PERMOD KOHLI, J. - (1.) THE matter was taken up before Lunch break and Mr. K.K. Bansal, Advocate, who is counsel for the respondents was directed to inform the counsel for the petitioner Shri C.M. Sharma. It is stated at the bar that he has informed learned counsel for the petitioners, namely Shri C.M. Sharma. Even when the matter was taken up after the break, learned counsel for the petitioner has not turned up. The matter is head.
(2.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 20.5.2002 passed by the District Judge, Sangrur whereby the award dated 25.6.1998 has been found to be not executable. From the impugned order, it appears that the Award was passed by the sole Arbitrator. The executing of decree of the award was upheld during the execution. The objection raised by the respondents was that the Award passed should have been under the old Act, whereas the proceedings were initiated under the New Act. It is the admitted case of the parties that notice was issued on 21.1.1996 for reference of disputes to the Arbitrator. Thus Arbitration Proceedings were commenced prior to the coming into force of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 i.e. with effect from 26.1.1996. The Executing Court held that the proceedings initiated before the coming into force of the new Act are governed by old Act, and award passed under the new Act is not, legal and valid, hence in executable. I have perused the judgment impugned and I do not find any infirmity in the order under revision. Petition is rejected and impugned order is upheld. Petition dismissed.;