Whether amended S 36 of arbitration Act will be applicable to application U/S 34 on date of commencement of amendment Act?
In Narhari Shivram Shet Narvekar v. Pannalal Umediram (1976) 3 SCC 203 at 207, this Court, following Lalji Raja (supra), held as follows: 73“8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant however submitted that since the Code of Civil Procedure was not applicable to Goa the decree became inexecutable and this being a vested right could not be taken away by the application of the Code of Civil Procedure to Goa during the pendency of the appeal before the Additional Judicial Commissioner. It seems to us that the right of the judgment debtor to pay up the decree passed against him cannot be said to be a vested right, nor can the question of executability of the decree be regarded as a substantive vested right of the judgment debtor. A fortiori the execution proceedings being purely a matter of procedure it is well settled that any change in law which is made during the pendency of the cause would be deemed to be retroactive in operation and the appellate court is bound to take notice of the change in law.” Since it is clear that execution of a decree pertains to the realm of procedure, and that there is no substantive vested right in a judgment debtor to resist execution, Section 36, as substituted, would apply even to pending Section 34 applications on the date of commencement of the Amendment Act. REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL Nos.2879-2880 OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.19545-19546 of 2016) BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA V KOCHI CRICKET PVT. LTD. AND ETC. Dated: March 15, 2018.