( 1 ) THE question which falls for determination in this case is as to whether the provisions of Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the old Act, for short) or that of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the new Act, for short) would be applicable in respect of award dated 11th February, 1998 made and published by respondent No. 2 as sole Arbitrator. While the reference to Arbitrator was made by Order dated 20th February, 1995, when the old Act was in operation, hearings also started at that time but continued even after the new Act came into force (initially as Ordinance w. e. f. 25th January, 19% and thereafter as an Act w. e. f. 16th August, 1996 ). The award was given on 11th February, 1998 when the New Act was in force. Relevant dates for appreciating the controversy may be noted first:- 20. 2. 1995 Reference made to the Arbitrator. 25. 1. 1996 Ordinance promulgated (which became New Act.) 16. 8. 1996 New Act came into force. 28. 11. 1996 Last hearing held by the Arbitrator. 11. 2. 1998 Award made and published by the Arbitrator. 16. 3. 1998 Application u/ss. 14 and 17 under the Old Act filed by the petitioner. 7. 10. 1999 -Judgment in the case of Thyseen reported in 1999 (9) SCC 334 pronounced by the Supreme Court which has bearing on this aspect. 12. 9. 2000 Execution petition No. 197/2000 filed by the petitioner seeking to enforce the award under Section 36 of the New Act.

( 2 ) THUS, when the award was given it is the petitioner who in the first instance filed application under Sections 14 and 17 of the old Act seeking a direction to the Arbitrator to file the award and for making this award rule of the Court. On this application Order was passed directing the Arbitrator to Tile the award and proceedings. When the same were filed the notice thereof was given to both the parlies and the respondent-DDA filed objections to the award under Sections 30 and 33 of the Old Act by means of IA. 1139/2001.

( 3 ) HOWEVER, after the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Thyseen Stahlunion GMBH v. Steel Authority of India, (1999) 9 SCC 334 petitioner now contends that the award would be governed by the New Act and on that basis the submission of the petitioner is that present proceedings are not maintainable. Consequently, objections of the respondent-DDA filed under the old Act are also of no consequence. It was required by DDA to challenge the award by filing petition under Section 34 of the New Act within three months from the receipt of the copy of the award from the Arbitrator. Having not done so the award has become enforceable on the expiry of the aforesaid period of three months and that is the raison-d -eter for the petitioner to file petition under Section 36 of the New Act for enforcement of the award.

( 4 ) ON the other hand, DDA maintains that the instant award would be governed by the provisions of the old Act and therefore objections filed by the DDA are competent and proper which should be examined and decided on merits. Arguments in this case were heard on 26th July, 2001. After oral submission were made by both the parties, judgment was reserved. However, counsel for both the parties took leave of the Court to file written statement and two weeks time for this purpose as prayed for by them was granted. While the petitioner has submitted its written synopsis on 10th august, 2001, no such written submission are filed by the DDA even when further two weeks have passed. Therefore, I proceed with the Order taking into consideration the oral submissions made by both the parties.

( 5 ) IT is a common case of the parlies that law on this point has now been clarified by the Supreme Court in the case of Thyseen (supra ). Therefore, the only exercise which is needed is to find out as to what Thyseen (supra) decides. Before looking into this case, it would be appropriate to reproduce the provisions of Sections 21 and 85 of the New Act which were considered by the S