2018 (3) TMI 812

, would apply in its amended form or in its original form to the appeals in question? - construction of Section 26 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 - Held that: - If the first part of Section 26 were couched in positive language (like the second part), it would have been necessary to add a proviso stating that the Amendment Act would apply even to arbitral proceedings commenced before the amendment if the parties agree. In either case, the intention of the legislature remains the same, the negative form conveying exactly what could have been stated positively, with the necessary proviso. Obviously, “arbitral proceedings” having been subsumed in the first part cannot re-appear in the second part, and the expression “in relation to arbitral proceedings” would, therefore, apply only to Court proceedings which relate to the arbitral proceedings. The scheme of Section 26 is thus clear: that the Amendment Act is prospective in nature, and will apply to those arbitral proceedings that are commenced, as understood by Section 21 of the principal Act, on or after the Amendment Act, and to Court proceedings which have commenced on or after the Amendment Act came i .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

r the Parties(s) : Mr. C.A. Sundram, Sr. Adv., Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan, Sr. Adv., Mr. Gauri Rasgotra, Adv., Mr. Indranil Deshmukh, Adv., Mr. Aditya Mehta, Adv., Mr.George Varghese, Adv., Mr. Vineet Unnikrishnan, Adv., Ms. Nikitha Shenoy, Adv., Mr. Arjun Sreenivas Adv., Ms. Purnima Krishna, Adv., Ms. Bihu Sharma, Adv., Mr. Abhinav Mukerji, AOR, Mr. Siddhant Buxy, Adv., Ms. Rohini Musa, Adv., Mr. Avishek Gupta, Adv., Mr. ZafarR Inayat, Adv., Mr. Apoorv Tripathi, Adv., Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan, Sr. Adv., Mr. Indranil Deshmukh, Adv., Mr. Kirat Singh Nagra, Adv., Mr. Aditya Mehta, Adv., Mr. Kartik Yadav, Adv., Mr. Vineet Unnikrishnan, Adv., Ms. Neha Shrna, Adv., Ms. Olga Lumepereiro, Adv., Mr. Arjun Sreenivas, Adv., Ms. Siddhant Buxy, Adv., for M/S. Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas Aor, AOR, Mr. P. Chidambaram, Sr. Adv., Mr. Jehangir Jejeebhoy, Adv., Mr. Vivek A. Vashi, AOR, Mrs. Kanika Sharma Goenka, Adv., Mr. Hrushi Narvekar, Adv., Ms. Shaheda Madraswala, Adv., Mr. Utkarsh Srivastava, Adv., Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv., Mr. Jehangir Jejeebhoy, Adv., Mr. Vivek A. Vashi, Adv., Mrs. Kanika Sharma Goenka, Adv., Mr. Hrushi Narvekar, Adv., Ms. Shaheda Madraswala, Adv., Mr. Utkarsh Srivastava, Adv., Mr. Mo .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

reads as follows: Section 26. Act not to apply to pending arbitral proceedings. Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the arbitral proceedings commenced, in accordance with the provisions of section 21 of the principal Act, before the commencement of this Act unless the parties otherwise agree but this Act shall apply in relation to arbitral proceedings commenced on or after the date of commencement of this Act. 3. The questions raised in these appeals require the mentioning of only a few important dates. In four of these appeals, namely, Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Kochi Cricket Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. (SLP(C) No. 19545-19546 of 2016), Arup Deb & Ors. v. Global Asia Venture Company (SLP(C) No. 20224 of 2016), M/s Maharashtra Airports Development Company Ltd. v. M/s PBA Infrastructure Ltd. (SLP(C) No.5021 of 2017) and UB Cotton Pvt. Ltd. v. Jayshri Ginning and Spinning Pvt. Ltd. (SLP(C) No.33690 of 2017), Section 34 applications under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 1996 Act ) were all filed prior to the coming into force of the Amendment Act w.e.f. 23rd October, 2015. In the other four appeals, the Section 34 applicati .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

vt. Ltd. (SLP(C) No.33690 of 2017), the Section 34 application was filed on 22nd February, 2013 and the execution application was filed in 2014, which was transferred, by an order dated 12th January, 2017, to the Commercial Court, Rajkot as Execution Petition No. 1 of 2017. In the other cases, namely, Wind World (India) Ltd. v. Enercon GMBH through its Director (SLP(C) Nos.8372-8373 of 2017), Yogesh Mehra v. Enercon GMBH through its Director (SLP(C) Nos.8376-8378 of 2017), Ajay Mehra v. Enercon GMBH through its Director (SLP(C) Nos.8374-8375 of 2017), and Anuradha Bhatia v. M/s Ardee Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (SLP(C) Nos.9599-9600 of 2017), the Section 34 applications were filed after 23rd October, 2015, viz., on 7th December, 2016 in the first two appeals, on 6th December, 2016 in the third appeal and on 4th January, 2016 in the last appeal. 6. Section 36, which is the bone of contention in the present appeals, is set out hereinbelow: PRE-AMENDED PROVISION Section 36. Enforcement. Where the time for making an application to set aside the arbitral award under section 34 has expired, or such application having been made, it has been refused, the award shall be enforced under the Code .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

