https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459509 Section 36 enforcement of an arbitral award was treated as a proceeding under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, not as a proceeding under the Code of Civil Procedure, because the "as if it were a decree" fiction was confined to the mode of enforcement. The Court held that the 1996 Act is a self-contained arbitration code and that its limited appeal structure under section 37 impliedly excludes clause 15 of the Bombay Letters Patent, so no Letters Patent Appeal lies. The Supreme Court's decision in Fuerst Day Lawson was held to govern maintainability for domestic awards as well, rejecting any Part I and Part II distinction for this purpose. en-us Mon, 17 Oct 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Dec 2024 17:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459509 Section 36 enforcement of an arbitral award was treated as a proceeding under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, not as a proceeding under the Code of Civil Procedure, because the "as if it were a decree" fiction was confined to the mode of enforcement. The Court held that the 1996 Act is a self-contained arbitration code and that its limited appeal structure under section 37 impliedly excludes clause 15 of the Bombay Letters Patent, so no Letters Patent Appeal lies. The Supreme Court's decision in Fuerst Day Lawson was held to govern maintainability for domestic awards as well, rejecting any Part I and Part II distinction for this purpose. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 17 Oct 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459509