G.S.PATEL, J. - (1.) A. Introduction: This order will dispose of several Chamber Summonses. I will set out the various arrays of parties in each, but they are broadly divisible in two groups: one group seeks a dismissal of execution applications, and the second group seeks orders in execution.
(2.) This judgment itself falls in two parts or sections. The first part deals with an interpretation of Section 26 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act 2015. Here, the question specifically is this: one of the parties to the arbitration in question has challenged the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("the Arbitration Act"). That petition was filed after the effective date of the amending Act, 23rd October 2015. No separate application for stay of the award is made. The petitioner in the challenge petition says the filing of that petition is a continuation of the arbitral proceedings that commenced before the amending act came into force; the provisions of the Arbitration Act before the amendment will apply; and this means that the mere filing of the challenge petition results in an automatic stay of the award. Hence the Chamber Summonses for dismissal of the execution applications.
(3.) The second part deals with the opposition to the Chamber Summonses in execution, and here the submission is that, in addition to the case on 'automatic stay', the execution application is itself maintainable because the award is executable at the instance of the party who has put it into execution. B. Array Of Parties ;