ce Cream Pvt. Ltd. (2004) 7 SCC 288. Given the fact that the vested right is preserved, the amendment is only prospective in nature, and for this purpose, he has cited a large number of judgments, starting with the celebrated judgment in Garikapati Veeraya v. N. Subbiah Choudhry (1957) SCR 488. He then referred to a chart of the effect of the amendments made in general by the Amendment Act, in which he divided the amended sections into three parts, namely, those that are only procedural, those that are only substantive and those that are procedural as well as substantive. In his submission, Section 36 is substantive in nature, in that, in place of an automatic stay of the award under the old regime, Order LXI, Rule 5 of the CPC will now be applicable. As a result of this, instead of an automatic stay, a deposit of the entire amount or substantial amount of the award would now have to be made in the interim period between the award and the decision in the Section 34 application. He referred to the 246th Law Commission Report as well as the debates leading to the Amendment Act to buttress his submissions. He also referred to the report of a High Level Committee headed by Justice B.N. .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

ounsel, Section 85 of the 1996 Act is similar to Section 26 of the Amendment Act and, therefore, the judgment in Thyssen (supra) must apply on all fours. The learned senior counsel also forcefully put to us a number of anomalies that would arise if the amendment to Section 36 were to be given retrospective operation. According to him, the right to be governed by the broad appellate/supervisory procedure found in sections 34 and 37 of the 1996 Act would be a vested right, resulting in the Amendment Act not being applicable. Insofar as Section 36 is concerned, the learned senior counsel made elaborate submissions on the difference between enforceability and execution, and stated that whereas the former dealt with substantive rights, the latter dealt with procedural rights. Equally, the expression has been contained in the amended Section 36(2) is purely contextual and equivalent to the expression is . For this, he has cited certain judgments which we will refer to in due course. According to the learned senior counsel, the decision in National Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. Pressteel & Fabrications (P) Ltd. (2004) 1 SCC 540, which exhorted the legislature to amend Section 36, cannot take .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

n is seen, the expression in relation to would not apply to Court proceedings simpliciter, but to arbitral tribunals which have their seat outside India. He further argued that Sections 34 and 36 are part of one scheme and are the appeal package insofar as arbitral proceedings are concerned and must, therefore, go along with the arbitral proceedings. This being the position, it is clear that the pre-amendment position would apply in case of arbitrations which commenced before the Amendment Act came into force. 12. Leading arguments for the other side, Shri Neeraj Kaul, learned senior counsel appearing in SLP(C) Nos.19545-19546 of 2016, emphasized that in the first part of Section 26, there is an absence of the mention of Court proceedings. According to the learned senior counsel, this was of great significance and would, therefore, show that the Amendment Act would retrospectively apply to Court proceedings, as distinguished from arbitral proceedings. On a correct construction of Section 26, according to the learned senior counsel, the second part of Section 26 takes within its sweep both arbitral proceedings as well as Court proceedings in relation thereto and would, therefore, ap .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

under Section 36, is nothing but execution of an award, as if it were a decree under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. He further argued that it is well settled that execution proceedings are procedural in nature and would be retrospective and, therefore, the substituted Section 36 would apply even in cases where the Section 34 application is made before the commencement of the Amendment Act. Another argument was that the expression has been contained in Section 36(2), as amended, would, in any case, refer to Section 34 proceedings that have already been filed, even preamendment, and for this purpose, he referred to certain judgments. 13. Shri P. Chidambaram, learned senior counsel appearing for the Respondents in SLP (C) Nos.8372-8373 of 2017, emphasised the word but that appears in Section 26, which not only segregates the first part of Section 36 from the second part, but also makes it clear that the two parts apply to two different situations. The first part, according to learned senior counsel, would apply to the arbitral proceedings themselves i.e. from the Section 21 stage up to the Section 32 stage of the 1996 Act, whereas the second part would include all proceedings that .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

