Arbitration amendment applicability and section 34 notice requirements: pre-2015 proceedings stayed under the unamended Act, with notice treated as directory.

For arbitrations commenced by a notice invoking section 21 before 23 October 2015, the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 was held not to apply merely because the award or section 34 petition was filed later; the governing law remained the unamended Act because commencement of proceedings fixes the applicable regime and preserves the accrued right to challenge the award. Prior notice under section 34(5) was treated as directory, not mandatory, because it is procedural, contains no express consequence for breach, and permits waiver or substantial compliance. The preliminary objections were therefore rejected and the petitions proceeded under the pre-amendment framework.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 applies to proceedings where notice invoking arbitration was issued before 23 October 2015 but the award and section 34 petition were filed after that date; (ii) Whether prior notice under section 34(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is mandatory or directory.

Issue (i): Whether the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 applies to proceedings where notice invoking arbitration was issued before 23 October 2015 but the award and section 34 petition were filed after that date?

Analysis: The decisive date for applicability of the amendment is the receipt of the notice invoking arbitration under section 21, because that date marks the commencement of arbitral proceedings. Where such commencement occurred before 23 October 2015, the unamended Act governs the proceedings unless the parties otherwise agree. The filing date of the section 34 petition does not alter the applicable legal regime, and the amendment does not retrospectively divest the accrued right to challenge the award under the pre-amendment law.

Conclusion: The amendment did not apply to the petitions commenced by pre-23 October 2015 notices, and the petitioners remained governed by the unamended Act.

Issue (ii): Whether prior notice under section 34(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is mandatory or directory?

Analysis: Section 34(5) and section 34(6) were treated as procedural provisions intended to facilitate expeditious disposal. The Court found that neither provision prescribes a consequence for non-compliance, nor does section 34(5) specify the mode or contents of notice. In the absence of an express penal consequence, and in light of the Court's own procedural rules and the availability of waiver and substantial compliance, the provision was held not to be mandatory.

Conclusion: Prior notice under section 34(5) is directory, not mandatory, and non-issuance does not by itself render the section 34 petition non-maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The preliminary objections were rejected, and the petitions were held to proceed under the pre-amendment arbitration regime, with section 34(5) treated as procedural and directory.

Ratio Decidendi: For arbitration invoked before 23 October 2015, the applicable law is determined by the date of commencement under section 21, and a procedural notice requirement without an express consequence will ordinarily be construed as directory rather than as a bar to maintainability.

---