Faisal Ahmed vs Asian Hotels North Ltd & Anr.

Court
Delhi High Court

$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 03.08.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 01.09.2026
Judgment uploaded on: 05.09.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010345862026
+ W.P.(C) 10751/2026 & CM APPL. 49847/2026
FAISAL AHMED .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Harsh Vardhan Sharma,
Mr. Saksham Gupta, Mr.
Neeraj Kumar, Advocates.

versus

ASIAN HOTELS NORTH LTD & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Akansha Kaul, Advocate
for R-1.
Mr. Deepak Dhingra, Senior
Advocate with Ms. Sneh
Somani, Ms. Riya Sardana,
Advocates for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA
JUDGMENT

DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J
1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner seeks intervention
of this Court in the arbitral proceedings pending before the learned
Sole Arbitrator. The petitioner principally seeks stay of further
proceedings and/or pronouncement of the arbitral award;
impleadment of the petitioner and the other legal heirs of late Sh.
W.P.(C) 10751/2026 Page 1 of 19


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:05.09.2026
13:34:09

Sultan Ahmed in the arbitral proceedings; an opportunity of hearing
and participation in the said proceedings; and, if considered
necessary, reopening of the proceedings and/or final arguments to
enable such participation.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
2. The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner
primarily aggrieved by the continuation of arbitral proceedings
without impleadment and participation of all the legal heirs of late
Sh. Sultan Ahmed. It is the case of the petitioner that late Sh. Sultan
Ahmed had entered into certain agreements with respondent no. 1,
Asian Hotels (North) Limited [hereafter „ AHNL ‟], in relation to
Shop No. U-72 situated at Hyatt Regency Shopping Arcade, New
Delhi, and that disputes subsequently arose between the parties
concerning the alleged rights, title and interest in the said property.
Late Sh. Sultan Ahmed passed away on 09.09.2023, leaving behind
nine legal heirs, including the petitioner and respondent no. 2, Mr.
Mujeeb Ahmed. According to the petitioner, despite being aware of
the existence of the other legal heirs, respondent no. 2 independently
instituted and pursued the arbitral proceedings against AHNL,
purportedly in his capacity as the legal heir/legal representative of
late Sh. Sultan Ahmed, without disclosing the existence of the other
legal heirs to the learned Arbitrator. It is further stated that the
petitioner was never informed of the pendency of the arbitral
proceedings and came to know of the same only when the
W.P.(C) 10751/2026 Page 2 of 19


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:05.09.2026
13:34:09

proceedings had reached the stage of final arguments. The petitioner
submits that the arbitral proceedings concern valuable estate and
proprietary rights of late Sh. Sultan Ahmed and that continuation of
the proceedings without notice to, and participation of, the other legal
heirs is contrary to the principles of natural justice and Section 18 of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [hereafter „ A&C Act ‟]. It
is further stated that, upon becoming aware of the proceedings, the
petitioner approached the learned Arbitrator by filing an intervention
application seeking, inter alia , an opportunity to be heard and to
participate in the arbitral proceedings. The relevant prayer made in
the said application was as under:
“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the intervenor
may be allowed to seek audience of the Arbitration
Proceedings and to adduce or produce additional documents, if
any. It is also prayed before the arbitral tribunal to ensure that
any right, if any, of Mr. Sultan Ahmed is identified then the
same be recorded as the share of all the legal heirs, instead of
only one i.e. Mr. Mujeeb Ahmed, in the interest of justice”

3. The aforesaid application came to be disposed of by the
learned Arbitrator vide the order dated 07.05.2026 [hereafter
„ impugned order ‟]. The learned Arbitrator observed, in substance,
that since respondent no. 2, Mr. Mujeeb Ahmed, had brought the
claim as the legal heir of late Sh. Sultan Ahmed, he represented the
estate of the deceased in the arbitral proceedings. It was further
observed that, in the event of respondent no. 2 succeeding in the
proceedings, any relief secured by him would be held by him in his
capacity as representative of the estate of late Sh. Sultan Ahmed. The
W.P.(C) 10751/2026 Page 3 of 19


