CHALLENGING OF ARBITRATION AWARD BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES

In ‘V.K. Jain v. S. Mukanchand Bothra HUF (died) represented by legal heirs and others’ – Civil Appeal No. 4624 of 2026 – Supreme Court, decided on 20.04.2026, a deed of agreement was entered into between one, Mr. Appu John and Mukanchand Bothra for the sale of impugned property on 20.04.2007. Mr. Appu John expired on 28.07.2007. The first respondent in the present appeal, initiated arbitration against the respondent No. 2, Philip, in violation of the agreement above said. An award has been passed by the Arbitrator in favour of the respondent No. 1 on 20.02.2011. The respondent No. 1 directed Philip to execute the award. An execution petition was filed on 10.08.2011.

Mr. Appu John was the paternal uncle of the appellant. The appellant came to know about the arbitration award and other proceedings initiated on 28.08.2012. Therefore, the appellant requested to implead him in the execution petition.

During 1994 the appellant filed a civil suit against Mr. Appu John, seeking partition of the properties of his grandmother before the High Court, Madras. A preliminary decree was passed in favour of the appellant decreeing one third of the subject property.

The appellant challenged the arbitration award before the High Court, Madras. The same was dismissed by the High Court. The High Court observed that the appellant’s claim to be a legal representative of Mr. Appu Jain, should be made before the Arbitrator. The challenge under Article 227 cannot be permitted. Against this, the appellant filed the present Civil Appeal before the Supreme Court of India. The main allegation of the appellant is that Mr. Philip was wrongly shown as the legal representative of Mr. Appu Jain.

The appellant submitted the following before the Supreme Court-

• Mr. Appu John was his uncle. He never married and had no issues.
• The appellant being the legal heir of Mr. Appu John before passing the award and therefore the award is vitiated.
• The arbitrator made no inquiry as to whether Mr. Philip is the legal heir of Mr. Appu John.
• He cannot able to challenge the arbitration award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, since he was never a party to the arbitration proceedings.
• Only recourse available to him is to file a revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

The Respondent No. 3 contended that the specific case of the appellant is that he is the sole surviving legal heir of Mr. Appu John, the appropriate remedy lies under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act (‘Act’ for short).

The amici curiae have taken a different view, whereby they state that there is no binding arbitration agreement inter se the parties. The award is not executable against successors-in-interest.

The Supreme Court heard the submissions of both the parties and also appointed one amicus curiae to assist the Supreme Court. The issue which arises before the Supreme Court is as to whether the appropriate remedy for legal heirs aggrieved by an arbitral award would be a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 or a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution/Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure?

In the view of the Supreme 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 Civil Procedure Code. The Supreme Court analysed the provisions of Section 34 of the Act. Section 34 of the Act provides that the recourse to a Court against an arbitral award may be made only by an application for setting aside such award in accordance with sub-section (2) and sub-section (3). The Supreme Court observed that the use of term ‘only as occurring under the provision serves two purposes of making the enactment a complete code and lay down the procedure.

With reference of other Supreme Court judgments, the Supreme Court observed that the legislative enactment cannot curtail a constitutional right. It is not prudent for a Judge to not exercise discretion to allow judicial interference beyond the procedure established under the enactment. This power needs to be exercised in exceptional rarity, wherein one party is left remediless under the statute or a clear ‘bad faith’ shown by one of the parties. This high standard set by the Supreme Court is in terms of the legislative intention to make the arbitration fair and efficient.

Next, the Supreme Court considered the question as to whether the legal representative will come into the definition of a ‘person’. For this purpose, the Supreme Court analysed the provisions of Section 2(1)(g) of the Act. The said section defines the term ‘person’ as a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person, and includes any person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased, and, where a party acts in a representative character, the person on whom the estate devolves on the death of the party so acting.

Next the Supreme Court analysed the provisions of Section 40 of the Act which provides that arbitration agreement not to be discharged at the death of party thereto. The mandate of an arbitrator shall not be terminated by the death of any party by whom he was appointed. The scheme of the Act is for the continuity of the proceedings even after the death of the party to the arbitration agreement. Upon the death of a party to the arbitration proceedings expires the legal representative of the party shall step into the shoes of the party to the arbitration. Therefore, the arbitration clause continues to bind all concerned parties.

When an award has been made enforceable against the legal representatives of a deceased party under the Act, the right to challenge such an award, which is available under the Act to the parties, also has to naturally flow to the said legal representatives. In the opinion of the Supreme Court, a person who has the right to represent the estate of the deceased person occupies the status of a legal representative. Section 35 of the Act which imparts the touch of finality to an arbitral award says that the award shall have binding effect on the “parties and persons claiming under them”. Persons claiming under the rights of a deceased person are the personal representatives of the deceased party and they have the right to enforce the award and are also bound by it. The arbitration agreement is enforceable by or against the legal representative of a deceased party provided the right to sue in respect of the cause of action survives.

Further the Supreme Court observed that the appellant took two divergent views - where at one stage he submits that he is the sole surviving legal heir of Mr. Appu John, and on the other states that he does not represent the estate of Mr. Appu John. The Supreme Court confirmed the views taken by the High Court and dismissed the appeal by the appellant. Further the Supreme Court directed that the appellant to exercise his remedies under the Arbitration Act. Any such petition, if so filed, is to be decided on its own merits. Limitation for filing such petition shall run from the date of this judgment.