https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194025 Section 26 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 was treated as exhaustive, because its wording deliberately distinguished proceedings before the arbitral tribunal from post-award court proceedings; Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 therefore did not preserve a contrary position for pending post-award matters. The amended Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was held to apply to Section 34 petitions filed before 23 October 2015 and still pending on that date, since the old automatic stay on enforcement was only a procedural advantage and not a vested right. The right to challenge an award under Section 34 remained unaffected, but the earlier suspension of execution did not survive the amendment. en-us Mon, 08 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 26 Aug 2017 10:20:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194025 Section 26 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 was treated as exhaustive, because its wording deliberately distinguished proceedings before the arbitral tribunal from post-award court proceedings; Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 therefore did not preserve a contrary position for pending post-award matters. The amended Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was held to apply to Section 34 petitions filed before 23 October 2015 and still pending on that date, since the old automatic stay on enforcement was only a procedural advantage and not a vested right. The right to challenge an award under Section 34 remained unaffected, but the earlier suspension of execution did not survive the amendment. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 08 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194025