The Supreme Court held that the Arbitration Act is a self-contained code, limiting judicial interference. Letters Patent Appeals against execution orders under the Act are not maintainable. It mandated the issuance of notice under Order XXI, Rule 22 of the CPC to legal representatives as a jurisdictional prerequisite before proceeding against a deceased judgment debtor’s estate.
Facts Of The Case:
The dispute originated from an arbitral award dated 12.07.2010, passed in favour of the appellant, Bharat Kantilal Dalal, against his late father concerning family assets. After the father’s death, the appellant sought to execute the award against his uncle (the father’s brother), who was the sole beneficiary and executor under the father’s Will. The uncle, along with other respondents, resisted execution in the Bombay High Court, filing a chamber summons to declare the arbitral award a nullity and challenging related procedural orders. A Single Judge allowed the execution to proceed and directed the issuance of a notice under Order XXI Rule 22 of the CPC. The respondents then filed Letters Patent Appeals before a Division Bench, which stayed the Single Judge’s orders. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that the Arbitration Act is a complete code and that such appeals were not maintainable against execution orders arising from an arbitral award.
Procedural History:
The appellant initiated execution proceedings (Execution Application No. 1036 of 2013) before the Bombay High Court to enforce the 2010 arbitral award. During these proceedings, he filed a chamber summons (No. 243 of 2014) seeking a notice under Order XXI Rule 22 CPC, while the respondents filed a separate chamber summons (No. 1297 of 2013) challenging the award’s validity. A Single Judge, via orders dated 18.12.2014, allowed execution to proceed and dismissed the respondents’ chamber summons as premature. The respondents challenged these orders before a Division Bench through Letters Patent Appeals (Nos. 320 & 372 of 2015). The Division Bench, by orders dated 06.03.2018, admitted the appeals and stayed the Single Judge’s orders. This led to the appellant filing the present civil appeals before the Supreme Court, challenging the Division Bench’s interlocutory orders.
READ ALSO:Supreme Court Approves New Definition of Aravali Range, Bans New Mining Pending Study
Court Observation:
In its analysis, the Supreme Court observed that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, constitutes a self-contained code designed to ensure expedition and finality, thereby restricting broader judicial interference through mechanisms like Letters Patent Appeals. The Court emphasized that the respondents, being the legal representatives and executors of the deceased judgment debtor’s estate, were not strangers to the award and thus stepped into his shoes for the limited purpose of execution. Crucially, it held that the mandatory issuance of a notice under Order XXI, Rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Code is a jurisdictional prerequisite when executing a decree against a legal representative, as it upholds the principles of natural justice. The Court found that the High Court’s Division Bench erred in admitting the appeals without assigning reasons and that the Single Judge’s pre-emptive observations, though not determinative, could prejudice the respondents’ statutory right to raise objections under Order XXI, Rule 23(2) upon receiving the requisite notice.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, quashing and setting aside the Bombay High Court Division Bench’s orders dated 06.03.2018. It held that the Letters Patent Appeals were not maintainable under the self-contained regime of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court dismissed those appeals and restored the execution proceedings before the Single Judge. It directed the issuance of mandatory notice to the respondents under Order XXI, Rule 22 of the CPC. Upon receipt, the respondents were permitted to raise objections under Order XXI, Rule 23(2), which the Single Judge was mandated to consider afresh, uninfluenced by any observations made in the earlier orders dated 18.12.2014.
Case Details:
Case Title: Bharat Kantilal Dalal (Dead) Through LR.Versus Chetan Surendra Dalal & Ors. Citation: 2025 INSC 1334 Appeal Numbers: Civil Appeal Nos. 1026-1027 of 2019 Date of Judgment: November 20, 2025 Judges: Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sanjay Kumar