eedings before an arbitral tribunal and the second part would apply only to court proceedings in relation thereto. This becomes clear from two things; one, the expression to appearing in the first part as contrasted with the expression in relation to appearing in the second part; and, two, the presence of Section 21 of the 1996 Act in the first part and its absence in the second part of Section 26. According to him, this would be the correct interpretation of Section 26, which would result in no anomalies, as it is clear that the date of commencement of an arbitral proceeding would be fixed with reference to Section 21 and the date of commencement of a court proceeding would be fixed with reference to the date on which the court proceeding is filed, and it is only arbitral proceedings and court proceedings which are filed after the commencement of the Amendment Act that would be so covered. 16. Shri Nakul Dewan, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent in SLP (C) No.20224 of 2016 has argued that the first part of Section 26 speaks of the arbitral proceedings commenced in accordance with the provisions of Section 21. The second part of Section 26 omits the word the as .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

r the corresponding provisions of the principal Act, as amended by this Act. xxx xxx xxx Section 85. Repeal and savings.- (1) The Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act, 1937 (6 of 1937), the Arbitration Act, 1940 (10 of 1940) and the Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement) Act, 1961 (45 of 1961) are hereby repealed. (2) Notwithstanding such repeal,- (a) the provisions of the said enactments shall apply in relation to arbitral proceedings which commenced before this Act came into force unless otherwise agreed by the parties but this Act shall apply in relation to arbitral proceedings which commenced on or after this Act comes into force; (b) all rules made and notifications published, under the said enactments shall, to the extent to which they are not repugnant to this Act, be deemed respectively to have been made or issued under this Act. 18. At this point, it is instructive to refer to the 246th Law Commission Report which led to the Amendment Act. This Report, which was handed over to the Government in August, 2014, had this to state on why it was proposing to replace Section 36 of the 1996 Act: AUTOMATIC STAY OF ENFORCEMENT OF THE AWARD UPON ADMISSION OF CHALLENGE 43. .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

operate prospectively, except in certain cases as set out in section 85-A or otherwise set out in the amendment itself. The Report then went on to amend Section 36 as follows: Amendment of Section 36 19. In section 36, (i) add numbering as subsection (1) before the words Where the time and after the words Section 34 has expired, delete the words or such application having been made, it has been refused and add the words then subject to the provision of subsection (2) hereof, (ii) insert sub-section (2) Where an application to set aside the arbitral award has been filed in the Court under section 34, the filing of such an application shall not by itself render the award unenforceable, unless upon a separate application made for that purpose, the Court grants stay of the operation of the award in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3) hereof; (iii) insert sub-section (3) Upon filing of the separate application under subsection (2) for stay of the operation of the award, the court may, subject to such conditions as it may deem fit, grant stay of the operation of the award for reasons to be recorded in writing. (iv) insert proviso Provided that the Court shall while consider .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

ct, 2014. (b) fresh applications mean applications to a court or arbitral tribunal made subsequent to the date of enforcement of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amending) Act, 2014. [NOTE: This amendment is to clarify the scope of operation of each of the proposed amendments with respect to pending arbitrations/proceedings.] 19. The debates in Parliament in this context were referred to by counsel on both sides. Shri T. Satpathy (Dhenkanal) stated: You have brought in an amendment to Section 25 (a) saying that this Act will not be retrospective. When the Bill for judges pension and salary could be retrospective, why can you not amend it with retrospective effect so that ONGC-RIL case could be brought under this Act and let it be adjudicated as early as possible within 18 months and let the people of this country get some justice some time. Let us be fair to them. To similar effect is the speech of Shri APJ Reddy, which reads as under: It is unclear whether the amended provisions shall apply to pending arbitration proceedings. The Law Commission of India, in its 246th Report, which recommended amendments to the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, had proposed to insert a new .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

proceedings, departed somewhat from Section 85A as proposed by the Law Commission. 22. That a provision such as Section 26 has to be construed literally first, and then purposively and pragmatically, so as to keep the object of the provision also in mind, has been laid down in Thyssen (supra) in paragraph 26 as follows: 26. Present-day courts tend to adopt a purposive approach while interpreting the statute which repeals the old law and for that purpose to take into account the objects and reasons which led to the enacting of the new Act. We have seen above that this approach was adopted by this Court in M.M.T.C. Ltd. case [(1996) 6 SCC 716]. Provisions of both the Acts, old and new, are very different and it has been so observed in Sundaram Finance Ltd. case [(1999) 2 SCC 479]. In that case, this Court also said that provisions of the new Act have to be interpreted and construed independently and that in fact reference to the old Act may actually lead to misconstruction of the provisions of the new Act. The Court said that it will be more relevant, while construing the provisions of the new Act, to refer to the UNCITRAL Model Law rather than the old Act. In the case of Kuwait Mini .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

