-contained complete Code of dispute resolution. Furthermore, as discussed above, such an interpretation is also in furtherance of continuity of arbitral proceedings as envisioned under the Arbitration Act”, it added.

AOR M. P. Vinod represented the Appellant, while Senior Advocate Chakradhari Sharan Singh represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The matter emanated from a ‘Deed of Agreement for Sale’ entered into between one Appu John (alleged paternal uncle of the appellant) and the first Respondent, S. Mukanchand Bothra, for the sale of the subject property. John passed away in 2007, and the first Respondent initiated arbitration against the second Respondent, A. Philip, in 2011, alleging violation of the above Agreement. The case of the appellant was that Philip had been falsely shown as the legal representative of John. An Award came to be passed by the Sole Arbitrator, in favour of the first Respondent, by directing the second Respondent, Philip, to execute the sale. Consequently, an execution petition also came to be filed.

The case of the appellant was that he was only informed of the arbitration proceedings in 2012. Thereafter, the appellant sought and was impleaded in the execution petition. Prior thereto, in 1994, the appellant had initiated a suit against his uncle seeking partition of properties belonging to his paternal grandmother, in which a preliminary decree was passed in favour of the appellant, decreeing 1/3rd share in the subject property. The appellant assailed the arbitral award before the Madras High Court, but the same came to be dismissed with the observation that since the appellant claimed to be a legal representative of John, the appropriate relief would lie under the Arbitration Act, and in view of such statutory remedy, the challenge under Article 227 of the Constitution could not be permitted.

Reasoning

The Bench explained that the Arbitration Act is a complete Code in itself. The object of the Act is to consolidate the laws pertaining to domestic arbitration, international arbitration and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. Noting that Section 34 enumerates the grounds on which a Court may set aside an arbitral award, upon an application made by a party, the Bench stated that judicial interference beyond the scope and procedure enumerated under Section 34 must be exercised in ‘exceptional rarity’.

“In our view, when the scheme of the Act is towards continuity of arbitral proceedings, in the event of death of a party, the natural corollary, evident from the definition clause itself, is that upon the death of a party, legal representatives’ step into the shoes of a party for the purposes of the Act”, the order read.

The Bench also clarified that the appropriate relief for a legal representative to challenge an arbitral award is under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. The Bench further stated, “Moreover, in our view, legal representatives of a deceased party cannot be made remediless under the statute on one hand, and on the other hand being made liable to fulfill the award.”

The Bench further refused to accept the conflicting stand of the appellant, where at one stage he submitted that he was the sole surviving legal heir of John, and on the other stated that he did not represent the estate of John. Thus, upholding the judgment of the High Court, the Bench dismissed the Petition.

Cause Title: V K John v. S. Mukanchand Bothra and Huf (Died) (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 393)

Appearance

Appellant: AOR M. P. Vinod

Respondent: Senior Advocate Chakradhari Sharan Singh, Advocate Chandan Malav, Respondent-in-person

Click here to read/download Judgment


Tags: