(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34 – Exclusive remedy to challenge arbitral award
Paras 13, 14, 15
The Court held that the statutory remedy to challenge an arbitral award lies exclusively under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Arbitration Act is a complete code, and recourse against an arbitral award can be made only in the manner prescribed therein. Judicial interference outside the statutory framework, including under Article 227 of the Constitution or Section 115 CPC, is permissible only in exceptional rarity where the statutory remedy is ineffective or unavailable.
(B) Arbitration Act – Self-contained code – Limited judicial interference
Paras 14, 15
The Court reiterated that the Arbitration Act consolidates and governs the entire field of arbitration, and its scheme reflects legislative intent to minimise judicial intervention. The use of the expression “only” in Section 34 emphasises exclusivity of the remedy and bars parallel or alternative challenges except in rare and exceptional circumstances involving bad faith or absence of remedy.
(C) Legal representatives – Right to challenge arbitral award
Paras 16, 18, 19, 20
The Court held that legal representatives fall within the scope of persons entitled to challenge an arbitral award. Upon death of a party, legal representatives step into the shoes of the deceased and are bound by and entitled to enforce the arbitration agreement and award. Consequently, they are equally entitled to invoke Section 34 to challenge the award, and denial of such right would defeat the object of the Act.
(D) Arbitration proceedings – Continuity despite death of party
Paras 17, 18
The Court held that arbitration proceedings do not terminate upon the death of a party. Under the statutory scheme, including Sections 35 and 40 of the Act, arbitral proceedings continue and remain enforceable by or against legal representatives. The principle of continuity ensures that rights and liabilities arising from arbitration survive and bind successors.
(E) Article 227 jurisdiction – Not a substitute for statutory remedy
Paras 13, 15
The Court held that supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot be invoked as a substitute for statutory remedies available under the Arbitration Act. Where a specific mechanism exists under the statute, recourse must ordinarily be confined to that mechanism.
(F) Inconsistent stand – Effect
Para 21
The Court declined to accept the contradictory stand of the appellant, who on one hand claimed to be the sole legal heir and on the other disclaimed representation of the estate. Such inconsistency weakened the case for invoking extraordinary jurisdiction.
(G) Relief – Liberty to avail statutory remedy
Para 23
The Court clarified that dismissal of the appeal would not preclude the appellant from pursuing remedies under the Arbitration Act, and limitation for such challenge would run from the date of the present judgment.
FINAL DISPOSITION
Paras 22–24
The appeal was dismissed. The order of the High Court was affirmed. Liberty was granted to the appellant to pursue remedy under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, with limitation computed from the date of the judgment.
No comments:
Post a Comment