Calcutta High Court
Sri Nitya Ranjan Jena vs Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd on 2 March, 2016
Author: Biswanath Somadder
Bench: Biswanath Somadder
ORDER SHEET
G.A. No. 145 of 2016
With
A.P. No. 15 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SIDE
SRI NITYA RANJAN JENA
Versus
TATA CAPITAL FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE BISWANATH SOMADDER
Date: 2nd March, 2016.
Appearance:
Mr. Biswanath Mitra, Adv.
Ms. Sujata Mitra, Adv.
Mr. S.K. Das Roy, Adv.
... for the petitioner
Mr. Swatarup Banerjee, Adv.
... for the respondent no.1
The Court: Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and upon perusing the instant application, it appears that the applicant is seeking an order for stay of operation of the arbitral award dated 25th July, 2014 passed by the sole Arbitrator until disposal of his application filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
According to the learned advocate for the applicant, the reason for filing the instant application is due to a new section 36 being introduced by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015, upon substitution of the earlier section 36.
On the other hand, learned advocate representing the respondent no.1 submits that it would, perhaps, be unnecessary for the applicant to seek a stay of operation of the arbitral award dated 25th July, 2014, by filing a separate application under the new section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in view of a 2 newly added provision which has been introduced as section 26 by virtue of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015.
Having considered the respective submissions advanced by the parties and upon perusing the substituted section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which has been introduced by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015, it appears that this provision has no manner of application at all in view of the specific provision as contained under section 26 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015. The said section is reproduced hereinbelow:
"26. Act not to apply to pending arbitral proceedings Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the arbitral proceedings commenced, in accordance with the provisions of section 21 of the principal Act, before the commencement of this Act unless the parties otherwise agree but this Act shall apply in relation to arbitral proceedings commenced on or after the date of commencement of this Act."
Considering the fact that the arbitral proceedings, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, commenced before the Amendment Act of 2015 came into operation i.e. on 23rd October, 2015, it was, perhaps, not necessary for the applicant to take out the instant application, as rightly pointed out by the learned advocate representing the respondent no.1.
For reasons stated above, no order is required to be passed in the instant application, which is disposed of in terms of the observation made hereinabove.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities.
(BISWANATH SOMADDER, J.) sg2