JUDGMENT B. C. Varma, J. - The order shall also govern the disposal of Miscellaneous Appeal No. 169 of 1985. The appellant applied under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act for referring the dispute to the arbitrator in terms of the contract agreement. This application was filed on 16-8-1982. While the application lay pending decision before the court. The Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikayam Adhiniyam, 1983 came into force with effect from 1-3-1985. The application was then decided by the court on 13-3-1985 and was dismissed. It is against that decision that these appeals have been filed. The question is whether the application could have been decided by the lower court after 1-3-1985 when the dispute in question was referable to the Tribunal constituted under the Adhiniyam. Section 20(1) of the Adhiniyam provides that as from the date of the constitution of the Tribunal and notwithstanding anything contained in Arbitration Act (Act No. 10 of 1940) or any other law, for the time being in force, or in any agreement or usage to the contrary, no civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain and decided any dispute of which cognizance can be taken by the Tribunal under the Adhiniyam. Sub-section (2) of that section, however, is a saving clause. According to that provision the disputes pending before an arbitrator or umpire of before any court or authority under the provisions of the Arbitration Act, or any other law relating to arbitration, shall have to be heard and decided by the forum before which the proceedings were pending as if the Adhiniyam has not come into force. By a recent decision in M.P. Spectra Engineering Corporation, Engineers and Contractors, Bhopal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (M.P. No. 3876 of 1985; decided on 22-6-87 (M.P.)), Division Bench of this court has interpreted the terms "either pending before any arbitrator or umpire etc. or before any court or authority" to mean that the proceedings were actually pending before the arbitrator, umpire, court or authority under the provisions of Arbitrator Act to mean that the dispute was actually taken cognizance of and was pending decision before these authorities. In the present case only an application was filed before the court and was awaiting decision for a direction to refer the matter to arbitration. Clearly, therefore, no arbitration proceedings were pending before any Tribunal or Court. In the present case only an application was filed before the court and was awaiting decision for a direction to refer the matter to arbitration. Clearly, therefore, no arbitration proceedings were pending before any Tribunal or Court. That being so, in accordance with the decision aforesaid, proceedings before the court initiated under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act for a direction to refer the dispute to arbitration were for no purpose lay pending after 1/3185. As a matter of fact, when the Adhiniyam has come into force those proceedings should have been dropped leaving the appellant to apply before the Tribunal for relief. That being so, the order in question refusing the applications to refer the dispute has to be set aside. Consequently, we set aside that order in appeal passed by the lower Court. At the same time, we also reject the appellant's application for reference of the dispute leaving it to its remedy under the Adhiniyam to apply before the Tribunal for relief. There shall be no order as to costs of this petition. Appeal allowed.