be taken recourse to for the purpose of interpretation of Section 85(2)(a) of the Act. There is no reason, even if two views are possible, to make a departure from the decisions of this Court as referred to hereinbefore. 23. All learned counsel have agreed, and this Court has found, on a reading of Section 26, that the provision is indeed in two parts. The first part refers to the Amendment Act not applying to certain proceedings, whereas the second part affirmatively applies the Amendment Act to certain proceedings. The question is what exactly is contained in both parts. The two parts are separated by the word but , which also shows that the two parts are separate and distinct. However, Shri Viswanathan has argued that the expression but means only that there is an emphatic repetition of the first part of Section 26 in the second part of the said Section. For this, he relied upon the Concise Oxford Dictionary on Current English, which states: introducing emphatic repetition; definitely (wanted to see nobody, but nobody) . Quite obviously, the context of the word but in Section 26 cannot bear the aforesaid meaning, but serves only to separate the two distinct parts of Section 26. .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

king be applied retrospectively where the result would be to create new disabilities or obligations or to impose new duties in respect of transactions already accomplished. (v) A statute which not only changes the procedure but also creates new rights and liabilities shall be construed to be prospective in operation, unless otherwise provided, either expressly or by necessary implication. It is, inter alia, because timelines for the making of an arbitral award have been laid down for the first time in Section 29A of the Amendment Act that parties were given the option to adopt such timelines which, though procedural in nature, create new obligations in respect of a proceeding already begun under the unamended Act. This is, of course, only one example of why parties may otherwise agree and apply the new procedure laid down by the Amendment Act to arbitral proceedings that have commenced before it came into force.) In stark contrast to the first part of Section 26 is the second part, where the Amendment Act is made applicable in relation to arbitral proceedings which commenced on or after the date of commencement of the Amendment Act. What is conspicuous by its absence in the second .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

rs in the enactment in question. The plain language of Section 26 would make it clear that a contrary intention does so appear, Section 26 being a special provision having to be applied on its own terms. 27. Thus, in Transport and Dock Workers' Union & others v. New Dholera Steamship Ltd., Bombay and others, (1967) 1 LLJ 434, a Five Judge Bench of this Court held: 6. It was contended before us that as an appeal is a continuation of the original proceeding the repeal should not affect the enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance in this case. Reliance is placed upon Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 wherein is indicated the effect of repeal of an enactment by another. It is contended that as the Payment of Bonus Ordinance has been repealed by Section 40(1), the consequences envisaged in Section 6 of the General Clauses Act must follow and the present matter must be disposed of in accordance with the Ordinance as if the Act had not been passed. It is submitted that there was a right and a corresponding obligation to pay bonus under Section 10 of the Ordinance and that right and obligation cannot be obliterated because of the repeal of the Ordinance. This argume .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

e been the result under Section 6 of the General Clauses Act and some contrary to what would been the result under Section 6, Parliament has clearly evidenced an intention to the contrary. 28. Shri Sundaram s submission is also not in consonance with the law laid down in some of our judgments. The approach to statutes, which amend a statute by way of repeal, was put most felicitously by B.K. Mukherjea, J. in State of Punjab v. Mohar Singh, 1955 1 SCR 893 at 899-900, thus: In our opinion the approach of the High Court to the question is not quite correct. Whenever there is a repeal of an enactment, the consequences laid down in Section 6 of the General Clauses Act will follow unless, as the section itself says, a different intention appears. In the case of a simple repeal there is scarcely any room for expression of a contrary opinion. But when the repeal is followed by fresh legislation on the same subject we would undoubtedly have to look to the provisions of the new Act, but only for the purpose of determining whether they indicate a different intention. The line of enquiry would be, not whether the new Act expressly keeps alive old rights and liabilities but whether it manifests .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

itten submission made to us. According to him, the press release refers to a new Section 87 in a proposed amendment to be made to the 1996 Act. The press release states that the Union Cabinet, chaired by the Prime Minister, has approved the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Bill, 2018 in which a new Section 87 is proposed to be inserted as follows: A new section 87 is proposed to be inserted to clarify that unless parties agree otherwise the Amendment Act 2015 shall not apply to (a) Arbitral proceedings which have commenced before the commencement of the Amendment Act of 2015 (b) Court proceedings arising out of or in relation to such arbitral proceedings irrespective of whether such court proceedings are commenced prior to or after the commencement of the Amendment Act of 2015 and shall apply only to Arbitral proceedings commenced on or after the commencement of the Amendment Act of 2015 and to court proceedings arising out of or in relation to such Arbitral proceedings. The Srikrishna Committee had recommended the following: The Committee feels that permitting the 2015 Amendment Act to apply to pending court proceedings related to arbitrations commenced prior to 23 October .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

