Legal representatives must challenge arbitral awards exclusively under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

The dispute originated from a 'Deed of Agreement for Sale' dated 20.04.2007 between Mr. Appu John (the appellant’s alleged paternal uncle) and Respondent No. 1

Following Mr. Appu John’s death in July 2007, Respondent No. 1 initiated arbitration against Respondent No. 2 (A. Philip), alleging he was the legal representative of the deceased

An arbitral award was passed on 21.02.2011, directing Respondent No. 2 to execute the sale deed

The appellant, claiming to be the actual legal heir, asserted he only learned of the proceedings in 2012 and had previously obtained a preliminary decree for a 1/3rd share in the subject property in a separate 1994 partition suit

The appellant challenged the arbitral award via a Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution before the Madras High Court.

The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the appellant’s remedy lay under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

The Court primarily applied Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which provides that recourse against an arbitral award may be made "only" by an application for setting aside such award

It relied on Bhaven Construction v. Executive Engineer, Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited, which established that the Act is a complete code and judicial interference under Article 227 should be exercised only in "exceptional rarity"

The Court further interpreted the term "party" in light of Section 2(1)(g) (definition of legal representative), Section 35 (finality of awards binding on persons claiming under parties), and Section 40 (arbitration agreement not discharged by death)

It followed Ravi Prakash Goel v. Chandra Prakash Goel, which held that legal representatives step into the shoes of the deceased and the arbitration agreement remains enforceable by or against them

The Court reasoned that the Arbitration Act is designed as a self-contained, complete code intended to minimize judicial interference

By using the word "only" in Section 34, the legislature intended to provide a specific, exclusive mechanism for challenging awards

The Court observed that the scheme of the Act ensures the continuity of proceedings despite the death of a party; specifically, Section 40 mandates that an arbitration agreement is enforceable against legal representatives

Therefore, a legal representative "steps into the shoes" of the deceased party for all purposes of the Act

The Court concluded that if an award is enforceable against a legal representative, the corresponding right to challenge that award under Section 34 must naturally flow to them

Denying this right would leave legal representatives remediless under the statute while simultaneously binding them to the award’s liabilities

The appeal was dismissed, but the Court permitted the appellant to exercise his remedies under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, directing that the limitation period for filing such a petition would run from the date of this judgment