An award passed against a deceased person is invalid, and challenges to such awards must be made under the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, not the Arbitration Act.

JUDGMENT :

R. Raghunandan Rao, J.

Heard Ms. M. Nikitha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri T.V.S. Prabhakar Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent-bank.

2. The 1^st appellant had obtained financial assistance from the 1^st respondent-bank. The 2^nd appellant and the 3^rd appellant, who is the husband of the 1^st appellant, had stood as guarantors for the said loan. As the debt was not being paid, the 1^st respondent-bank initiated proceedings against appellants 1 and 2. As the husband of the 2^nd appellant, had passed away, by then, the son of the 2^nd appellant, who is arrayed as the 3^rd appellant herein, was also made a party to the recovery proceedings. These proceedings were initiated under the provisions of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short 'the APCS Act, 1964') resulting in an award being passed against the appellants, under Section 62 of the Act. Aggrieved by this award, the appellants had initially filed an appeal before the A.P. Cooperative Tribunal. However, the said appeal was withdrawn and a writ petition came to be filed before this Court. After some time, this writ petition was also withdrawn and a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 , (for short 'the Arbitration Act') came to be filed before the District Judge, Rajahmundry, for setting aside the award, dated 15.06.2015, in A.C.No.19/15- 16. This petition was numbered as A.O.P.No.56 of 2015. The 1^st respondent filed I.A.No.2458 of 2015 in A.O.P.No.56 of 2015, challenging the maintainability of A.O.P.No.56 of 2015. The Principal District Judge, Rajahmundry, by order dated 20.11.2015, had held that the main petition was not maintainable and allowed the interlocutory application. Consequently, the main petition stood dismissed, by way of a separate order, of the same date.

3. Aggrieved by this order of the Principal District Judge, Rajahmundry, the appellants have moved the present civil miscellaneous appeal before this Court.

4. Smt. M.V. Ramana Kumari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Ms. M. Nikitha, learned counsel for the appellant, contends that the 3^rd appellant had passed away on 27.03.2014, while the award was passed on 15.06.2015. She would contend that an award passed against a dead person is non-est and would have to be set aside. She relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in W.P.(c).No.15939 of 2016 (N); as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.7247 of 2024 .

5. A learned Single Judge of the High Court of Kerala, had held that an award passed against a person, who had died even before the application had been filed before the arbitrator, cannot be sustained under law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 7247 of 2024 had held that in exceptional cases, a case could be remanded under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act.

6. The learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the facts of the present case are similar to the facts before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala and the award requires to be set aside on this short ground and the matter to be remanded back to the arbitrator.

7. Sri V. Venkata Narayana, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri T.V.S. Prabhakar Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the 1^st respondent, contends that the petition before the Principal District Judge, Rajahmundry, under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, as well as the present appeal are not maintainable.

8. The learned Standing Counsel would submit that Section 76 of the APCS Act, 1964 provides for an appeal against any order passed under Section 62 of the APCS Act, 1964. In the present case, the award came to be passed under Section 62 of the APCS Act, 1964. In such circumstances, the only remedy, available to the appellants, was to move the A.P. Cooperative Tribunal, under Section 76 of the APCS Act, 1964. The appellants being aware of this fact, had moved an appeal before the A.P. Cooperative Tribunal. However, the