the Amendment Act: i. Calcutta High Court: Nitya Ranjan Jena v. Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd., GA No. 145/206 with AP No. 15/2016, West Bengal Power Development Corporation Ltd. v. Dongfang Electric Corporation, 2017 SCCOnline Cal 9388, Saraf Agencies v. Federal Agencies for State Property Management, AIR 2017 Cal. 65, Reliance Capital Ltd. v. Chandana Creations, 2016 SCC Cal. 9558 and Braithwaite Burn & Jessop Construction Company Ltd. v. Indo Wagon Engineering Ltd., AIR 2017 (NOC 923) 314. ii. Bombay High Court: M/s. Maharashtra Airport Development Company Ltd. v. M/s. PBA Infrastructure Ltd., 2017 SCCOnline Bom (7840), Enercon GmbH v. Yogesh Mehra, 2017 SCC Bom 1744 and Global Aviation Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Airport Authority of India, Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 434/2017, iii. Madras High Court: Jumbo Bags Ltd. v. New India Assurance Company Limited, 2016 (3) CTC 769. iv. Delhi High Court: ICI Soma JV v. Simplex Infrastructures Ltd., 2016 SCC Online Del 5315, Tantia-CCIL (JV) v. Union of India, ARB. P. 615/2016, Raffles Design International India Pvt. Ltd. v. Educomp Professional Education Ltd. and Ors., OMP (I) (COMM.) 23/2015, Orissa Concrete and Allied Ind .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

ty as Shri Viswanathan s interpretation. Shri A. Krishnan, in bringing in the concept of seat , is again doing complete violence to the language of Section 26, as place of arbitration is a well-known concept contained in Section 20 of the 1996 Act, which finds no mention whatsoever in Section 26 of the Amendment Act. For these reasons, his interpretation cannot also be accepted. 30. Shri Neeraj Kishan Kaul, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Respondents in SLP(C) Nos.19545-19546 of 2016, has argued that the first part of Section 26 does not apply to Court proceedings at all, thereby indicating that the Amendment Act must be given retrospective effect insofar as Court proceedings in relation to arbitral proceedings are concerned. For this purpose, he relied on Minister of Public Works of the Government of the State of Kuwait (supra). 31. In that case, the question that arose was as to the correct construction of Section 7(1) of the U.K. Arbitration Act, 1975. The said section was given retrospective effect in applying the New York Convention to arbitration agreements that were entered into before the convention was made applicable, for the reason that nobody had an accrue .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

the Amendment Act is also a good reason as to why arbitral proceedings before an arbitral tribunal are not contemplated in the second part. 33. Shri Sibal has argued that Section 26 is not a savings clause at all and cannot be construed as such. According to the learned senior counsel, Section 26 manifests a clear intention to destroy all rights, vested or otherwise, which have accrued under the unamended 1996 Act. We are unable to accept these submissions as it is clear that the intendment of Section 26 is to apply the Amendment Act prospectively to arbitral proceedings and to court proceedings in relation thereto. This approach again does not commend itself to us. 34. Dr. Singhvi has, however, argued that the approach indicated by us above could be termed as an intermediate approach , i.e. it is an approach which does not go to either of the extreme approaches of Shri Sundaram, Shri Viswanathan and Shri Datar or that of Shri Sibal. Further, according to the learned senior counsel, this approach has the merit of both clarity, as well as no anomalies arising as a result, as it is clear that the Amendment Act is to be applied only prospectively with effect from the date of its comm .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

iven. This expression does not admit of restrictive meaning. The first limb of Section 85(2)(a) is not a limited saving clause. It saves not only the proceedings pending at the time of commencement of the new Act but also the provisions of the old Act for enforcement of the award under that Act. (at page 369) [Emphasis Supplied] The judgment then goes on to refer to Section 48 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, which is set out therein as follows: 48. Saving for pending references.-The provisions of this Act shall not apply to any reference pending at the commencement of this Act, to which the law in force immediately before the commencement of this Act shall notwithstanding any repeal effected by this Act continue to apply. (at page 349) Paragraph 33 goes on to state the difference between Section 85(2)(a) of the 1996 Act and the earlier Section 48 of the 1940 Act, as follows: 33. Because of the view of Section 85(2)(a) of the new Act which we have taken, it is not necessary for us to consider difference in the repealing provisions as contained in Section 48 of the old Act and Section 85 of the new Act. We may, however, note that under Section 48 of the old Act the concept is of refere .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

