LexDELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD. versus ROSE ADVERTISING
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD. V. ROSE ADVERTISING APRIL 17, 2003 [ M.B. SHAH AND ARUN KUMAR, JJ.] Arbitration Act, 1940/Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996- Applicability of-One of the parties filing application for enforcement of award C under 1996 Act-Other party taking plea that proceedings commenced under 1940 Act, thus 1940 Act would continue to govern the proceedings-Single Judge of High Court holding 1940 Act applicable-However, Division Bench holding 1996 Act applicable-Correc111ess of-Held: Parties agreeing to be governed by law as in force at the relevant time and Section 85(2) recognizing such agreement-Conduct of arbitration proceedings and participation of D parties showing that panies acted under 1996 Act-Hence order of Division Bench correct-Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996-Section 85(2). Appellant-Delhi Transport Corporation and respondent-contractor entered into an agreement. Agreement contained an arbitration clause. Dispute arose between the parties and arbitrator was appointed in 1996 in E terms of the agreement. Arbitrator conducted the arbitration proceedings and passed an award. Respondent filed an execution application under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for enforcement of award. Appellant challenged the application on the ground that the proceedings had commenced under the Arbitration Act, 1940 and the said Act would F continue to govern the proceedings. Single Judge of High Court held that 1940 Act continued to apply and dismissed the application. Aggrieved respondent filed an appeal. Division Bench allowed the appeal holding that 1996 Act would apply in view of the fact that the arbitrator was appointed after coming into force of the 1996 Act and the arbitration proceedings were conducted under the said Act; and also the parties had expressed their G intention in the arbitration proceedings to be governed by the 1996 Act. H Hence the present appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: I. By virtue of Section 85 of the Arbitration and Conciliation 678 r ·- - , D.T.C. LTD. v. ROSE ADVERTISING [ARUN KUMAR, J.] 679 Act, 1996, the Arbitration Act, 1940 stands repealed. In the instant case, A arbitration clause 25(d) of the agreement shows that the parties agreed to be governed by the law as in force at the relevant time. Section 85(2) of the 1996 Act recognizes such an agreement between the parties. The conduct of the arbitration proceedings and the participation of the parties therein shows that the parties acted upon under the 1996 Act. Even the B arbitrator proceeded on that understanding and gave his award in pursuance of the 1996 Act. Therefore, the impugned judgment of the High Court is unassailable. (681-E, G, HJ Thyssen Stahlunion GMBH v. Steel Authority of India Ltd., AIR (1999] SC 3923, relied on. C 2. The question whether time for making an application for setting aside an award can be extended will have to be decided as and when an application for that purpose is made. Then alone the stage for a judicial decision on the point will arise. Therefore, at this stage, the same is left open to be decided as and when occasion arises. (682-F] D CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 105 of 2002. From the Judgment and Order dated 2.2.2001 of the Delhi High Court in E.E.A. (OS) No. 3 of 2000. E Raju Ramachandran, Additional Solicitor General, Ms. A Subhashini for the Appellant. Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Ms. Mona Chhetri and Anshul Singal for the Respondent. F The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ARUN KUMAR, J. The main question for consideration in the present appeal is as to whether Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to "the old Act") would apply in the facts and circumstances of the case or the case will G have to be dealt with under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as " the 1996 Act"). 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 H 680 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] 3 S.C.R. A 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 upto 14.1.1996. The agreement contained an arbitration clause. Dispute and differences arose between the parti
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.