9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (4) TMI 437X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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 re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X 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. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uade 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 By virtue of section 85 of the 1996 Act, the Arbitration Act, 1940 stands repealed.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 modifica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the 1996 Act, was subject-matter of controversy throughout. The learned Single Judge of the High Court held that the old Act governs the proceedings while the Division Bench of the High Court held that the proceedings are governed by the 1996 Act. If the old Act applied the respondent would have had to make an application for making the award rule of the Court and a decree being passed in terms thereof. When such an application would have been made, the appellant would have got an opportunity to file objections against the award. It is the Division Bench of the High Court which took the view that the 1996 Act applied in the facts of the case. Against the said view of the Division Bench of the High Court this Court entertained the present ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
