AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Notice which is confined to the first two respondents. Mr. Su. Srinivasan, learned Assistant Solicitor General accepts notice for the first respondent. The second respondent be served through private service.
Counter-affidavit be filed by the first respondent within six weeks. Rejoinder, if any be filed within two weeks thereafter.
Counter-affidavit of the second respondent, if any, be filed within three weeks of the service of notice. Rejoinder, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter.
The first respondent, while filing the counter-affidavit, especially since the matter is at the Ordinance stage, must examine the issue of pending arbitration proceedings, as the provision in question apparently is not one which was recommended by the Law Commission in this form. There would be huge litigations unnecessarily generated in respect of the pending arbitrations and the provision being procedural in nature fixing the time limit, it can be clarified that it would be either not applicable to the pending arbitrations or if it is applicable to the pending arbitrations, the time period specified therein would commence from the date of the Ordinance, to obviate such unnecessary litigations.
In the aforesaid context, the learned counsel for the petitioners further points out that another issue which has given rise to considerable litigation already is the non-introduction of the proposed Section 85A by the Law Commission, which dealt with the aspect as to which provision would apply prospectively and which would apply retrospectively.
It may also be clarified whether prior to the issuance of the Ordinance, the opinion of the Law Commission was obtained qua the introduction of Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 1996 and if so, what was the opinion.
List for directions on 25.01.2016.