Officers Representing Union Of India Cannot Independently Challenge Award: Chhattisgarh High Court

The Chhattisgarh High Court on 10 August held that officers or representatives appearing for the Union of India in arbitral proceedings cannot independently challenge an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, merely because they represented the Union during the proceedings.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal dismissed an appeal filed by officers of the South East Central Railway, holding that where an arbitral award operates against the Union of India, only the Union can invoke Section 34 to seek its setting aside and its officers cannot exercise that right independently. The judges held:

“Representation of a party and being a party are two distinct concepts. An authorized officer, counsel, representative or functionary appearing on behalf of a party does not thereby become a separate party. The rights available under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 belong to the party contemplated by the Act of 1996 and cannot be independently exercised by the officer merely because he represented or acted for that party during the arbitral proceedings.”

The dispute arose from an agreement under which ARSS SIP (JV), ARSS Infrastructure Project Ltd. and Shyam Indus Power Solutions Pvt. Ltd. invoked arbitration against the Union of India and others. On 21 August 2024, the arbitral tribunal passed an award in their favour and against the Union of India.

The General Manager, South East Central Railway, Bilaspur, through the Chief Engineer/Construction-I and the Deputy Chief Engineer/Construction, challenged the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which allows a party to seek setting aside of an arbitral award.

ARSS SIP (JV) and the other parties challenged the maintainability of the application, arguing that the award was against the Union of India and not against the railway officers who filed the challenge. The railway officers subsequently sought to amend the Section 34 application, claiming that they had inadvertently omitted the Union of India from the cause title.

On 10 December 2025, the Commercial Court at Nawa Raipur rejected the amendment applications. It held that the limitation period under Section 34(3), which prescribes three months from receipt of the arbitral award and permits a further period of 30 days only where sufficient cause exists, had already expired.

The Commercial Court also held that the proposed amendment would not relate back to the original filing even if it allowed the amendment. The officers did not challenge this order, and it attained finality. It subsequently dismissed the Section 34 application as not maintainable on 23 February 2026.

The General Manager, South East Central Railway, Bilaspur, through the Chief Engineer/Construction-I, along with the Deputy Chief Engineer/Construction, then approached the High Court in an arbitration appeal.

Before the High Court, the railway officers argued that they had acted in their official capacity on behalf of the Union of India and that the omission of the Union from the cause title constituted a curable procedural defect. ARSS SIP (JV) and the other parties argued that the Union of India, being the party against whom the award was passed, alone could challenge it under Section 34.

The High Court accepted this contention and held that an officer's authority to represent the Union of India does not confer an independent statutory right on the officer to challenge an arbitral award. It observed:

“The authority of an officer to represent the Union of India is entirely different from a statutory right vested in that officer personally to challenge the arbitral award. The former does not create the latter.”

The Bench further held that an officer representing the Union of India in arbitration acts only in an official capacity and does not become a separate party to the proceedings. It stated:

“An officer representing the Union of India in an arbitral proceeding does not, by such representation, become entitle to challenge arbitral award separately. The legal identity of the party to the arbitration remains that of the Union of India. The General Manager, Deputy Chief Manager or any other officer of the Railway Department may act for and represent the Union of India in the proceedings, but such representation is only in an official capacity and does not confer upon the officer an independent or personal right to institute proceedings for setting aside the arbitral award.”

Accordingly, the High Court upheld the Commercial Court's dismissal of the Section 34 challenge and dismissed the appeal in limine on 10 August 2026, with no order as to costs.

Appearances for appellants (General Manager, South East Central Railway & Anr.): Deputy Solicitor General Ramakant Mishra.

Appearances for respondents (ARSS SIP (JV) & Ors.): Advocate Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh.