Can Letters Patent Appeals Lie Against Single-Judge Orders in Arbitral Award Execution Proceedings Under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and CPC?

LawSikho
November 21, 2025
Category: Supreme Court of India

Summary

Category	Data
Court	Supreme Court of India
Case Number	C.A. No.-001026-001027 – 2019
Diary Number	14666/2018
Judge Name	HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
Bench	HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
Precedent Value	Binding Authority
Overrules / Affirms	Overrules Bombay High Court’s admission and stay of Letters Patent Appeals; affirms that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is a self-contained code excluding Letters Patent jurisdiction over Single-Judge execution orders.
Type of Law	Civil Procedure & Arbitration Law
Questions of Law	Whether Letters Patent Appeals are maintainable against Single-Judge orders in execution proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and Order 21 Rules 22–23 CPC. The scope and mandatory nature of the notice requirement under Order 21 Rule 22.
Ratio Decidendi	The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is a self-contained code governing challenge and execution of awards, leaving no scope for Letters Patent Appeals against Single-Judge execution orders. Order 21 Rule 22 CPC uses the mandatory term “shall” to require notice to legal representatives before execution against a deceased judgment-debtor’s estate; this notice is a condition precedent to jurisdiction. Where execution is sought more than two years after a decree or against a legal representative, failure to issue the prescribed notice vitiates jurisdiction. Legal representatives sued in execution step into the shoes of the judgment-debtor; they are not “third parties” and must be given the opportunity to object under Order 21 Rule 23.
Judgments Relied Upon	Paramjeet Singh Patheja v. ICDS Ltd., (2006) 13 SCC 322 Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd. v. Jindal Exports Ltd., (2011) 8 SCC 333 Union of India v. Simplex Infrastructures Ltd., (2017) 14 SCC 225 Kandla Export Corpn. v. OCI Corpn., (2018) 14 SCC 715 Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. Abdul Samad, (2018) 3 SCC 622 Amazon.Com NV Investment Holdings LLC v. Future Retail Ltd., (2022) 1 SCC 209 Noy Vallesina Engineering Spa v. Jindal Drugs Ltd., (2021) 1 SCC 382 PASL Wind Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. GE Power Conversion India Pvt. Ltd., (2021) 7 SCC 1 Electrosteel Steel Ltd. v. Ispat Carrier Pvt. Ltd., (2025) 7 SCC 773 Raghunath Das v. Sundardas Khetri, AIR 1914 PC 129
Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon	Statutory interpretation of Order 21 Rules 22–23 CPC using the mandatory “shall.” Principles of natural justice: right of legal representatives to notice and hearing. Party autonomy, finality and self-contained code doctrine under the Arbitration Act. Privy Council authority on jurisdictional condition precedent.
Facts as Summarised by the Court	A family dispute over joint-family assets led to an arbitral award dated 12.07.2010 in favour of the son (appellant). The award was recognized in Dubai and Singapore but remained unsatisfied. The father executed a Will (16.09.1994) in favour of his brother (uncle) and died on 08.03.2013. The appellant filed an execution application in Bombay High Court and two chamber summonses (2013–14). The Single Judge (18.12.2014) ordered execution to proceed and issuance of notice under O.21 R.22 CPC, and held the award could not be declared a nullity. The uncle filed Letters Patent Appeals and obtained a stay on 06.03.2018. These orders were challenged before the Supreme Court.

Practical Impact

Category	Impact
Binding On	All subordinate courts executing arbitral awards
Persuasive For	High Courts considering procedural challenges in execution proceedings under Arbitration Act and CPC
Overrules	Bombay High Court orders dated 06.03.2018 staying execution
Follows	Raghunath Das v. Sundardas Khetri (Privy Council) on notice as condition precedent under O.21 R.22

What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note

The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 bars Letters Patent Appeals against Single-Judge execution orders under its self-contained code.
Order 21 Rule 22 CPC requires a mandatory “show-cause” notice to legal representatives before execution against a deceased judgment-debtor’s estate.
Execution can proceed only after notice; legal representatives may invoke Order 21 Rule 23 objections on receipt.
Single-Judge observations on jurisdiction, limitation, fraud or public policy cannot preempt Order 21 Rule 23 objections.
Bombay High Court’s admission of Letters Patent Appeals without reasons is ultra vires the Act.

Summary of Legal Reasoning

The Arbitration Act excludes ordinary appellate or Letters Patent remedies; it provides its own challenge and execution mechanisms (Sections 5, 36, 37, 50).
Order 21 Rule 22 CPC uses “shall” to impose a non-waivable, jurisdictional notice requirement when execution is sought against legal representatives or after two years.
Order 21 Rule 23 CPC then entitles the notified party to show cause or object to execution; failure to do so mandates execution.
Legal representatives step into the judgment-debtor’s shoes for execution; they are not “third parties” to the award.
The High Court’s stay of execution by admitting Letters Patent Appeals was erroneous—those appeals are not maintainable against execution orders under the Act.
Supreme Court quashed the High Court’s orders, directed issuance of O.21 R.22 notice and permitted fresh objections under O.21 R.23.

Arguments by the Parties

Petitioner (Appellant)

The Arbitration Act is a complete code; no Letters Patent Appeals lie against Single-Judge execution orders.
Order 21 Rule 22 CPC notice is yet to be issued; execution must proceed.
The uncle’s chamber summons to declare the award null is premature and duplicative of a pending civil suit.
High Court erred in admitting and staying the Single-Judge orders without reasons.

Respondents (Uncle and Cousins)

They are strangers to the arbitration and lack locus under the Act; Letters Patent Appeals are maintainable.
Award affects properties in which they have substantial interest; they cannot be treated as mere executors without hearing.
Single Judge held the award valid on jurisdiction, fraud, limitation and public policy; that merits appellate scrutiny.
Stay of execution necessary to protect their estate pending resolution of the civil suit.

Factual Background

A family business dispute led to an arbitral award (12 July 2010) in favor of the appellant, recognized in Dubai and Singapore but unsatisfied. The father died (08 March 2013), leaving a 1994 Will in favor of his brother (uncle). The appellant filed an execution application and two chamber summonses in the Bombay High Court under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and CPC. The Single Judge (18 December 2014) ordered execution to proceed, directed issuance of an O.21 R.22 notice, and refused to declare the award null. The uncle obtained Letters Patent Appeals and a stay (06 March 2018), which the Supreme Court has now quashed.

Statutory Analysis

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Self-contained code for challenge (Section 34) and execution (Section 36) of awards; excludes ordinary appeals.
Order 21 Rule 22 CPC: “Where execution is sought more than two years after decree or against legal representatives… the Court shall issue a show-cause notice.”
Order 21 Rule 23 CPC: Post-notice procedure—failure to appear or show cause mandates execution; objections must be considered on merit.

Procedural Innovations

Clarifies that Letters Patent jurisdiction does not extend to Single-Judge orders in arbitral award execution under the Act.
Confirms that O.21 R.22 notice is a jurisdictional requirement not subject to judicial discretion.
Directs trial courts to reset execution proceedings by issuing fresh notices and hearing statutory objections under O.21 R.23.

Alert Indicators

✔ Precedent Followed – Confirmation of Privy Council’s Raghunath Das principle on notice as condition precedent.
🔄 Conflicting Decisions – Departure from Bombay High Court’s admission and stay of Letters Patent Appeals.