The Supreme Court on Thursday set aside two Bombay High Court orders that had stalled the execution of a long-pending arbitral award arising from a bitter family dispute over assets spread across Dubai, Singapore and London. The bench, hearing the matter for nearly an hour, appeared unsatisfied with how the High Court paused the execution proceedings “without giving any reasons”, something the judges returned to more than once during the discussion.
Background
The case goes back to a complicated fight within the Dalal family - involving the late Kantilal Dalal, his son (the appellant), and his brother (the uncle). After disagreements about accounting and control of family assets, the son secured an arbitral award in 2010. Although the father immediately complained to the arbitrator and talked about challenging the award, no formal challenge was ever filed.
Read also: Supreme Court Begins Historic Hearing on Presidential Reference Questioning Governors
The award travelled across borders. Courts in Dubai and Singapore recognised it, even identifying the father as a judgment debtor. But recovery remained elusive. Matters took another turn after the father’s death in 2013, when his brother-who was also executor under a 1994 Will-refused to disclose assets, claiming he was not bound by an award to which he wasn’t a party. This pushed the appellant to start execution proceedings in the Bombay High Court.
Court’s Observations
During Thursday’s hearing, the Supreme Court repeatedly stressed that the first step in any execution against legal heirs is mandatory notice under Order 21 Rule 22 CPC, a basic procedural safeguard. Without that notice, the Court said, the process itself “cannot take off.” As Justice Alok Aradhe dryly remarked, “The requirement of a show-cause notice is not a formality-it is the foundation of jurisdiction.”
Read also: Kerala High Court Flags Rising Road Safety Violations, Questions Vlogger Videography and LED
The bench also took exception to the High Court entertaining Letters Patent Appeals (LPAs) against the Single Judge’s orders. Since the execution flowed directly from the Arbitration Act-which is designed to be a “self-contained, minimal-interference” statute-an LPA simply does not lie. “The Division Bench had no reason to admit such appeals, much less stay the Single Judge’s orders without reasons,” the Court observed.
Interestingly, the Court also noted that some findings made by the Single Judge while rejecting the uncle’s objections could unintentionally prejudice him later when he is properly allowed to raise objections under Rule 23. So, while criticising the respondents for prematurely challenging the award, the Court also protected their statutory rights going forward. A balanced approach, but with sharp edges.
Read also: Karnataka High Court Quashes Police Refusal, Orders Arms Licence for Pilot After 54-Year Family
Decision
Bringing clarity to a case that has zig-zagged across continents and courtrooms, the Supreme Court quashed the Bombay High Court’s stay orders and held that the LPAs were not maintainable. The matter now goes back to the Single Judge, who must first issue notice under Order 21 Rule 22 CPC to the respondents (in their capacity as legal representatives). After receiving the notice, the respondents will be free to submit objections, which the Single Judge must decide afresh and without being influenced by the 2014 findings. With that, the Supreme Court disposed of the appeals.
Case Title: Bharat Kantilal Dalal (Dead) Through LR vs. Chetan Surendra Dalal & Others
Case Number:
- Civil Appeal Nos. 1026–1027 of 2019
- Civil Appeal Nos. 1028–1029 of 2019
Case Type: Civil Appeals (Arbitration Execution Related)
Court: Supreme Court of India (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)
Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar, Justice Alok Aradhe
Decision Date: 20 November 2025