Saving clause preserves pending execution proceedings; statutory sale remedies must be used, and vague mala fides cannot justify remand.

Pending execution proceedings were saved by the repealing-and-saving clause and continued under the earlier statutory regime, because "legal proceeding" was read in a wide sense and the new arbitration and execution scheme did not displace proceedings already pending. Challenge to the sale on alleged irregularity had to be pursued through the specific statutory remedy for setting aside the sale within the prescribed time and on proof of substantial injury; vague allegations of mala fides were insufficient. Remand was therefore refused, the auction sale was upheld, and the judgment under challenge was set aside with directions to refund the excess amount with interest to the borrower.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether execution proceedings initiated under the repealed 1984 Act and pending before the authorities at the commencement of the 2002 Act continued by virtue of the saving clause, or whether they had to be taken forward only under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; (ii) whether the writ petition could be remitted for consideration of the remaining grounds relating to alleged irregularity in sale and mala fides.

Issue (i): Whether execution proceedings initiated under the repealed 1984 Act and pending before the authorities at the commencement of the 2002 Act continued by virtue of the saving clause, or whether they had to be taken forward only under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Analysis: The earlier Act provided for adjudication under Sections 74 and 76 and execution under Section 85, including attachment and sale. The later Act introduced a different scheme under Section 84, with arbitration governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and separate execution provisions under Section 94. However, the saving clause in Section 126(6) expressly preserved legal proceedings pending at the commencement of the new Act, requiring them to continue as if the new Act had not been passed. A pending execution proceeding is within the expression "legal proceeding", and that expression is of wide import.

Conclusion: The pending execution proceedings survived the repeal and were not required to be converted into proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition could be remitted for consideration of the remaining grounds relating to alleged irregularity in sale and mala fides.

Analysis: The challenge based on irregularity in sale was one that had to be pursued through the specific remedies under the sale rules, including the remedy to set aside the sale within the prescribed time and on proof of substantial injury. The plea of mala fides was found to be vague and unsupported by particulars. The request for remand would have bypassed the statutory mechanism and was not justified on the facts.

Conclusion: Remand was refused and the remaining grounds were not sent back for fresh consideration.

Final Conclusion: The impugned judgment was set aside, the auction sale was upheld, and the bank was directed to pay the excess amount with interest to the borrower.

Ratio Decidendi: A pending execution proceeding saved by an express repealing-and-saving provision continues under the earlier statutory regime, and writ relief cannot be used to bypass the specific statutory remedies governing challenge to a sale.

---