on 26 is conspicuous by its absence in the second part. 38. The judgment in Thyssen (supra) was followed in N.S. Nayak (supra). After setting out paragraph 32 of the judgment in Thyssen (supra) and paragraphs 22 and 23 of the aforesaid judgment, this Court concluded: 13. As stated in paragraph 22, Conclusion 1 without any reservation provides that the provisions of the old Act shall apply in relation to the arbitral proceedings which have commenced before coming into force of the new Act. Conclusion 2, in our view, is required to be read in context with Conclusion 1, that is to say, the phrase in relation to arbitral proceedings cannot be given a narrow meaning to mean only pendency of the proceedings before the arbitrator. It would cover not only proceedings pending before the arbitrator but would also cover the proceedings before the court and any proceedings which are required to be taken under the old Act for the award becoming a decree under Section 17 thereof and also appeal arising thereunder. Hence, Conclusions 1 and 2 are to be read together which unambiguously reiterate that once the arbitral proceedings have started under the old Act, the old Act would apply for the awar .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

ndment Act, which were governed by Section 36 of the old Act? Would Section 36, as substituted, apply to such petitions? To answer this question, we have necessarily to decide on what is meant by enforcement in Section 36. On the one hand, it has been argued that enforcement is nothing but execution , and on the other hand, it has been argued that enforcement and execution are different concepts, enforcement being substantive and execution being procedural in nature. 40. At this stage, it is necessary to set out the scheme of the 1996 Act. An arbitral proceeding commences under Section 21, unless otherwise agreed by parties, when a dispute arises between the parties for which a request for the dispute to be referred to arbitration is received by the respondent. The arbitral proceedings terminate under Section 32(1) by the delivery of a final arbitral award or by the circumstances mentioned in Section 32(2). The mandate of the arbitral tribunal terminates with the termination of arbitral proceedings, save and except for correction and interpretation of the award within the bounds of Section 33, or the making of an additional arbitral award as to claims presented in the proceedings, .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

of which the judgment debtor s right to resist execution of a decree was protected. In this context, this Court held that the Amendment Act of 1951 made decrees, which could have been executed only by courts in British India, executable in the whole of India. Stating that the change made was one relating to procedure only, this Court held: 15. This provision undoubtedly protects the rights acquired and privileges accrued under the law repealed by the Amending Act. Therefore the question for decision is whether the non-executability of the decree in the Morena Court under the law in force in Madhya Bharat before the extension of the Code can be said to be a right accrued under the repealed law. We do not think that even by straining the language of the provision it can be said that the non-executability of a decree within a particular territory can be considered as a privilege. Therefore the only question that we have to consider is whether it can be considered as a right accrued within the meaning of Section 20(1)(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1950. In the first place, in order to get the benefit of that provision, the non-executability of the decree must be a .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

hts conferred by the repealed Act.... It only applies to specific rights given to an individual upon happening of one or the other of the events specified in statute - See Lord Atkin s observations in Hamilton Gell v. White. [(1922) 2 KB 422]. The mere right, existing at the date of repealing statute, to take advantage of provisions of the statute repealed is not a right accrued within the meaning of the usual saving clause - See Abbot v. Minister for Lands [(1895) AC 425] and G. Ogden Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Lucas. [(1969) 1 All ER 121] In Narhari Shivram Shet Narvekar v. Pannalal Umediram (1976) 3 SCC 203 at 207, this Court, following Lalji Raja (supra), held as follows: 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant however submitted that since the Code of Civil Procedure was not applicable to Goa the decree became inexecutable and this being a vested right could not be taken away by the application of the Code of Civil Procedure to Goa during the pendency of the appeal before the Additional Judicial Commissioner. It seems to us that the right of the judgment debtor to pay up the decree passed against him cannot be said to be a vested right, nor can the question of executability .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

the case, it is unnecessary to refer to judgments such as Union of India v. A.L. Rallia Ram, (1964) 3 SCR 164 and NBCC Ltd. v. J.G. Engineering (P) Ltd., (2010) 2 SCC 385, which state that a Section 34 proceeding is a supervisory and not an appellate proceeding. Snehadeep Structures (P) Ltd. v. Maharashtra Small-Scale Industries Development Corpn. Ltd., (2010) 3 SCC 34 at 47-49, which was cited for the purpose of stating that a Section 34 proceeding could be regard as an appeal within the meaning of Section 7 of the Interest on Delayed Payments To Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993, is obviously distinguishable on the ground that it pertains to the said expression appearing in a beneficial enactment, whose object would be defeated if the word appeal did not include a Section 34 application. This is made clear by the aforesaid judgment itself as follows: 36. On a perusal of the plethora of decisions aforementioned, we are of the view that appeal is a term that carries a wide range of connotations with it and that appellate jurisdiction can be exercised in a variety of forms. It is not necessary that the exercise of appellate jurisdiction will always involve .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

