Legal Representatives Can Challenge Arbitral Award Only Under S 34 Arbitration Act, Not Article 227: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that the appropriate remedy for a legal representative aggrieved by an arbitral award is to file an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and not a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution or Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

"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," the Court stated.

The Court noted that under the legal representatives of the party can also invoke the remedies under the Arbitration Act. The Arbitration Act is a complete Code in itself, the Court stated.

The term 'party' in Section 34, would include 'legal representatives' claiming thereunder. 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.

“…it is pertinent to note that the scheme of the Arbitration Act, does not envision arbitration proceedings to cease with the death of a party. Section 35 of the Arbitration Act, extends the finality of an arbitral award not only to parties to the award, but also to 'parties claiming under them'.”, observed a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N Kotiswar Singh.

The dispute arose from a 2007 sale agreement executed by the appellant's uncle, Appu John, who passed away shortly thereafter. Arbitration proceedings were initiated, but allegedly against an incorrect legal representative. An arbitral award in 2011 directed execution of the sale deed.

The appellant, claiming to be the sole legal heir and asserting a lack of notice, challenged the award before the Madras High Court under Article 227. The High Court dismissed the petition, directing him to avail the remedy under Section 34 instead.

Affirming the High Court's decision, a judgment authored by Justice Karol emphasized that right to legal representation cannot be frozen upon death of a litigant party to an arbitral proceeding. The LRs are entitled to challenge the award before the arbitral tribunal under Section 34 of the Act, the court said.

“…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…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 court observed.

In terms of the aforesaid, the court dismissed the appeal, affirming the impugned findings, directing him to challenge the award under Section 34 of the Act.

Headnote

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 34 vs. Article 227 of the Constitution of India / Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Remedy for Legal Representatives – Held that the appropriate statutory relief for a legal representative aggrieved by and seeking to challenge an arbitral award lies exclusively under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act and not via a revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution or Section 115 of the CPC.

Definition and Continuity of Proceedings – Sections 2(1)(g), 35, and 40 – The Arbitration Act is a self-contained, complete Code that does not envision arbitration proceedings to cease upon the death of a party - By virtue of Section 40, an arbitration agreement is not discharged by the death of a party and remains enforceable by or against their legal representatives. Consequently, legal representatives step into the shoes of the deceased party for the purposes of the Act - Since an arbitral award is binding on and enforceable against the legal representatives of a deceased party under Sections 35 and 40, the corresponding statutory right to challenge that award under Section 34 must naturally flow to them - Denying them this right would leave them remediless under the statute while simultaneously making them liable to fulfil the award, defeating the very object of the Act. [Relied on Ravi Prakash Goel v. Chandra Prakash Goel, (2008) 13 SCC 667; Bhaven Construction v. Executive Engineer, Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited and Anr., (2022) 1 SCC 75; Paras 13-22]

Cause Title: V.K. JOHN VERSUS S. MUKANCHAND BOTHRA AND HUF (DIED) REPRESENTED BY LRS. & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 398

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abraham Markos, Adv. Mr. Atul Shankar Vinod, Adv. Mr. Dileep Pillai, Adv. Mr. Kannan Gopal Vinod, Adv. Mr. M. P. Vinod, AOR

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Chakradhari Sharan Singh, Sr. Adv. (A.C.) Mr. Chandan Malav, Adv. Ms. Gauri Rajput, Adv.

Respondent No.3-in-person