2017 (2) TMI 1376

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l appearing for all the parties afresh. 2. The facts are these: The appellant purchased a motor vehicle. For that, a loan of Rs. 4,68,000/- was availed of. The first respondent was the financier. The motor vehicle was hypothecated to the financier. A loan cum hypothecation agreement was executed in favour of the first respondent by the appellant and the second respondent. The loan was to be repaid in installments, but defaulted. The first respondent repossessed the motor vehicle and sold it for Rs. 2,01,000/-. The arbitration clause in the hypothecation agreement was invoked. The arbitrator by his award fixed the liability of the appellant and the second respondent at Rs. 3,22,730/-. 3. The appellant filed an application to set aside ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd recalled it. We happened to dismiss the appeal since we did not notice S. 26 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 (for short Act 3 of 2016). S. 26 was not brought to our notice. 6. The Act was originally amended by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015. The Ordinance was promulgated on 23.10.2015. It was later replaced by Act 3 of 2016. Various provisions of the Act were amended and certain new provisions were introduced by Act 3 of 2016 with retrospective effect from 23.10.2015 (the date of promulgation of the Ordinance). Sub-s. (5) of S. 34 of the Act was one of the provisions inserted by Act 3 of 2016 with retrospective effect from 23.10.2015. Should the requirements in S. 34(5) of the Ac....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....re 23.10.2015 and the parties did not agree otherwise. Therefore S. 34(5) of the Act has no application to the present case. The requirements therein need not to be complied with by the appellant to apply under S. 34(1). We hold so and set aside the order of the learned District Judge. 9. Sub-section (2-A) of S. 34 of the Act was also introduced by Act 3 of 2016. Sub-section (2-A) runs as follows: An arbitral award arising out of arbitrations other than international commercial arbitrations, may also be set aside by the Court, if the Court finds that the award is vitiated by patent illegality appearing on the face of the award: An additional ground to get an arbitration award set aside is provided by sub-s. (2-A). The l....