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:05.09.2026
13:34:09

learned Arbitrator further observed that the grievance raised by the
petitioner was essentially against the claimant and that the inter se
rights of the legal heirs were not matters which could be adjudicated
upon in the arbitral proceedings. The petitioner and the other legal
heirs were accordingly left at liberty to pursue such other remedies as
may be available to them in law against respondent no. 2 or in respect
of the estate represented by him. The relevant observations of the
learned Arbitrator read as under:
“5. Having heard the learned Counsel for the
applicant/Intervenor, as also the learned Counsel for the
parties, this tribunal is of the considered view that all that needs
to be said here is that in the proceedings arising out of the
Claim brought for adjudication by Mr. Mujeeb Ahmed as legal
heir of late Mr. Sultan Ahmed, he (Mr. Mujeeb Ahmed)
represents the estate of his father i.e. late Mr. Sultan Ahmed. If
Mr. Mujeeb Ahmed succeeds in these proceedings, the reliefs
secured by him herein would be in his hands as representative
of the estate. The grievance of the applicant, as expressed
through the application at hand, is against the Claimant. The
rights of other legal heirs, if any, claimed inter se each other
are not to be, nor can be, adjudicated in these arbitral
proceedings by this forum of limited jurisdiction. For claiming
rights, if any available/admissible, against Mr. Mujeeb Ahmed
or the estate he represents, the applicant and others who are
similarly placed will have to pursue appropriate remedies
before forum of competent jurisdiction in accordance with law.
The application is disposed of with these observations.”

SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE COURT
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argues that the
arbitral proceedings concern rights and claims forming part of the
estate of late Sh. Sultan Ahmed, who left behind nine legal heirs,
including the petitioner. It is contended that respondent no. 2, despite
W.P.(C) 10751/2026 Page 4 of 19


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:05.09.2026
13:34:09

being aware of the existence of the other legal heirs, instituted and
pursued the arbitral proceedings without disclosing their existence to
the learned Arbitrator and without obtaining their consent or
otherwise establishing his authority to exclusively represent the entire
estate. It is submitted that neither any surviving member certificate
nor any No Objection Certificate from the other legal heirs was
placed on record before commencement of the arbitral proceedings.
The petitioner, despite having an interest in the estate, was never put
to notice of the proceedings and was consequently denied any
opportunity to participate, produce documents or lead evidence in
support of the claims pertaining to the estate of late Sh. Sultan
Ahmed. It is thus contended that continuation of the proceedings in
the absence of the petitioner violates the principles of natural justice,
including the rule of audi alteram partem , and is contrary to Section
18 of the A&C Act. It is further submitted that respondent no. 2
cannot, in the absence of the consent or authority of the other legal
heirs, exclusively prosecute claims concerning the entire estate,
particularly when the outcome of the arbitration, whether in favour of
or against respondent no. 2, would have a direct bearing upon the
rights and interests of the remaining legal heirs.
5. On the maintainability of the present petition, the learned
counsel submits that the petitioner is not, and has never been, a party
to the arbitral proceedings and is therefore left without any
efficacious statutory remedy at the present stage. It is contended that
Section 34 of the A&C Act provides for recourse against an arbitral
W.P.(C) 10751/2026 Page 5 of 19


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:05.09.2026
13:34:09

award to a party to the arbitration, whereas no appeal under Section
37 lies against the impugned interlocutory order. The petitioner
therefore submits that the present case falls within the limited
category of cases warranting exercise of the jurisdiction of this Court
under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. It is further submitted
that relegating the petitioner to a remedy after pronouncement of the
award would cause grave prejudice, since, if the claim succeeds,
respondent no. 2 may appropriate the fruits of the award to the
exclusion of the other legal heirs; while if the claim fails, the estate
would suffer the consequences of an adjudication rendered without
the petitioner having been afforded any opportunity of hearing. On
these grounds, the learned counsel prays that the impugned order
dated 07.05.2026 be set aside and appropriate directions be issued to
enable the petitioner and the other legal heirs to participate in the
arbitral proceedings.
6. Per contra , the learned counsel appearing for AHNL opposes
the present petition and argues that the petitioner is not without a
remedy and may challenge the arbitral award, if any, upon its
pronouncement, in accordance with Section 34 of the A&C Act. It is
further submitted that, if the petitioner had any independent claim in
respect of the subject matter of the arbitration, he could have pursued
the same independently, though any such claim at this stage would be
barred by limitation. The learned counsel further points out that the
underlying termination letter was issued as far back as in the year
2020, whereas the petitioner has approached this Court for the first
W.P.(C) 10751/2026 Page 6 of 19


