Supreme Court Clarifies Applicability of Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015

The Supreme Court of India, in its landmark judgment in the case of Board of Control for Cricket in India vs. Kochi Cricket Pvt. Ltd. and Others, resolved a long-standing legal question concerning the retrospective or prospective applicability of amendments made to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, through the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015. The Court ruled that the amendments to Section 36 of the Act, which deal with the automatic stay of arbitral awards during challenge proceedings, would apply retrospectively to court proceedings even if the arbitration itself had commenced before the amendment came into effect.

This ruling significantly impacts arbitration enforcement in India by eliminating the automatic stay that previously came into effect when an award was challenged. It reinforces India’s commitment to making arbitration proceedings more effective and reducing judicial interference.

Background of the Case

The dispute arose from multiple arbitration proceedings involving the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and its contractual obligations related to the Indian Premier League (IPL). Various arbitral awards were passed against BCCI, and it challenged these awards under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The key legal question before the Court was whether the amendments introduced by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015, applied to pending proceedings or only to fresh arbitration proceedings initiated after the amendment came into effect.

Legal Issues Examined

1. Retrospective or Prospective Application of the 2015 Amendment

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was the interpretation of Section 26 of the 2015 Amendment Act, which reads:

“Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to 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. However, the provisions of this Act shall apply in relation to arbitral proceedings commenced on or after the date of commencement of this Act.”

The Court had to determine whether the amended Section 36, which eliminated the automatic stay on execution of arbitral awards during challenge proceedings under Section 34, would apply to cases where arbitration had already commenced before the 2015 amendment.

2. Effect of Amendment on Section 36 (Enforcement of Awards)

Before the amendment, once an award was challenged under Section 34, there was an automatic stay on its execution. The amended Section 36 removed this automatic stay, requiring parties to seek a stay from the court with justifiable reasons.

3. Legislative Intent Behind the Amendment

The Court analyzed the legislative intent behind the 2015 amendment, which aimed to enhance the efficiency of arbitration and reduce judicial delays. The amendment was introduced to align India’s arbitration framework with international best practices and to promote ease of doing business.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners’ (BCCI’s) Arguments

• The amendments should apply prospectively, meaning they should not affect pending arbitration-related court proceedings.
• Since the arbitration proceedings had commenced before the amendment, the old provisions should continue to govern the case.
• The parties had entered into arbitration agreements based on the pre-amended law, and retrospective application of the amendments would unfairly alter their rights.

Respondents’ (Kochi Cricket Pvt. Ltd. & Others) Arguments

• The amendment was procedural in nature, not substantive, and procedural amendments apply retrospectively unless explicitly stated otherwise.
• The removal of the automatic stay on enforcement of arbitral awards was intended to ensure speedy execution and prevent delaying tactics.
• The amendment promotes the enforcement of arbitral awards, aligning with international arbitration standards and reducing judicial interference.

Supreme Court’s Observations

1. Interpretation of Section 26 of the Amendment Act

The Court ruled that Section 26 creates two distinct parts:

• The first part states that the amendment does not apply to arbitral proceedings commenced before the amendment unless parties agree otherwise.
• The second part states that the amendment applies “in relation to” arbitral proceedings commenced after the amendment.

The Court interpreted “arbitral proceedings” in the first part as referring only to proceedings before the arbitral tribunal, whereas the second part includes related court proceedings.

2. Procedural vs. Substantive Law

The Court distinguished between procedural and substantive law, ruling that procedural changes generally apply retrospectively. The amendment to Section 36 was deemed procedural because it affected the manner in which an award is enforced rather than the substantive rights of the parties.

3. Automatic Stay on Awards No Longer Valid

The Court held that the automatic stay provision under the old law was a procedural safeguard that did not create any vested right. Therefore, the amendment, which removed the automatic stay, applied to pending proceedings.

Final Judgment

• The Supreme Court ruled that the amendments to Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, apply to all pending court proceedings, even if arbitration commenced before the amendment.
• The Court dismissed the appeal filed by BCCI and upheld the execution of the arbitral awards.
• The Court emphasized that parties seeking a stay on enforcement must now justify it before the courts, rather than relying on an automatic stay.

Impact of the Judgment

• Faster Enforcement of Arbitration Awards: The ruling ensures that arbitral awards can no longer be stalled indefinitely through court challenges.
• Reduced Judicial Intervention: The decision aligns India’s arbitration framework with international standards by minimizing delays.
• Encouragement for Businesses to Use Arbitration: The ruling promotes arbitration as an effective dispute resolution mechanism.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Board of Control for Cricket in India vs. Kochi Cricket Pvt. Ltd. is a landmark ruling that reinforces India’s commitment to strengthening arbitration laws. By holding that the amendment to Section 36 applies to pending cases, the Court has ensured that parties cannot indefinitely delay enforcement of arbitral awards through frivolous litigation.

This ruling is expected to enhance the confidence of investors and businesses in India’s arbitration framework, reducing delays and making the dispute resolution process more efficient.

Petitioner Name: Board of Control for Cricket in India
Respondent Name: Kochi Cricket Pvt. Ltd. and Others
Judgment By: Justice R.F. Nariman, Justice Navin Sinha
Place Of Incident: India
Judgment Date: 15-03-2018

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Board of Control for vs Kochi Cricket Pvt. L Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 15-03-2018.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Arbitration Act
See all petitions in Dispute Resolution Mechanisms
See all petitions in Enforcement of Awards
See all petitions in Judgment by Rohinton Fali Nariman
See all petitions in Judgment by Navin Sinha
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments March 2018
See all petitions in 2018 judgments

See all posts in Arbitration and Alternate Dispute Resolution Category
See all allowed petitions in Arbitration and Alternate Dispute Resolution Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Arbitration and Alternate Dispute Resolution Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Arbitration and Alternate Dispute Resolution Category