Statutory re-enactment in arbitration clauses brings pending disputes under the 1996 Act, with old-act objections treated as section 34 challenges.

Where an arbitration clause applies the Arbitration Act, 1940 or any statutory modification or re-enactment, the later Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 governs pending arbitral proceedings and the challenge to the award once the new Act comes into force. Objections under sections 30 and 33 of the repealed 1940 Act could not survive as a separate statutory remedy, because the challenge had to be pursued under the 1996 Act. To avoid denial of substantive justice, the Court treated the objections as an application under section 34 of the 1996 Act and directed that they be placed in the execution file. The petition under the 1940 Act was held not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 applied to the arbitral proceedings and to the challenge against the award, and whether the petition filed under the Arbitration Act, 1940 was maintainable; whether objections filed under the 1940 Act could be treated as an application under section 34 of the 1996 Act.

Analysis: The arbitration clause provided that the Arbitration Act, 1940 or any statutory modification or re-enactment thereof and the rules then in force would apply. Read with the Supreme Court's construction of similar wording, the clause was held to encompass the later enactment once the 1996 Act came into force. The earlier proceedings and the later award did not preserve a separate right to proceed indefinitely under the repealed Act, and the saving provision of the 1996 Act was applied to hold that the later regime governed the dispute. In consequence, objections founded on sections 30 and 33 of the 1940 Act could not survive as such, though they represented a challenge to the award on merits. To avoid denial of substantive justice, the Court treated those objections as having been moved under section 34 of the 1996 Act and directed their placement in the execution file.

Conclusion: The petition under the Arbitration Act, 1940 was held to be not maintainable and was dismissed, and the objections were treated as a section 34 challenge under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Final Conclusion: The dispute was held to be governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, while the challenge wrongly brought under the 1940 Act failed and the surviving objections were redirected into the correct statutory framework.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the arbitration clause contemplates statutory modification or re-enactment, the successor arbitration statute governs pending arbitral proceedings and the award challenge must be pursued under the new Act rather than the repealed one.

---