Change of forum in foreign award enforcement did not oust District Court jurisdiction in pending execution proceedings.

Amendment to the Explanation to Section 47 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 changing the enforcement forum for foreign awards from the District Court to the High Court did not divest the District Court of jurisdiction in pending execution proceedings. The governing principle applied was that a change of forum does not affect proceedings already instituted unless the legislature clearly provides otherwise, and an existing forum is ordinarily preserved by vested right until displaced by express words or necessary implication. As the amendment contained no transfer, return, or abatement provision for pending matters, the District Court retained jurisdiction and dismissal of the execution application for want of jurisdiction was held illegal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the amendment to the Explanation to Section 47 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 changing the forum for enforcement of a foreign award from the District Court to the High Court deprived the District Court of jurisdiction in pending execution proceedings.

Analysis: The applicable legal principle is that a change in forum does not affect pending proceedings unless the legislature clearly indicates otherwise. A vested right in the existing forum ordinarily continues after initiation of proceedings, and such a right is displaced only by express words or necessary implication. The amended Explanation to Section 47 did not contain any provision requiring pending execution proceedings to be transferred or returned from the District Court to the High Court, and no indication was found that pending matters were meant to abate or be recommenced in the new forum. The reliance placed on the cited Supreme Court decision was accepted as governing the issue, while the other relied upon decision was found inapplicable on its facts.

Conclusion: The amendment did not divest the District Court of jurisdiction over the pending enforcement application, and the dismissal of the execution application for want of jurisdiction was illegal. The writ petition was allowed and the impugned order was set aside.

---