TMI Blog1998 (4) TMI 558X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter to be referred to as the new Act ). For resolving this question, a few relevant facts will have to be mentioned at the outset. In SLPs (C) Nos. 1238-39 of 1997, according to the petitioner, the dispute was sought to be referred to arbitration by lodging a claim in that connection by the petitioner-contractor with the respondent-authorities on 6-3-1995 pursuant to the earlier demand dated 20-11-1994. A further letter in support of the earlier demand dated 6-3-1995 was also submitted on 29-5-1995 and thereafter an arbitration suit was filed in the High Court of Bombay on 24-8-1995 invoking the jurisdiction of the Court under Section 8 read with Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. So far as SLPs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, 1940. 3. In the light of the aforesaid factual data about the dates on which such claims were rejected the present question will have to be decided. The High Court in the impugned judgment has proceeded on the ground that the demands lodged under clause 63 of the Arbitration Agreement, were premature. We are not concerned with that controversy at this stage. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of that ground we proceed to decide this short question whether the new Act applies or the old Act applies on the facts of the present proceedings. The answer to this question is found from Section 85 of the new Act which reads as under: 85. Repeal and savings.--(1) The Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act, 1937 (6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s by the petitioner for referring the disputes for arbitration were moved for consideration of the respondents on and after 26-1-1996 or prior thereto. If such requests were made prior to that date, then on a conjoint reading of Section 21 and Section 85(2)(a) of the new Act, it must be held that these proceedings will be governed by the old Act. As seen from the affronted factual matrix, it at once becomes obvious that the demand for referring the disputes for arbitration was made by the petitioners in all these cases months before 26-1-1996, in March and April 1995 and in fact thereafter all the four arbitration suits were filed on 24-8-1995. These suits were obviously filed prior to 26-1-1996 and hence they had to be decided under the ol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