prior to the commencement of the Amendment Act. For this purpose, the judgment in State of Bombay v. Vishnu Ramchandra (1961) 2 SCR 26, was strongly relied upon. In that judgment, it was observed, while dealing with Section 57 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, that the expression has been punished is in the present perfect tense and can mean either shall have been or shall be . Looking to the scheme of the enactment as a whole, the Court felt that shall have been is more appropriate. This decision was referred to in paragraphs 60 and 61 of Workmen v. Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. of India (P) Ltd., (1973) 1 SCC 813 at 838 and the ratio culled out was that such expression may relate to past or future events, which has to be gathered from the context, as well as the scheme of the particular legislation. In the context in which Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was enacted, this Court held that Section 11A has the effect of altering the law by abridging the rights of the employer. This being so, the expression has been would refer only to future events and would have no implication to disputes prior to December 15, 1971. However, in a significant paragraph, this Court .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

hich arose in that case was whether delay that had taken place before the Section came into force could be taken into account by an arbitrator in order to reject the claim in that case. The House of Lords held that given the clamor for change and given the practical value and nature of the rights involved, it would be permissible to look at delay caused even before the Section came into force. In his concluding paragraph, Lord Mustill held: In this light, I turn to the language of Section 13A construed, in case of doubt, by reference to its legislative background. The crucial words are: (a). . . there has been inordinate and inexcusable delay . . . Even if read in isolation these words would I believe be sufficient, in the context of Section 13A as a whole, to demonstrate that the delay encompasses all the delay which has caused the substantial risk of unfairness. If there were any doubt about this the loud and prolonged chorus of complaints about the disconformity between practices in arbitration and in the High Court, and the increasing impatience for something to be done about it, show quite clearly that Section 13A was intended to bite in full from the outset. If the position w .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

which, as we have seen, differs from Section 36 of the 1996 Act, because of the expression in relation to arbitral proceedings , which took in the entire gamut, starting from the arbitral proceedings before the arbitral tribunal and ending up with enforcement of the award. It was also in the context of the structure of the 1940 Act being completely different from the structure of the 1996 Act, which repealed the 1940 Act. In the present case, it is clear that enforcement in Section 36 is to treat the award as if it were a decree and enforce it as such under the Code of Civil Procedure, which would only mean that such decree has to be executed in the manner indicated. Also, a stray sentence in a judgment in a particular context cannot be torn out of such context and applied in a situation where it has been argued that enforcement and execution are one and the same, at least for the purpose of the 1996 Act. In Regional Manager & Anr. v. Pawan Kumar Dubey (1976) 3 SCR 540, at 544 it was held: We think that the principles involved in applying Article 311(2) having been sufficiently explained in Shamsher Singh's case (supra) it should no longer be possible to urge that Sughar Si .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

erated by an enactment wholly unconnected therewith. Legislative mandate as sanctioned under Article 136 cannot be kept in abeyance unless the selfsame legislation makes a provision therefor. It may also be noticed that by the passing of a final decree, the rights stand crystallised and it is only thereafter its enforceability can be had, though not otherwise. (at page 593) It is for this reason that it was stated that enforceability of a decree under the Limitation Act cannot be the subject matter of Section 35 of the Stamp Act. Therefore, Section 35 of the Stamp Act could not be held to overrun the Limitation Act and thus, give a complete go-by to the legislative intent of Article 136 of the Limitation Act. Here again, observations made in a completely different context have to be understood in that context and cannot be applied to a totally different situation. 50. As a matter of fact, it was noticed that furnishing of stamp paper was an act entirely within the domain and control of the Appellant in that case, and any delay in the matter of furnishing the same cannot possibly be said to stop limitation, as no one can take advantage of his own wrong (see paragraph 13). As a matte .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

the Subordinate Judge, Hazaribag. The Union of India, Respondent 1, called upon Respondent 2, Col. S.K. Bose, to adjudicate upon the matter in dispute between Respondent 1 and the appellant Company. The case of Uttam Singh Dugal & Co.was that this purported reference to Respondent 2 for adjudication on the matters alleged to be in dispute between them and Respondent 1 was not competent because by an award passed by Respondent 2 on April 23, 1952 all the relevant disputes between them had been decided. The High Court held inter alia that the first award did not create any bar against the competence of the second reference. On appeal this Court after holding that the application under Section 33 was competent observed as follows: The true legal position in regard to the effect of an award is not in dispute. It is well settled that as a general rule, all claims which are the subject-matter of a reference to arbitration merge in the award which is pronounced in the proceedings before the arbitrator and that after an award has been pronounced, the rights and liabilities of the parties in respect of the said claims can be determined only on the basis of the said award. After an award .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

