1. Heard Shri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Shri Amit Kumar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-petitioners and Shri Tarun Agarwal along with Shri Shashank Bharti, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. By means of this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioners assail the orders dated 18.07.2023 and 27.07.2023 passed by the Commercial Court, Agra directing the Petitioners to pay Simple Interest at the rate of 18% per annum for a period of 12 years starting from 17.12.2010 and attaching the bank accounts of the Executive Engineer and Superintendent Engineer respectively.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent is an Approved Contractor who had entered into a contract with the petitioner for the construction of a gymnastic hall at Iklavya Sports stadium in Agra. He further submits that due to some disputes, the parties entered into arbitration on behest of the Respondents and the Arbitral Tribunal passed an award in the claimant’s favour. The claimants were awarded Rs. 40, 61, 264 alongwith costs and 18% Simple Interest per annum from 31.03.2000 to 26.08.2007. He further submits that while they were pursuing the available legal remedies, the respondents

initiated execution proceedings u/s 36 of the Arbitration Act in which the impugned orders have been passed.

4. He further submits that although the 2015 Amendment to the Arbitration Act is prospective in nature generally, procedural provisions are an exception. He further submits that procedural law has always been held to operate retrospectively and no party has a vested right in procedure. He further submits that procedural law includes grant of post-award interest.

5. He further submits that when the Arbitral Tribunal had only awarded interest for a specific period (31.03.2000 - 26.08.2007), rejecting the claimant’s prayer for post-award interest up till actual payment, then the same cannot be imposed in the execution proceedings. He further submits that without determining the final amount payable, the Commercial Court, Agra through the impugned orders has directed the attachment and freezing of their bank accounts. Hence, this writ petition.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned orders.

7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the court has perused the record.

8. The record shows that the respondents were successful bidders for the construction of a gymnastic hall but due to some disputes the parties moved before the arbitral tribunal where the tribunal awarded claimant/respondent with INR 40,61,264 in addition to 18% SI/ annum. Aggrieved by the award, petitioners moved before District Judge under section 34 which was rejected. Further, petitioners preferred a FAFO under section 37 which got dismissed and subsequently before the apex court through SLP which was also dismissed. However, the section 34 application was pending, meanwhile, the respondents initiated the execution proceeding for getting the award along with the interest. In the

execution proceedings, the Presiding Officer, Commercial Court has directed the Petitioners to pay post-award interest from the date of award till actual payment at the rate of 18% and has further ordered the attachment of their bank accounts and properties.

9. It is now well settled after the judgment in BCCI v. Kochi Cricket Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (MANU/SC/0256/2018) that the 2015 Amendment to the Act is, in general, prospective in nature. Relevant paragraph is reproduced below:

“57. The Government will be well-advised in keeping the aforesaid Statement of Objects and Reasons in the forefront, if it proposes to enact Section 87 on the lines indicated in the Government's press release dated 7 March, 2018. The immediate effect of the proposed Section 87 would be to put all the important amendments made by the Amendment Act on a back-burner, such as the important amendments made to Sections 28 and 34