M.N. Bhandari, J.

By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 14.2.2017 passed by the Commercial Court (Additional District Judge No.1), Jaipur Metropolitan.

2. It is a case where arbitration proceedings were initiated between the parties followed by an award on 18.7.2016. The objections against the award were submitted under section 34 of the Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short "the Act of 1996").

3. A question came up for consideration before the court below was as to whether an application under section 36(2), amended by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 (in short "the Act of 2015") is required for interim order or it would be governed by the provisions of section 36, pre-amendment. The court below found that commencement of the arbitral proceedings were prior to Amending Act, 2015. As per section 26 of the Amending Act of 2015, section 36(2) would not apply. The consequence of the order is that till the objections are decided, award would not be executable in view of section 36, pre-amended thus interim order was passed.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that commencement of arbitral proceedings was prior to the amendment in the Act of 1996 but after passing of the award, it gets terminated as per section 32 of the Act of 1996. Once arbitral proceedings were terminated, that too, subsequent to the amending Act of 2015, section 36(2) of the Act would apply. Reference of following judgments has been given to support the argument:-

1. National Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. Pressteel and Fabrications Pvt. Ltd. & anr, AIR 2005 SC 1514

2. Mehta Teja Singh and Company v. Grindlays Bank Limited, (1982) 3 SCC 199

3. Jai Parshad v. Ram Singh & ors, (1982) 84 PLR 505

4. Steel Authority of India Ltd v. Steel Strips Limited, (2005) 140 PLR 157

5. Mohd. Abdus Samad v. Mahboobunnisa Begum, AIR 1970 AP 210

6. M/s Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd v. Leema Mary Rose. S & anr, CRP(NPD) No.1079 to 1081 of 2016, decided on 8.6.2016 by Madras High Court

7. Rendezvous Sports World and ors v. The Board of Control for Cricket in India & ors, 2017(2)Bom CR 113

8. Enercon GmbH and ors v. Yogesh Mehra & ors and

9. M/s PFS Shipping (India) Ltd v. Capt. VK Gupta & anr, Commercial Arbitration Application No. 54/2016, decided on 16.12.2016 by Bombay High Court.

5. A specific reference of the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of "Enercon Gmb H & ors v. Yoges Mehra & ors", Execution Application No.8/2017, decided on 3.3.2017 has been given. Therein, similar issue was considered in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court. It is by making distinction between the words "in relation to the arbitration proceedings" and "nothing in this section shall apply to the arbitral proceedings". It was held that Amending Act of 2015 would apply if the objections under section 34 are submitted subsequent to the amending Act of 2015.

6. Learned counsel for respondents Dr. PC Jain has contested the writ petition. It is stated that arbitration proceedings commenced prior to the Amending Act of 2015. It is as per section 26 of the Amending Act, 2015. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on following judgments:-

1. Andee Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd v. Ms. Anuradha Bhatia, FAO (OS) No.221/2016, decided on 6.1.2017 by the High Court of Delhi

2. Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd v. Saw Pipes Ltd, Appeal (Civil) No.7419/2001, decided on 17.4.2003 by the Apex Court, and

3. M/s Rendezvous Sports World v. The Board of Control for Cricket in India, Chamber Summons No.1530/2015 in Execution Application (L) No.2481/2015, decided on 14.6.2016 by the Bombay High Court

7. I have considered rival submissions of the parties and perused the record.

8. The argument has been raised in reference to sections 21 and 32 of the Act of 1996 and section 26 and 36(2) of the Amending Act of 2015. Section 21 and 32 of the Act of 1996 are reproduced here-as-under for ready reference -

"21. Commencement of arbitral proceedings.- Unless otherw