2003 (4) TMI 437

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 1996 Act"). 2. Briefly the facts as gathered from the impugned judgment of the High Court are that the parties had entered into an agreement on 15-1-1993 regarding display of advertisements on the body of DTC buses. DTC is the Delhi Transport Corporation which runs the public road transport for commuters in the city and outskirts of Delhi. The agreement was for a period of 3 years commencing from 15-1-1993 up to 14-1-1996. The agreement contained an arbitration clause. Dispute and differences arose between the parties. A request was made by the contractor on 9-1-1995 for appointment of arbitrator to settle the disputes that had arisen between the parties. This was followed by another letter dated 26th November, 1995 containing similar req....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....section 85 of the 1996 Act, read with section 21 would lead to the conclusion that the old Act would continue to apply. Reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in Thyssen Stahlunion GMBH v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. AIR 1999 SC 3923. The contractor went in appeal against the said order of the learned Single Judge. The Division Bench noted in its judgment that the parties went for arbitration with clear understanding and belief that the proceedings were being conducted under the 1996 Act. It was noted that the appointment of arbitrator was made after the new Act had come into force and the parties participated in the arbitration proceeding with the understanding and belief that the proceedings are governed under the 1996 Act. I....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ade us to hold that the impugned judgment of the High Court was liable to be set aside. As per the facts noted above and the judgment of this Court in Thyssen Stahlunion GMBH's case (supra) we are unable to differ with the view taken by the High Court. By virtue of section 85 of the 1996 Act, the Arbitration Act, 1940 stands repealed. However, as noted earlier it is always open to the parties to agree as to which law will continue to govern their relationship. In the present case, clause 25 of the agreement is the arbitration clause. Sub-clause (d) of clause 25 has a bearing on the controversy in hand and therefore same is re-produced as under : "Subject to as aforesaid, the provision of the Arbitration Act, 1940 or any statutory modificat....