Need Tally
for Clients?

Contact Us! Here

  Tally Auditor

License (Renewal)
  Tally Gold

License Renewal

  Tally Silver

License Renewal
  Tally Silver

New Licence
  Tally Gold

New Licence
 
Open DEMAT Account with in 24 Hrs and start investing now!
« From the Courts »
Open DEMAT Account in 24 hrs
 Inordinate delay in income tax appeal hearings
 Income Tax leviable on Tuition Fee in the Year of Rendering of Services: ITAT
 Supreme Court invoked its power under Article 142 of Constitution to validate notices issued under section 148 as notices issued under section 148A. However the same shall be subject to amended provisions of section 149.
 ITAT refuses to stay tax demand on former owner of Raw Pressery brand
 Bombay HC sets aside rejection of refund claims by GST authorities
 [Income Tax Act] Faceless Assessment Scheme does not take away right to personal hearing: Delhi High Court
 Rajasthan High Court directs GST Authority to Unblock Input Tax Credit availed in Electronic Credit Ledger
 Sebi-taxman fight over service tax dues reaches Supreme Court
 Delhi High Court Seeks Status Report from Centre for Appointments of Chairperson & Members in Adjudicating Authority Under PMLA
 Delhi High Court allows Income Tax Exemption to Charitable Society running Printing Press and uses Profit so generated for Charitable Purposes
 ITAT accepts Lease Income as Business Income as Business Investments were mostly in nature of Properties

Delhi High Court interprets applicability of amendments to Arbitration Act
January, 16th 2017

The changes made in 2015 to the Arbitration Act, under which there is no automatic stay on an award being challenged, would not apply if they affect enforceability of an award in proceedings which commenced before the amendment came into effect on October 23, 2015, the Delhi High Court has said.

A bench of justices Badar Durrez Ahmed and Ashutosh Kumar noted that the right to have an award enforced or not is an accrued right and if the amendment is applied to arbitral proceedings held under the unamended provisions, then it would impinge upon the accrued right of the party against whom the award is given.

"Since an accrued right is affected, unless a contrary intention appears in the amending statute, the amendments would have to be treated as prospective in operation. Prospective from the standpoint of commencement of the arbitral proceedings," the court said.

The court's ruling came on a plea by Ardee Infrastructure Pvt Ltd against a single judge's decision to apply the amended sections 34 (application for setting aside arbitral award) and 36 (enforcement of arbitral award) of the Arbitration Act and directing it to deposit Rs 2.7 crore failing which its petition challenging an arbitral award would be dismissed.

The amendments were introduced with retrospective effect from October 23, 2015, and as per the amended provisions when an application to set aside an arbitral award is filed under section 34 before a court, the filing of such an application would not by itself render the award non-enforceable unless the court granted an order of stay on a separate application made for that purpose, the court said.

The amended provisions also allowed the court to impose conditions, as it may deem fit, on the petitioner who seeks stay of the award.

The bench said in the instant case, the amendments would not apply as it would affect the accrued right of Ardee to challenge enforceability of the arbitral award.

Ardee had contended that in its case as the arbitral award was given prior to October 23, 2015, therefore, the unamended provisions of the Act would apply and it would be entitled to automatic stay.

The other side comprising certain individuals had argued that amended provisions would apply and, therefore, there would be no question of any automatic stay.

The bench observed that section 26 of the amendment Act which amended sections 34 and 36 of the Arbitration Act "is silent on those categories of cases where the arbitral proceedings commenced prior to October 23, 2015 and where even the award was made prior to October 23, 2015, but where either a petition under section 34 was under contemplation or was already pending on that date".

It said that in such eventuality, "the amended provisions pertaining to those categories would apply only if they were merely procedural and did not affect any accrued right. In the facts of the present case, the amendment to sections 34 and 36, which pertain to the enforceability of an award, certainly affect the accrued rights of the parties".

"As a result, the petitions filed by the appellants under section 34 of the said Act would have to be considered under the unamended provisions of the said Act and consequently, the appellants would be entitled to automatic stay of enforcement of the award till the disposal of the said petitions," the court said and set aside the single judge's order directing Ardee to deposit Rs 2.7 crore.

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2024 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Ritz Consulting