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:05.09.2026
13:34:09

time only in the year 2026, when the arbitral proceedings have
already reached the stage of final arguments. It is therefore submitted
that the belated intervention sought by the petitioner would seriously
prejudice and derail the ongoing arbitral proceedings. The learned
counsel further submits that the impugned order is a reasoned order
passed by the learned Arbitrator after considering the grievance
raised by the petitioner and, therefore, does not warrant interference
by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution.
7. This Court has heard arguments addressed on behalf of the
petitioner as well as the respondents, and has perused the material
available on record.
ANALYSIS & FINDINGS
8. In the present case, a perusal of the orders passed by the
learned Arbitrator, as well as the statement of claim filed by
respondent no. 2 and placed on record by the petitioner, reveals that
AHNL had issued a termination letter dated 29.05.2020 to late Sh.
Sultan Ahmed in respect of Shop No. U-72 situated at Hyatt Regency
Shopping Arcade, New Delhi. It is also evident from the record that
similar termination letters were issued by AHNL to several other
shop owners in respect of their respective shops situated at Hyatt
Regency Shopping Arcade, New Delhi. Pursuant thereto, a number of
civil suits came to be instituted by the concerned shop owners before
this Court. In the said commercial suits, AHNL, as the defendant,
W.P.(C) 10751/2026 Page 7 of 19


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:05.09.2026
13:34:09

invoked Section 8 of the A&C Act, contending that the agreements
between the parties contained an arbitration clause and, consequently,
the suits were not maintainable. The said proceedings thereafter
travelled up to the Hon‟ble Supreme Court. Eventually, the
applications under Section 8 of the A&C Act came to be decided by
this Court vide order dated 20.12.2023, whereby the parties were
referred to arbitration. Pursuant thereto, the concerned shop owners
also invoked the respective arbitration clauses and, in March 2024,
the learned Arbitrator was appointed. In the meantime, late Sh. Sultan
Ahmed had passed away on 09.09.2023, leaving behind nine legal
heirs, and the aforesaid legal proceedings in relation to his rights
were being pursued by respondent no. 2, one of his legal heirs.
Respondent no. 2 thereafter filed his statement of claim before the
learned Arbitrator in May 2024. Subsequently, the learned Arbitrator
originally appointed recused from the proceedings and, vide order
dated 02.09.2024 passed by this Court in OMP(T)(Comm.) No.
87/2024 , the present learned Sole Arbitrator was appointed to
adjudicate the batch of matters arising out of the termination letters
issued in respect of the shops situated at Hyatt Regency Shopping
Arcade, New Delhi.
9. It is undisputed that, in relation to the shop and the claims of
late Sh. Sultan Ahmed, the legal proceedings were being pursued by
respondent no. 2, who is one of his legal heirs. The petitioner,
however, asserts that he was neither informed of the aforesaid
proceedings nor made aware of the manner in which the claims
W.P.(C) 10751/2026 Page 8 of 19


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:05.09.2026
13:34:09

pertaining to the estate of late Sh. Sultan Ahmed were being pursued.
It is in these circumstances that the petitioner claims to have
approached the learned Arbitrator only upon becoming aware of the
pendency of the arbitral proceedings, when the matter had already
reached the stage of final arguments.
10. It would be appropriate, at this stage, to delineate the scope of
the jurisdiction invoked by the petitioner. Section 5 of the A&C Act
embodies the legislative policy of minimal judicial intervention in
arbitral proceedings and provides that, in matters governed by Part I
of the A&C Act, no judicial authority shall intervene except where so
provided under the said Part. The provision, therefore, requires
Courts to exercise restraint while dealing with challenges arising
during the pendency of arbitral proceedings.
11. At the same time, it is well-settled that Section 5 of the A&C
Act does not entirely curtail the constitutional jurisdiction of this
Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution, which extends
to tribunals, including arbitral tribunals. The existence of such
jurisdiction is, therefore, not in doubt; what requires consideration is
whether the facts of the present case warrant its exercise. The
principles governing such exercise are also well settled by the
decisions of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in SBP & Co. v. Patel
Engineering Ltd.: (2005) 8 SCC 618 , Deep Industries Ltd. v. Oil
and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.: (2020) 15 SCC 706 and Bhaven
Construction v. Executive Engineer, Sardar Sarovar Narmada
W.P.(C) 10751/2026 Page 9 of 19


