BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

1. These appeals are taken up together as they arise out of the common order dated 31.05.2016 passed in, inter alia, OMP Nos. 7 & 8 of 2016 which were petitions under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act‘). Those petitions had been filed against an award dated 13.10.2015. The petitions were filed on 04.01.2016.

2. The appellants are aggrieved by the impugned order because the learned single Judge has directed the appellants to deposit a sum of Rs 2.70 crores without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties and subject to the deposit being made, it was directed that notice may be treated as issued to the respondents on the objections filed by the petitioners under Section 34 of the said Act. It was also directed that in case the amount was not deposited by the petitioners, the objections filed by them under Section 34 of the said Act would be treated as dismissed.

3. The controversy is with regard to the application of the amended provisions of the said Act. The amendments to, inter alia, Sections 34 and 36 of the said Act were brought about by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the Amending Act‘) with retrospective effect from 23.10.2015. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitions under Section 34 of the said Act would be governed by the unamended provisions of, inter alia, Sections 34 and 36 and, therefore, the petitioners would have the right of an automatic stay on the filing of the petitions under Section 34 of the said Act. On the other hand, the respondents argue that the amended provisions would apply and, therefore, there would be no question of any automatic stay and that it was well within the powers of the learned single Judge to have required the petitioners to make a deposit of Rs 2.7 crores and to direct that in case such a deposit was not made, the petitions under Section 34 of the said Act would be liable to be dismissed.

4. We may point out that the notice invoking the arbitration clause was given by the respondents on 07.06.2011. The statement of claim was filed in February 2013 and an interim award was made on 10.07.2014. The final award was made by the arbitral tribunal on 13.10.2015. The petitions under Section 34 objecting to the award were, as mentioned earlier, filed on 04.01.2016. In the meanwhile, the amendments to, inter alia, Sections 34 and 36 were introduced by the Amending Act with retrospective effect from 23.10.2015. Section 26 of the Amending Act, on which the controversy mainly hinges, reads as under:-

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

5. At this juncture, it would be necessary to also set down the differences in Section 36 of the said Act, pre and post-amendment:-

Pre-amendment	Post-amendment
36. Enforcement. – Where the time for making an application to set aside the arbitral award under section 34 has expired, or such application having been made, it has been refused, the award shall be enforced under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) in the same manner as if it were a decree of the Court.	36. (1) Where the time for making an application to set aside the arbitral award under section 34 has expired, then, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), such award shall be enforced in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in the