Delay in Test Identification & Absence of Motive Fatal to Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man for Murder Tokre Koli or Dhor Koli – Both Stand on Same Legal Footing: Bombay High Court Slams Scrutiny Committee for Disregarding Pre-Constitutional Records Consent Is No Defence When Victim Is Under 16: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Granting Pre-Arrest Bail in Minor Rape Cases Would Send a Harmful Societal Signal: Delhi High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail to Accused Citing POCSO’s Rigorous Standards Void Marriage No Shield Against Cruelty Charges: Karnataka High Court Affirms Section 498A Applies Even In Deceptive and Void Marital Relationships Consolidation Authorities Cannot Confer Ownership Or Alter Scheme Post Confirmation Without Due Process: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Jurisdiction Over Void Post-Scheme Orders Daughter’s Right Extinguished When Partition Effected Prior to 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Trial Courts Cannot Direct Filing of Challan After Conviction — Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Directions Against DSP Veer Singh Rule 4 Creates Parity, Not a Parallel Pension Pipeline: Rajasthan High Court Denies Dual Pension to Ex-Chief Justice Serving as SHRC Chairperson Right to Be Heard Must Be Preserved Where Claim Has a Legal Basis: Orissa High Court Upholds Impleadment of Will Beneficiary in Partition Suit Long-Term Ad Hocism Is Exploitation, Not Employment: Orissa High Court Orders Regularization Of Junior Typist After 25 Years Of Service PIL Cannot Be a Tool for Personal Grievances: Supreme Court Upholds Municipal Body’s Power to Revise Property Tax After 16 Years Omission of Accused’s Name by Eyewitness in FIR is a Fatal Lacuna: Supreme Court Acquits Man Convicted of Murder Correction In Revenue Map Under Section 30 Isn’t A Tool To Shift Plot Location After 17 Years: Supreme Court Quashes High Court’s Remand Casteist Abuses Must Be In Public View: Supreme Court Quashes SC/ST Act Proceedings Where Alleged Insults Occurred Inside Complainant’s House Resignation Bars Pension, But Not Gratuity: Supreme Court Draws Sharp Line Between Voluntary Retirement and Resignation in DTC Employee Case

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