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:05.09.2026
13:34:09

Nigam Ltd.: (2022) 1 SCC 75 .
12. In SBP & Co. (supra) it was observed as under:
“44. It is seen that some High Courts have proceeded on the
basis that any order passed by an arbitral tribunal during
arbitration, would be capable of being challenged under Article
226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. We see no warrant for
such an approach. Section 37 makes certain orders of the
arbitral tribunal appealable. Under Section 34, the aggrieved
party has an avenue for ventilating his grievances against the
award including any in- between orders that might have been
passed by the arbitral tribunal acting under Section 16 of the
Act. The party aggrieved by any order of the arbitral tribunal,
unless has a right of appeal under Section 37 of the Act, has to
wait until the award is passed by the Tribunal. This appears to
be the scheme of the Act. The arbitral tribunal is after all, the
creature of a contract between the parties, the arbitration
agreement, even though if the occasion arises, the Chief Justice
may constitute it based on the contract between the parties. But
that would not alter the status of the arbitral tribunal. It will still
be a forum chosen by the parties by agreement. We, therefore,
disapprove of the stand adopted by some of the High Courts
that any order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal is capable of
being corrected by the High Court under Article 226 or 227 of
the Constitution. Such an intervention by the High Courts is not
permissible.”


13. In Bhaven Construction (supra) , the Hon‟ble Supreme Court
reiterated that interference under Article 226/227 of the Constitution
in arbitral proceedings is to be exercised only in cases of exceptional
rarity, particularly where a party is left „remediless‟ under the
statutory framework or where there is „clear bad faith‟. Thus, the
mere availability of the constitutional power does not by itself justify
interference with an order passed by the learned Arbitral Tribunal,
and the Court has to examine whether the present case falls within the
W.P.(C) 10751/2026 Page 10 of 19


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:05.09.2026
13:34:09

narrow parameters for exercise of such jurisdiction.
14. The expression „remediless‟ used by the Hon‟ble Supreme
Court in Bhaven Construction (supra) , has been explained by the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Harshbir Singh Pannu v. Jaswinder
Singh: 2025 INSC 1400 , with reference to the statutory remedies
available under the A&C Act, including the availability of a
challenge to the eventual award under Section 34, in the following
terms:
“ 289 . …
( ii ) Secondly , that the expression “remediless” used in Bhaven
Construction (supra) has to be construed in light of the scheme
of the Act, 1996. Any order or award passed by the arbitral
tribunal that can be challenged within the confines of
Section(s) 34 and 37 of the Act, 1996 would not be amenable
to challenge under Article 227, since a statutory remedy has
been already provided under the Act. Even where no statutory
remedy exists under the Act, 1996 against any order passed by
the arbitral tribunal, the same cannot be assailed by invoking
Article 227, if the ground for challenging such an order can be
raised at the time of seeking the setting aside of the final award
under Section 34…”

15. Therefore, in examining whether the petitioner is in fact left
remediless or without an efficacious remedy under the statutory
framework, it would be necessary for this Court to first consider the
position of a legal representative under the A&C Act.
16. Section 2(1)(g) of the A&C Act defines a „ legal
representative ‟ to mean a person who in law represents the estate of a
deceased person and includes, inter alia , a person who intermeddles
with the estate of the deceased. Section 40 of the A&C Act further
W.P.(C) 10751/2026 Page 11 of 19


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:05.09.2026
13:34:09

provides that an arbitration agreement does not come to an end upon
the death of a party, but remains enforceable by or against the legal
representative of the deceased. Section 35, in turn, provides that an
arbitral award shall be final and binding on the parties and persons
claiming under them. The combined effect of these provisions is that
the death of a party does not bring the arbitral proceedings to an end;
rather, the rights and obligations arising from the arbitration
agreement survive and may be enforced by or against the legal
representative, as the case may be. The eventual award is also
capable of binding persons claiming under the deceased party.

17. This statutory scheme under the A&C Act necessarily carries
with it a corresponding right of a legal representative to avail the
statutory remedy against an award which affects the estate
represented by him. This aspect has been explained by the Hon‟ble
Supreme Court in V.K. John v. S. Mukanchand Bothra and HUF
(Died) represented by LRs.: 2026 INSC 393 . In that case also, the
original contracting party had died and the arbitral proceedings were
pursued through a person claiming to represent the estate. The
petitioner therein claimed to be a legal heir, complained of want of
notice and contended that, having never been a party to the
arbitration, he could not invoke Section 34 of the A&C Act. The
Hon‟ble Supreme Court rejected the said contention and held that a
legal representative claiming under the deceased party is entitled to
challenge the arbitral award under Section 34 of the A&C Act and
that the remedy against the award lies under the statutory scheme of
W.P.(C) 10751/2026 Page 12 of 19


