Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

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