Source: https://www.lawweb.in/2018/03/whether-amended-s-36-of-arbitration-act.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 12:47:48+00:00

Document:
Law Web: Whether amended S 36 of arbitration Act will be applicable to application U/S 34 on date of commencement of amendment Act?
Whether amended S 36 of arbitration Act will be applicable to application U/S 34 on date of commencement of amendment Act?
KOCHI CRICKET PVT. LTD. AND ETC.
Maharashtra Airports Development Company Ltd. v.
of Control for Cricket in India v. Kochi Cricket Pvt.
(SLP(C) Nos.8376-8378 of 2017), Ajay Mehra v.
th January, 2016 in the last appeal.
application made for that purpose.
in relation thereto, would be governed only by the old Act.
concerned, when the first part of Section 26 is applied.
36 should be substituted with retrospective effect.
governed by the Amendment Act.
as Section 34 proceedings are not appellate proceedings.
and inasmuch as the decisions of this Court in ONGC v.
Saw Pipes Ltd (2003) 5 SCC 705 and ONGC Ltd.
(1984) 2 WLR 340, which is strongly relied upon.
nothing else. He then referred to Satish Kumar v.
the Amendment Act that would be so covered.
arbitral proceedings” does not contain the word “the”.
necessarily apply to the facts in this case.
“Section 27. Repeal and savings.
Act, as amended by this Act.
of 1961) are hereby repealed.
Commission Report which led to the Amendment Act.
resolution system to which arbitration belongs.
Court in National Aluminium Co. Ltd. v.
all pending proceedings and arbitrations.
24 shall apply to all pending arbitrations.
shall apply to pending arbitration proceedings.
from Section 85A as proposed by the Law Commission.
was adopted by this Court in M.M.T.C. Ltd.
UNCITRAL Model Law rather than the old Act.
(wanted to see nobody, but nobody)”.
separate the two distinct parts of Section 26.
commenced before it came into force.
applied on its own terms.
continued as if the Act had not been passed.
statute by way of repeal, was put most felicitously by B.K.
of Section 26 at all, as has been pointed out above.
October 2015 and related court proceedings.
Execution Application (L) No. 2482 and Chamber Summons No.
Financial Services Ltd., GA No. 145/206 with AP No.
Engineering Ltd., AIR 2017 (NOC 923) 314.
Authority of India, Commercial Arbitration Petition No.
Assurance Company Limited, 2016 (3) CTC 769.
23/2015, Orissa Concrete and Allied Industries Ltd. v.
Online Del. 9779 and Ratna Infrastructure Projects Pvt.
Kumar Associates v. Union of India, 2017 1 PLJR 649.
Jacob Mathew v. PTC Builders, 2017 (5) KHC 583.
Tripura, 2016 SCC Tri. 500.
x. Rajasthan High Court: Dwarka Traders Pvt. Ltd. v.
and Mayur Associates, Engineers and Contractors v.
Gurmeet Singh & Ors., S.B. Arbitration Application No.
Government of the State of Kuwait (supra).
Co. & Ors., Civil Writ Petition No. 2322/2016.
Pvt. Ltd. v. Noble Resources Ltd., LPA No. 917/2017.
such an interpretation of Section 26 is unacceptable.
accepted by this Court supra is the correct interpretation.
contemplated in the second part.
does not commend itself to us.
commenced on or after the 1996 Act came into force.
with the words “the provisions” of the old Act.
the arbitral proceedings before the arbitrator.
21, 23(3), 24(1), 25, 26, 29, 31, 85(2)(a) etc.
referring to the judgments in Thyssen (supra) and N.S.
they only follow and apply Thyssen (supra).
Section 34 as amended and Section 36 as substituted.
Act, which were governed by Section 36 of the old Act?
Would Section 36, as substituted, apply to such petitions?
“execution” being procedural in nature.
then be executable under the Code of Civil Procedure.
vested rights, and whether they are substantive in nature.
judgment debtor’s right to resist execution of a decree.
the law repealed by the Amending Act.
courts and not to the rights of the judgmentdebtors.
because of any vested rights of the judgmentdebtors.
competent to execute the decree.
with respect to the impugned order/decree.
Court and the Privy Council.
referred to in paragraphs 60 and 61 of Workmen v.
unanimous. There is no need to elaborate.
The criticisms came from every quarter.
the legislation a partially retrospective effect.
the Amendment Act also for the aforesaid reasons.
us to go into this by-lane of forensic argument.
be applied to a totally different situation.
has followed the judgment in Hameed Joharan (supra).
judgment also does not carry the matter further.
1962—judgment delivered on 11-10-1962] .
of Bhajahari Saha Banikya v.
judgment of a court of last resort.
54. Shri Viswanathan then argued, relying upon R.
Ltd. (2001) 6 SCC 356, Sedco Forex International Drill.
Inc. v. CIT (2005) 12 SCC 717 and Bank of Baroda v.
Amendment Act, as a whole, is prospective in nature.
the substituted Section 36 of the Amendment Act.
entered into an agreement to refer disputes to arbitration.
be contrary to both its plain language and object.
was withdrawn from the Rajya Sabha.
obviate in disposal of cases.
of law contained in Renusagar Power Plant Co. Ltd.
Amendment Act would otherwise be defeated.
dates until the date of this Award.
number of judgments construing the Code.
“These last words are important. If what Mr.

References: v.

 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v.

 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v.