(1.) This appeal arises from the judgment and order passed in the Arbitration Petition No.396 of 1998 on 21st December, 1999. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge has held that the arbitration proceedings comenced on 17th October, 1995 and, therefore, they ought to be governed by the provisions of Arbitration Act, 1940, besides there was no specific or express agreement between the parties that the provisions of the 1940 Act should not apply to the arbitration proceedings, nor there was any express agreement between the parties that the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 would apply to the arbitration proceedings, and hence the arbitration petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was not maintainable.
(2.) Drawing our attention to the award passed by the Arbitrator as well as the fact that the arbitral proceedings commenced from 25th March, 1996 and that there was no dispute between the parties that the proceedings were to be governed by the procedure under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the learned advocate for the appellants submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the petition solely on the ground that it was not maintainable under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and consequently also erred in observing that the award should be construed to have been declared under the Arbitration Act, 1940. The learned advocate appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the claim for appointment of Arbitrator was made under the letter dated 17th October, 1995, and considering the same, no fault can be found with the observations by the learned Single Judge that the proceedings ought to have been under the old Act.
(3.) The learned advocate appearing for the appellants has sought to rely upon the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Delhi Transport Corporation Ltd. v. Rose Advertising, reported in AIR 2003 SC 2523.