Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka High Court Limitation | 1,142 Days of Silence: Orissa High Court Rejects Litigant's Claim That His Lawyer Never Called SC/ST Act's Bar on Anticipatory Bail Does Not Apply When Complaint Fails to Make Out Prima Facie Case: Karnataka High Court Oral Agreement for Sale Cannot Be Dismissed for Want of Stamp or Registration: Calcutta High Court Upholds Injunction Finance Company's Own Legal Manager Cannot Appoint Arbitrator — Award Passed by Such Arbitrator Is Non-Est and Inexecutable: Andhra Pradesh High Court District Court Cannot Remand Charity Commissioner's Order: Bombay High Court Division Bench Settles Conflicting Views Framing "Points For Determination" Not Always Mandatory For First Appellate Courts: Allahabad High Court Delhi HC Finds Rape Conviction Cannot Stand On Testimony Where Victim Showed 'Unnatural Concern' For Her Alleged Attacker Limitation in Partition Suit Cannot Be Decided Without Evidence: Karnataka High Court Cheque Dishonour Accused Can Probabilise Defence Without Entering Witness Box — Through Cross-Examination And Marked Documents Alone: Madras High Court Contributory Negligence | No Driving Licence and Three on a Motorcycle Cannot Mean the Victim Caused the Accident: Rajasthan High Court LL.B Degree Cannot Be Ground to Deny Maintenance to Divorced Wife: Gujarat High Court Dried Leaves and Branches Are Not 'Ganja': Delhi High Court Grants Bail Under NDPS Act Family Court Judge Secretly Compared Handwriting Without Telling Wife, Then Punished Her Hesitation: Delhi High Court Quashes Divorce Decree Co-Owner Can Sell Undivided Share in Joint Property Without Consent of Other Co-owners — Sale Deed Valid to Extent of Transferor's Share: Orissa High Court Mandatory Safeguards of Section 42 NDPS Cannot Be Bypassed — Even When 1329 Kg of Hashish Is Seized: Gujarat High Court Affirms Acquittal

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