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:05.09.2026
13:34:09

the A&C Act and not ordinarily under Article 227 of the Constitution
or Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court, inter
alia, observed that denying such remedy to a legal representative
would leave him without a statutory remedy while simultaneously
making the award binding upon him. The Supreme Court had also
taken note of its earlier decision in Ravi Prakash Goel v. Chandra
Prakash Goel: (2008) 13 SCC 667 , wherein it was recognised that
the rights and obligations arising from an arbitration agreement
survive the death of a party and that the personal representatives of
the deceased, being persons claiming under him, are entitled to
enforce the award and are equally bound by it. The relevant
observations in case of V.K. John (supra) are set out below:
“13. In the considered view of this 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 CPC.
*
18. In our view, when the scheme of the Act is towards
continuity of arbitral proceedings, in the event of death of a
party, the natural corollary, evident from the definition clause
itself, is that upon the death of a party, legal representatives‟
step into the shoes of a party for the purposes of the Act.
Similarly, this Court in Rahul Verma and Ors. v. Rampat Lal
Verma and Ors. , while permitting legal heirs of a deceased
partner to invoke arbitration under the agreement therein, had
noted that upon the death of the deceased, the legal heirs had
„ stepped into the shoes of the deceased ‟ and therefore, the
arbitration clause continues to bind all concerned parties.
19. Moreover, in the considered view of this Court, 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
W.P.(C) 10751/2026 Page 13 of 19


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:05.09.2026
13:34:09

representatives. This Court, while permitting the legal
representatives of a deceased partner of a partnership firm to
initiate arbitration, in Ravi Prakash Goel (supra) , as rightly
submitted by Respondent No. 3 had observed as under:
“18. It is clear from Section 40 of the Arbitration Act that an
arbitration agreement is not discharged by the death of any
party thereto and on such death it is enforceable by or against
the legal representatives of the deceased, nor is the authority
of the arbitrator revoked by the death of the party appointing
him, subject to the operation of any law by virtue of which
the death of a person extinguishes the right of action of that
person.
… … …
20. The definition of “legal representative” became
necessary because such representatives are bound by and
also entitled to enforce an arbitration agreement. Section 40
clearly says that an arbitration agreement is not discharged
by the death of a party. The agreement remains enforceable
by or against the legal representatives of the deceased. In our
opinion, a person who has the right to represent the estate of
the deceased person occupies the status of a legal person (sic
representative). Section 35 of the 1996 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.”
(emphasis supplied)...”

18. It is thus clear that the statutory scheme does not leave a legal
representative remediless merely because the arbitral proceedings
were initiated or continued after the death of the original party
without his individual participation.
19. In this context, Section 34(2)(a)(iii) of the A&C Act is also
relevant, as it specifically contemplates a challenge to an arbitral
W.P.(C) 10751/2026 Page 14 of 19


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:05.09.2026
13:34:09

award where a party making the application was not given proper
notice of the appointment of the arbitrator or of the arbitral
proceedings, or was otherwise unable to present his case. Thus, the
grievance regarding want of notice or opportunity to participate is not
alien to the statutory scheme of the A&C Act and can, subject to the
facts and circumstances of the case, form the basis of a challenge to
the eventual award under Section 34 of the A&C Act.
20. In the present case, the petitioner has argued that he is one of
the nine legal heirs of late Sh. Sultan Ahmed and, therefore, has an
interest in the estate of the deceased. His grievance is that, despite
such interest, he was neither informed of nor permitted to participate
in the arbitral proceedings, although the outcome thereof may have a
bearing upon the estate. This Court however is conscious of the fact
that the petitioner seeks intervention at a stage when the arbitral
proceedings have been pending for more than two years and have
already reached the stage of final arguments. The question, therefore,
is not only as to whether the petitioner has an interest in the estate,
but whether, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, this
Court ought to interdict the arbitral proceedings at such an advanced
stage in exercise of its limited jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of
the Constitution.
21. This Court notes that the intervention application filed by the
petitioner before the learned Arbitrator essentially contained two
distinct prayers. First , the petitioner sought permission to participate
W.P.(C) 10751/2026 Page 15 of 19


