TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 1376X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -2-2017 - P.N. Ravindran and A.M. Babu, JJ. For the AppellantN : C.A. Anoop For the Respondents : Philip T. Varghese JUDGMENT A.M. Babu, J. 1. We once dismissed this same appeal. It was as per our judgment dated 16.11.2016. That judgment was reported 2017 (1) KLT SN 24 (C. No. 26), (2016 (5) KHC 835 : 2016 (4) KLJ 778, and ILR 2017 (1) Ker. 370). We reviewed and recalled the said judgment by order passed on 30.1.2017 (vide the order in R.P. No. 36 of 2017). We heard the learned counsel appearing for all the parties afresh. 2. The facts are these: The appellant purchased a motor vehicle. For that, a loan of ₹ 4,68,000/- was availed of. The first respondent was the financier. The motor vehicle was hypothecat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e our reasons for dismissing the appeal at paragraphs 5 and 6 of our judgment dated 16.11.2016. We said, procedural law would operate retrospectively. We also said that there would be no vested right in procedure. We concluded that the requirements in S. 34(5) should be complied with even in cases where the arbitration proceedings commenced before the date of incorporation of the said sub-section. That conclusion of ours was wrong. The dismissal of the appeal was liable to be reviewed. We therefore on 30.1.2017 reviewed and recalled it. We happened to dismiss the appeal since we did not notice S. 26 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 (for short Act 3 of 2016). S. 26 was not brought to our notice. 6. The Act was ori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the arbitral proceedings in respect of a particular dispute commence on the date on which a request for that dispute to be referred to arbitration is received by the respondent. Again, the parties to this case admittedly did not agree otherwise. We find from the impugned order that the arbitration award was passed on 29.8.2011. That means the arbitration proceedings commenced long before 23.10.2015. This is thus a case where the arbitration proceedings commenced before 23.10.2015 and the parties did not agree otherwise. Therefore S. 34(5) of the Act has no application to the present case. The requirements therein need not to be complied with by the appellant to apply under S. 34(1). We hold so and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
