IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
HYSSEN STAHLUNION GMBH v. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD.
C.A. No. 6036 of 1998 with C.A. Nos. 4928 of 1997 and 61 of 1999 (Appeals from the judgment and order dated September 21, 1998, of the Delhi High Court in E.P. No. 47 of 1998), decided on October 7, 1999.
R. F. Nariman, R. P. Bhatt, S. G. Desai, Dipankar P. Gupta and A. K. Ganguli.
Others advocates :R. N. Karanjawala, Gourab Banerjee, Arvind Kumar, Ms. Seema Sapra, Ms. Suranya, Mrs. Manik Karanjawala, B. V. Desai, Siddharth Chowdhury, R. Rahim, Kailash Vasdev, Jaideep Gupta, Buddy A. Rangandhan, Ms. S. Madan, Krishnan Venugopal, R. Sasiprabhu, Manish Garg, Uday N. Tiwary, K. K. Lahiri, Ejaz Maqbool, B. K. Mishra and Subu Ranjan.
The judgment of the court was delivered by
D. P. WADHWA J. – The facts :
These three appeals raise three different questions relating to the construction and interpretation of section 85 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the “new Act” for short) which contains repeal and saving provision of the three Acts, namely, the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act, 1937, the Arbitration Act, 1940 (the ‘old Act” for short) the Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement) Act, 1961 (the “Foreign Awards Act” for short).
This section 85 of the new Act we reproduce at the outset
“85. Repeal and savings. – (1) The Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act, 1937 (6 of 1937), the Arbitration Act, 1940 (10 of 1940) and the Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement) Act, 1961 (45 of 1