Point of Law:
After the new Act came into force, even appeals filed under the provisions of the old Act are to be decided on the basis of the provisions contained in the new Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present first appeal from order has been filed by the appellant- Meerut Development Authority (in short 'MDA') against rejection of it's objections filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'New Act'). The award framed by the learned sole arbitrator dated 19.03.2005 has become enforceable, thus entitling the respondent - M/S Civil Engineering Corporation Ltd. through its proprietor Ms. Tripti Garg (hereinafter referred to as the 'claimant') to monies awarded by the learned arbitrator.

2. Admittedly in 1987, the MDA invited two separate tenders for construction of 62 MIG and 92 LIG houses. Two separate bids were submitted by the claimant for award of the aforesaid two works. They were accepted by MDA. Two separate contract bonds - for construction of 62 MIG and 92 LIG houses, were then executed between the parties on 17.02.1987 and 12.05.1987. The work itself was to be completed within ten months from the date of commencement. However, it remains a fact, despite repeated extensions of time granted, the work could not be completed by the claimant. Ultimately, the MDA cancelled the two contract bonds awarded to the claimant on 01.09.1989. Further, the claimant was black-listed.

3. In such background facts, relying on Clause-34, that was identical in both the contract bonds and which contained an arbitration agreement, the claimant issued a notice dated 08.05.1989 to the MDA to appoint an arbitrator under provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Old Act').

4. It is also an undisputed fact that no arbitrator came to be appointed by the Vice Chairman, MDA. According to the claimant, it therefore filed an application under Section 20 of the Old Act before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Meerut, which came to be registered and described as Original Suit No. 904 of 1989. Admittedly, the MDA filed appearance and also it's objections, in that case. Vide order dated 04.09.2004, the said proceeding was allowed and the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Meerut, directed for appointment of an arbitrator. Perusal of that order reveals, in the application filed under Section 20 of the Old Act, the claimant had sought directions to the Vice Chairman of MDA to:- (i) appoint an independent arbitrator and; (ii) to restrain the MDA from awarding the remaining works to any other person. A further direction was sought to issue a commission to prepare inventory of the materials/goods.

5. The order dated 04.09.2004 also reveals that the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Meerut directed the parties to propose names of three persons each for appointment of the sole arbitrator. It was further indicated that the arbitrator would be directed to make his award within a period of four months. Before passing the order dated 04.09.2004, the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Meerut, appears to have framed five issues, broadly: (i) whether under the contract bonds dated 17.02.1987 and 12.05.1987, there existed any right to appoint an arbitrator; (ii) whether adequate court fee had been paid; (iii) whether the claimant was entitled to any relief; (iv) whether there were any disputes between the claimant & MDA? If yes, it's effect and; (v) whether the application filed under Section 20 was maintainable. All the issues were decided in favour of the claimant.

6. In those proceedings, no objection appears to have been raised by MDA and therefore no issue appears to have been framed as to whether, upon the enforcement of the New Act w.e.f. 25.01.1996, the proceedings instituted by the claimant under Section 20 of the Old Act, that were pending (on that date), survived. Also, it is an undisputed fact that the MDA did not challenge the order dated 04.09.2004 or the consequential order appointing the learned arbitrator, in any separate proceedings.

7. Again undisputedly, neither the MDA appointed any arbitrator during pendency of th