Back
2026 Supreme(SC) 425
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KAROL, VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, JJ.
V.K. John – Appellant
Versus
S. Mukanchand Bothra And HUF (Died) Represented By Lrs. & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4624 of 2026 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 16162 of 2023)
Decided On : 20-04-2026
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. M. P. Vinod, AOR
For the Respondent(s):Mr. Chakradhari Sharan Singh, Sr. Adv., A.C. Mr. Chandan Malav, Adv., A.C. Respondent-in-person
IMPORTANT POINT
Setting aside arbitral award – When award has been made enforceable against legal representatives of a deceased party under the Act, right to challenge such award, also has to naturally flow to legal representatives – Legal representatives of deceased party cannot be made remediless under statute on one hand, and on other hand being made liable to fulfill award.
Headnote:
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34 – Constitution of India – Article 227 – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 115 – Setting aside arbitral award – Legal remedy – Appropriate relief for legal representative to challenge arbitral award is under Section 34 of Arbitration Act and not under Article 227 of Constitution/Section 115 of CPC – Judicial interference beyond scope and procedure enumerated under Section 34, must be exercised in ‘exceptional rarity’ – Scheme of Arbitration Act, does not envision arbitration proceedings to cease with death of a party – Upon death of a party, legal representatives’ step into shoes of a party for the purposes of the Act – When award has been made enforceable against legal representatives of a deceased party under the Act, right to challenge such award, which is available under the Act to parties, also has to naturally flow to legal representatives – Legal representatives of deceased party cannot be made remediless under statute on one hand, and on other hand being made liable to fulfill award – Denying legal representative right to challenge award under Section 34, would defeat very object of Arbitration Act – Impugned order of High Court affirmed. (Paras 13, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 22)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal has been preferred against judgment and order dated 03.02.2023, passed by High Court of Judicature at Madras whereby Civil Revision Petition preferred by appellant against arbitral award dated 21.02.2011 in Arbitration Case came to be dismissed.
Findings of Court:
Appellant is permitted to exercise his remedies under Arbitration Act. Any such petition, if so filed, is to be decided on its own merits. Limitation for filing such petition shall run from date of this judgment.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. court's examination of the legal representative's rights. (Para 9 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 3. arguments regarding appropriate remedies. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. conclusion upholding the high court's decision. (Para 22 , 23 , 24) |
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KAROL, J.
Leave granted.
2. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 03.02.2023, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in CRP No. 676/2013, whereby Civil Revision Petition preferred by the appellant against arbitral award dated 21.02.2011 in Arbitration Case No. 1/20111[Hereinafter ‘the Arbitral Award’.] came to be dismissed.
Brief Facts
3. The genesis of the present lis is from a ‘Deed of Agreement for Sale’ entered into between one Mr. Appu John [alleged paternal uncle of the appellant] and Respondent No. 1 herein, S. Mukanchand Bothra, for the sale of the subject property on 20.04.20072[Hereinafter ‘the Agreement’.]. Thereafter, Mr. Appu John, passed away on 28.07.2007. Respondent No. 1 initiated arbitration against Respondent No. 2, A. Philip, in 2011, alleging violation of the above Agreement. The case of the appellant is that Mr. Philip has been falsely shown as the legal representative of Mr. Appu John.
4. An Award dated 21.02.2011 came to be passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator Vedavalli Kumar, in favor of Respondent No. 1 and thereby directed Respondent No. 2, A. Philip, to execute the sale deed. Consequently, an execution petition bearing number E.P. No. 17 of 2012 also came to be filed on 10.08.2011.
5. The case of the appellant is that he was only informed of the above arbitration proceedings on 28.08.2012. Thereafter, the appellant sought and has been impleaded in the execution petition mentioned above, vide order dated 14.09.2021 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in A. Nos. 3800 – 3802 of 2012.
6. Prior thereto, in 1994, the appellant had initiated a suit against his uncle seeking partition of properties belonging to his paternal grandmother, which came to be numbered as CS No. 423 of 1995 before the High Court of Judicature at Madras. In the said suit, on 02.01.2018, a preliminary decree was passed in favor of the appellant, decreeing 1/3rd share in the subject property.
7. For the present lis, the appellant had assailed the arbitral award vide Civil Revision Petition No. 676 of 2013 before the High Court of Judicature at Madras. The High Court vide the impugned order dismissed the civil revision preferred by the appellant, while observing that as the appellant claims to be a legal representative of Mr. Appu 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 cannot be permitted.
Our View
8. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. We have also heard Mr. Gagan Bothra, respondent no. 3 – in person. As the other respondents have chosen not to enter appearance, this Court appointed Mr. Chakradhari Sharan Singh and Ms. Gauri Rajput, as amici curiae to assist the Court in this matter vide order dated 03.09.2025.
9. The issue which arises before us is whether the appropriate remedy for legal heirs aggrieved by an arbitral award would be a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 19963[Hereinafter ‘the Arbitration Act’.] or a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution/ Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure4[Hereinafter ‘CPC’.]?
10. The case of the appellant, in a nutshell, is that his uncle was unmarried and had no issues. The arbitral award stands vitiated as the appellant, who has a substantial claim over the subject property, has not been heard. Moreover, the arbitrator made no enquiry as to whether respondent no. 2 is actually the legal heir of Mr. Appu John. He further submits that the only recourse available to him was to file a petition for revision under Article 227
