https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307882 Where arbitral proceedings had commenced before the 2015 amendment and the award was made before 23.10.2015, the amended Sections 34 and 36 did not apply to later Section 34 petitions because retrospective application would affect accrued rights under the unamended regime. The court held that such challenges remain governed by the pre-amendment law, avoiding an artificial split between arbitral and court proceedings. Under the unamended Sections 34 and 36, filing and pendency of a Section 34 petition continued to suspend enforcement of the award until disposal, so a separate stay application was not required. en-us Fri, 06 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 14 May 2023 12:55:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307882 Where arbitral proceedings had commenced before the 2015 amendment and the award was made before 23.10.2015, the amended Sections 34 and 36 did not apply to later Section 34 petitions because retrospective application would affect accrued rights under the unamended regime. The court held that such challenges remain governed by the pre-amendment law, avoiding an artificial split between arbitral and court proceedings. Under the unamended Sections 34 and 36, filing and pendency of a Section 34 petition continued to suspend enforcement of the award until disposal, so a separate stay application was not required. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 06 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307882