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:05.09.2026
13:34:09

in the arbitral proceedings, including an opportunity of audience and
to adduce or produce additional documents, if any. Second , he sought
a direction that any right or relief found to accrue to late Sh. Sultan
Ahmed be treated as forming part of the estate and not as the
exclusive right of respondent no. 2.
22. As regards the second prayer in his application for
intervention, the learned Arbitrator has expressly addressed the
concern raised by the petitioner. The learned Arbitrator has observed
in the impugned order that respondent no. 2, having instituted the
claim as the legal heir of late Sh. Sultan Ahmed, represents the estate
of the deceased and that, in the event of respondent no. 2 succeeding
in the proceedings, the relief secured by him would be held by him in
his capacity as representative of the estate. Thus, the impugned order
does not recognise any exclusive personal entitlement of respondent
no. 2 to the relief, nor does it permit him to treat the fruits of the
arbitral proceedings as belonging to him in his individual capacity.
The apprehension of the petitioner to this extent therefore stands
addressed by the clarification contained in the impugned order.
23. In the above background, it also apposite to take note of the
settled legal position that where some, though not all, of the legal
representatives of a deceased person are before the adjudicating
forum, the estate may, in appropriate circumstances, be treated as
sufficiently represented by the legal representative who is before the
Court. In Daya Ram v. Shyam Sundari: 1964 SCC OnLine SC 153 ,
W.P.(C) 10751/2026 Page 16 of 19


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:05.09.2026
13:34:09

the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held that where one of the legal
representatives is brought on record, he represents the estate and the
proceedings do not necessarily abate merely because all legal
representatives have not been impleaded. The said principle has been
followed, inter alia, in N.K. Mohd. Sulaiman Sahib v. Mohd. Ismail
Saheb: 1965 SCC OnLine SC 103 and Harihar Prasad Singh v.
Balmiki Prasad Singh: (1975) 1 SCC 212 . The underlying principle
therefore is that a legal representative on record does not litigate only
in his personal capacity, but can represent the estate of the deceased.
24. In the present case, respondent no. 2 is admittedly one of the
legal heirs of late Sh. Sultan Ahmed and has been pursuing the claims
arising out of the agreements entered into by the deceased with
AHNL. The learned Arbitrator has also expressly recorded that
respondent no. 2 represents the estate of late Sh. Sultan Ahmed and
that any relief granted in the arbitral proceedings would be held by
him in that representative capacity. In these circumstances, the fact
that the petitioner and the other legal heirs were not individually
before the learned Arbitrator cannot, by itself, render the entire
arbitral proceedings invalid or justify their interdiction at this
advanced stage, in the opinion of this Court.
CONCLUSION
25. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the opinion
that the learned Arbitrator has already clarified that respondent no. 2
represents the „ estate of late Sh. Sultan Ahmed ‟ and that any relief
W.P.(C) 10751/2026 Page 17 of 19


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:05.09.2026
13:34:09

granted in the arbitral proceedings would be held by him in that
representative capacity. This Court also clarifies that any award
passed in favour of respondent no. 2 would be in relation to, and for
the benefit of, the estate of late Sh. Sultan Ahmed and would not
confer upon respondent no. 2 any exclusive personal right thereto.
Likewise, any decision adverse to the claim filed by respondent no. 2
would operate, in accordance with law, against the estate of late Sh.
Sultan Ahmed represented in the arbitral proceedings. The
petitioner‟s rights in the estate are therefore not being adjudicated
upon by the learned Arbitrator in the present proceedings.

26. Further, the petitioner cannot be said to be without a remedy in
respect of the eventual arbitral award. As held by the Hon‟ble
Supreme Court in V.K. John (supra) , a legal representative claiming
under a deceased party is entitled to challenge the arbitral award
under Section 34 of the A&C Act, even where such legal
representative had not participated in the arbitral proceedings. The
said remedy would, therefore, also be available to the petitioner and
to the other legal heirs of late Sh. Sultan Ahmed. Any grievance
regarding want of notice or opportunity to present their case, as well
as any other ground available under Section 34 of the A&C Act, can
accordingly be raised at the appropriate stage.
27. In these circumstances, and having regard particularly to the
advanced stage of the arbitral proceedings, this Court does not find
the present case to fall within the narrow parameters warranting
W.P.(C) 10751/2026 Page 18 of 19


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:05.09.2026
13:34:09

interference under Article 226/227 of the Constitution.
28. Accordingly, the present petition, alongwith pending
application, is dismissed.
29. It is, however, clarified that this Court has not expressed any
opinion on the inter se rights of the legal heirs of late Sh. Sultan
Ahmed in his estate, or on any other substantive claim which may be
available to the petitioner or the other legal heirs in accordance with
law. It is further clarified that the observations made herein shall not
prejudice any remedy available to the petitioner or the other legal
heirs under Section 34 of the A&C Act or before any other forum of
competent jurisdiction.
30. The judgment be uploaded on the website forthwith.


DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J
SEPTEMBER 1, 2026/zp
TD
W.P.(C) 10751/2026 Page 19 of 19


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:05.09.2026
13:34:09