Prospective arbitration amendment and no automatic stay under substituted enforcement provision for pending challenge proceedings.

Section 26 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 was construed as a prospective savings provision: the first part applies the amended regime to arbitral proceedings commenced on or after the amendment, while the second part governs court proceedings in relation to such later-commenced arbitrations. The substituted Section 36 was treated as procedural and execution-oriented, so it applies to pending Section 34 challenges and removes the earlier automatic stay of enforcement. Filing a Section 34 application therefore does not by itself make the award unenforceable; any stay must be specifically granted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Section 26 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 applies prospectively only to arbitral proceedings commenced on or after the amendment and to court proceedings commenced on or after the amendment. (ii) Whether substituted Section 36 applies to pending Section 34 applications and removes the earlier automatic stay of enforcement.

Issue (i): Whether Section 26 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 applies prospectively only to arbitral proceedings commenced on or after the amendment and to court proceedings commenced on or after the amendment.

Analysis: Section 26 was read as a two-part provision separated by the word "but". The first part refers to arbitral proceedings commenced before the amendment with reference to Section 21 of the principal Act and uses the expression "to". The second part uses the broader expression "in relation to" and omits any reference to Section 21. On that construction, the first part governs arbitral proceedings before the tribunal, while the second part governs court proceedings in relation to arbitral proceedings commenced on or after the amendment. The provision was treated as a special repeal and savings clause that evinces a contrary intention, excluding general resort to Section 6 of the General Clauses Act.

Conclusion: Section 26 is prospective in operation and applies to arbitral proceedings and connected court proceedings only in the manner stated above.

Issue (ii): Whether substituted Section 36 applies to pending Section 34 applications and removes the earlier automatic stay of enforcement.

Analysis: Enforcement under Section 36 was held to mean execution of the award as if it were a decree under the Code of Civil Procedure. Execution was characterised as procedural, and no vested right was recognised in a judgment debtor to resist execution merely because a Section 34 challenge was pending. The amended provision was therefore held to govern pending Section 34 proceedings as well, because the old automatic stay was only a clog on the decree-holder's right and not a substantive right of the award debtor. The amended scheme was also aligned with the object of reducing obstruction to enforcement of awards.

Conclusion: Substituted Section 36 applies to pending Section 34 applications and the filing of such applications does not by itself render the award unenforceable.

Final Conclusion: The amended arbitration regime was held applicable in the manner stated above, and the appeals failed. The judgment affirmed enforceability of awards without automatic stay in pending Section 34 matters.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 26 of the 2015 Amendment Act is a prospective repeal and savings provision that bifurcates arbitral proceedings and court proceedings, and substituted Section 36, being procedural and execution-oriented, applies to pending Section 34 challenges unless the Court grants stay.

---