d, It is one thing to say that a right is not created, it is an entirely different thing to say that the right created cannot be enforced without further steps . The Amendment Act has only made an award executable conditionally after it is made, like a judgment of a Court, the only difference being that a decree would not have to be formally drawn following the making of such award. 54. Shri Viswanathan then argued, relying upon R. Rajagopal Reddy v. Padmini Chandrasekharan (1995) 2 SCC 630, Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd. v. Jindal Exports Ltd. (2001) 6 SCC 356, Sedco Forex International Drill. Inc. v. CIT (2005) 12 SCC 717 and Bank of Baroda v. Anita Nandrajog (2009) 9 SCC 462, that a clarificatory amendment can only be retrospective, if it does not substantively change the law, but merely clarifies some doubt which has crept into the law. For this purpose, he referred us to the amendments made in Section 34 by the Amendment Act and stated that despite the fact that Explanations 1 and 2 to Section 34(2) stated that for the avoidance of any doubt, it is clarified , this is not language that is conclusive in nature, but it is open to the Court to go into whether there is, in fact, a substan .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

ply even to arbitration proceedings years afterwards as and when a dispute arises and a notice to arbitrate has been issued under Section 21. In such a case, the parties, having entered into an arbitration agreement years earlier, could well turn around and say that they never bargained for the change in law that has taken place many years after, and which change will apply to them, since the notice, referred to in Section 21, has been issued after the Amendment Act has come into force. Cut off dates, by their very nature, are bound to lead to certain anomalies, but that does not mean that the process of interpretation must be so twisted as to negate both the plain language as well as the object of the amending statute. On this ground also, we do not see how an emotive argument can be converted into a legal one, so as to interpret Section 26 in a manner that would be contrary to both its plain language and object. 56. However, it is important to remember that the Amendment Act was enacted for the following reasons, as the Statement of Objects and Reasons for the Amendment Act states: 2. The Act was enacted to provide for speedy disposal of cases relating to arbitration with least c .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

legal framework, the President was pleased to promulgate the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015. 6. It is proposed to introduce the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Bill, 2015, to replace the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015, which inter alia, provides for the following, namely:- (i) to amend the definition of Court to provide that in the case of international commercial arbitrations, the Court should be the High Court; (ii) to ensure that an Indian Court can exercise jurisdiction to grant interim measures, etc., even where the seat of the arbitration is outside India; (iii) an application for appointment of an arbitrator shall be disposed of by the High Court or Supreme Court, as the case may be, as expeditiously as possible and an endeavour should be made to dispose of the matter within a period of sixty days; (iv) to provide that while considering any application for appointment of arbitrator, the High Court or the Supreme Court shall examine the existence of a prima facie arbitration agreement and not other issues; (v) to provide that the arbitral tribunal shall make its award within a period of twelve months from the date .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

il and Chemical Division) v. Gail (India) Limited (Formerly Gas Authority of India Ltd.) 2017 SCC Online 1024 (at paragraph 18) of limiting the grounds of challenge to awards as follows: …In fact, the same Law Commission Report has amended Sections 28 and 34 so as to narrow grounds of challenge available under the Act. The judgment in ONGC v. Saw Pipes Ltd, (2003) 5 SCC 705, has been expressly done away with. So has the judgment in ONGC v. Western Geco International Ltd., (2014) 9 SCC 263. Both Sections 34 and 48 have been brought back to the position of law contained in Renusagar Power Plant Co. Ltd. v. General Electric Co., (1994) Supp (1) SCC 644, where public policy will now include only two of the three things set out therein, viz., fundamental policy of Indian law and justice or morality . The ground relating to the interest of India no longer obtains. Fundamental policy of Indian law is now to be understood as laid down in Renusagar (supra). Justice or morality has been tightened and is now to be understood as meaning only basic notions of justice and morality i.e. such notions as would shock the conscience of the Court as understood in Associate Builders v. Delhi Dev .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

unfairness, whether as a matter of pleading, the form of relief or otherwise. It is only thereafter that the Tribunal awarded the aforesaid amount in paragraph 331(3)(b) as follows: (b) Jointly and severally- (i) to pay to WWIL the sum of INR 6,772,456,570, being the profit made by Vish Wind on the sale of allotment rights to WWIL in the years ending 31 March 2011 and 2012 together with interest thereon at the rate of 3% over European Central Bank rate from those dates until the date of this Award. (ii) To pay to the Claimants their legal and other costs in the sum of €3,794,970. 59. It is thus Shri Viswanathan s contention that it is the decree holder alone who can execute such decree in its favour, and that in the present case it is WWIL who is the decree holder, insofar as paragraph 331(3)(b) is concerned and, that, therefore, Enercon s Chamber Summons, to execute this portion of the award, is contrary to the Code of Civil Procedure as well as a number of judgments construing the Code. 60. On the other hand, the submission of the other side is that the Mehra brothers, who are the 2nd and 3rd defendants in the arbitration proceedings, are in control and management of WWIL, .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X