TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Arbitrator's Jurisdiction Lacked on Act Commencement Date: Interpretation of Section 41A(7)</h1> <h3>B.N. AGARWALLA Versus STATE OF ORISSA</h3> B.N. AGARWALLA Versus STATE OF ORISSA - 1996 AIR 385, 1995 (4) Suppl. SCR 390, 1995 (6) SCC 509, 1995 (7) JT 454, 1995 (6) SCALE 54 Issues:- Applicability of Section 41A(7) of the Arbitration (Orissa Amendment) Act, 1982 to a pending arbitration proceeding where an award was made on the same day the Act came into force.Analysis:The judgment revolves around the interpretation of Section 41A(7) of the Arbitration (Orissa Amendment) Act, 1982, which deals with the automatic transfer of pending arbitration proceedings to the Arbitration Tribunal. The key issue is whether an arbitration proceeding, in which an award was made on the same day the Act came into force, falls under the purview of the said provision.The Arbitration (Orissa Amendment) Act, 1982 introduced Section 41A, which mandated the transfer of certain arbitration proceedings involving government entities to the Arbitration Tribunal. The crux of the matter lies in determining the meaning of the expression 'by the said date' in sub-section (7) of Section 41A.The appellant argued that since the award was made on the day the Act came into force, the arbitration proceeding was not pending before the arbitrator and, therefore, not subject to transfer. Conversely, the respondent contended that the Act's objective was to transfer such cases to the Arbitration Tribunal, preventing arbitrators from making awards post the Act's commencement.The Court analyzed the legislative intent behind the provision and concluded that the expression 'by the said date' refers to awards made before the Act's commencement. The word 'by' was interpreted to mean 'before a certain time,' implying that awards made on the commencement date were not valid. This interpretation aligned with the Act's purpose of transferring pending cases to the Tribunal for resolution.Several legal precedents were cited to support the interpretation of the term 'by' in the context of statutory provisions. The Court emphasized that the context of the provision in question necessitated interpreting 'by' as 'before,' ensuring consistency and adherence to the legislative intent.Ultimately, the Court upheld the High Court's decision, ruling that the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to make an award on the day the Act came into force. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the automatic transfer of the arbitration proceeding to the Arbitration Tribunal as per Section 41A(7) of the Act.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
