Without Partition By Metes And Bounds, Co-Sharer Cannot Seek Recovery Of Possession: Supreme Court Clarifies Limits Of Order VII Rule 7 CPC Supreme Court Holds Plaintiff Entitled To Declaration Of Title Over Undivided Half Share Despite Claiming Entire Property Under Gift Deed Supreme Court Reaffirms Legality Of Remainder Of Natural Life Sentences Without Remission, Dismisses Batch Of Writ Petitions 'State Cannot Take Advantage Of Its Own Wrong': Supreme Court Holds Promotees Entitled To Count Ad Hoc Service For Seniority If Within Quota 'Elevators Are Common Carriers, Entail Heightened Duty of Care': Supreme Court Upholds NCDRC Order Holding OTIS Principally Liable For Death Due To Malfunctioning Lift Supreme Court Dismisses Compensation Claim Under Motor Vehicles Act, Holds Reach Stacker Operating in Custom-Bonded ICD Area Is Not a "Motor Vehicle" Missing ACRs Due To Illegal Termination Cannot Block Higher Judicial Pay Scales: Supreme Court Grants Relief To Rajasthan Judicial Officer Subsequent Suit Generally Transferable To Court Where Earlier Suit On Same Subject Matter Is Pending: Allahabad High Court Successive Anticipatory Bail Maintainable Under BNSS If Fact Situation Changes Or Previous Findings Become Obsolete: Andhra Pradesh High Court Tenant's "Deemed Purchaser" Right Defeated By Retrospective Notification Under Section 88(1)(b) Of Tenancy Act: Bombay High Court Buyer Not Entitled To Refund Of Earnest Money Once Sale Deed Is Duly Executed Under The Agreement: Calcutta High Court Contradictory Pleas Vitiate Defence; Drawer Liable Even If Signed Blank Cheque Was Handed Over: Delhi High Court Working Mother's Relocation To Another City Not A Ground To Completely Deny Overnight Custody To Father: Karnataka High Court Civil Courts Barred From Granting Injunctions Against SARFAESI Actions Even If Partition Suit Is Maintainable: Kerala High Court S.147 NI Act Is A Special Law, Overrides S.320 CrPC; Offence Can Be Compounded At Any Stage Even After Dismissal Of Appeal: Madras High Court Appellate Court Can Allow Additional Evidence To Ensure Fair Adjudication Even If Not Produced In Trial: Madhya Pradesh High Court Police Can Freeze Bank Accounts Under Section 106 BNSS Upon Suspicion Of 'Proceeds Of Crime': Punjab & Haryana High Court

Arbitration and Conciliation Amendment Act, 2015, applies only to proceedings initiated after its enactment: Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


On 9 May 2023, the Supreme Court of India has clarified the applicability of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015, to proceedings initiated before its enactment. The court held 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, 2015, and to court proceedings which have commenced on or after the Amendment Act came into force.

The case concerned an application filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which dealt with the appointment of an arbitrator. The appellant argued that the Amendment Act, 2015, was applicable to the case, and that the High Court had committed an error by applying the provisions of the unamended Act.

The Supreme Court, however, rejected the appellant's arguments and held that the decision in the case of BCCI v. Kochi Cricket Pvt. Ltd., which held that the Amendment Act is prospective in nature insofar as the proceedings under sections 34 and 36 are concerned, does not apply to proceedings initiated under Section 11(6) of the Act.

The court also held that the decisions in the cases of Parmar Construction Company and Pradeep Vinod Construction Company, which held that the pre-amendment Act shall be applicable in cases where the notice invoking arbitration was issued prior to the Amendment Act, 2015, and the application under Section 11(6) was filed post amendment, were not per incuriam, as they were not in conflict with the decision in the case of BCCI.

Supreme Court clarified that the Amendment Act, 2015, is prospective in nature and shall only be applicable to arbitral proceedings that are commenced on or after its enactment, as understood by Section 21 of the principal Act. The court also held that the decisions in the cases of Parmar Construction Company and Pradeep Vinod Construction Company were not per incuriam and were in line with the decision in the case of BCCI.

D.D-9.May.2023

M/s. Shree Vishnu Constructions vs The Engineer in Chief Military Engineering Service & Ors.               

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/09-May-2023-SHREE-VISHNU-CONSTRUCTIONS-Vs-MES.pdf"]

Latest Legal News