Mr. Raj Shekhar Attri, J.:- The moot question which arises for determination is as to whether jurisdiction of the District Judge, being the Principal Civil Court, stands withdrawn with regard to the arbitral proceedings already commenced before coming into force the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 ?

2. One of the respondents before the writ court has knocked the door of this Court by assailing the impugned order dated 30.11.2016, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.2066 of 2016, thereby setting aside the impugned order dated 14.12.2015 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Gurgaon.

3. Undisputedly, writ respondent Noble Resources Limited (respondent herein) had obtained a foreign arbitral award. He sought the execution thereof under Section 47 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short ‘the Principal Act’) by filing an application before the learned District Judge, Gurgaon on 13.04.2015 and the same was entrusted to learned Addl. District Judge, for disposal.

4. At the time of filing execution application i.e. 13.04.2015, the jurisdiction was conferred upon principal civil court i.e. the District Judge under the provisions of Section 47 of the Principal Act. Subsequently, various amendments were made in the said Act by inserting in section 2 (e) and explanation to section 47 thereof by promulgation the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act Ordinance w.e.f. 23.10.2015. However, the Arbitration & Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 (in short’ the Amending Act’) i.e. Act No.3 of 2016 also came into force w.e.f. 23.10.2015. Thus, by way of the amendment in the explanation to Section 47 of the Act, the jurisdiction was conferred solely upon the High Court.

5. Learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon vide impugned order dated 14.12.2015 has observed that after passing of the Amendment Ordinance 2015, the jurisdiction has been conferred upon the High Court, therefore, he ceased to exercise the jurisdiction. Consequently, execution application was dismissed. Said order dated 14.12.2015 has been impugned before the learned Single Judge by filing CWP No.2066 of 2016. Said petition was allowed and impugned order has been set aside.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that after passing of the impugned Arbitration Ordinance as well as the Amending Act, the jurisdiction of the District Judge has been withdrawn retrospectively and the same has been conferred exclusively upon the High Court. Therefore, only the High Court can proceed with the execution application from the date when the arbitration ordinance has been promulgated. In support of the contention, he relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sudhir G.Angur and others versus M.Sanjeev and others, (2006) 1 Supreme Court Cases 141.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently contended that when jurisdiction has been exercised on 13.04.2015, the same cannot be withdrawn by making amendment in the statute; that the executing court at Gurgaon under the unamended provisions of Section 47 of the Principal Act continues to exercise the jurisdiction. He placed reliance upon the precedents, in Commissioner of Income Tax, Orissa Versus Dhadi Sahu, 1994 Supp(I) SCC 257, Commissioner of Income Tax versus Raman Industries, Ludhiana 1980; Shiv Bhagwan Moti Ram Saraoji versus Onkarmal Ishar Dass and others, AIR 1952 Bom 365;

9. This Court has given its thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions. For the proper consideration of the aforesaid question, it is necessary to read the relevant provisions of the Principal Act as well as the Amending Act, (No.3 of 2016). First of all coming to the definition of the expression “court” Section 2(e) of the Principal Act.

“(e) “Court” means the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district, and includes the High Court in exercise of