Order Since in these two civil revision applications common question of facts and law are involved, the same are disposed by this common order. 2. It appears that the opposite party, M/s. J.R. Construction obtained an arbitration award against the Union of India through Commander Works Engineer (MES), Ranchi. The award was made rule of the court and, thereafter the decree prepared by the court was put in execution being Execution case no. 2/2001. In that execution case the judgment-debtor-O.P. (Union of India), through Commander Works Engineer, filed an application under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the award on the ground, inter alia, that the arbitration proceeding was conducted and award was published under the old Arbitration Act when the new Arbitration Act had come into effect. The said objection petition was rejected by the court below by order dated 10.10.2002. 3. I do not find any illegality and infirmity in the said order. Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 very clearly provides that an arbitration proceeding in respect of a particular dispute commences on the date on which the request for referring the dispute is made and received by the arbitrator. It has not been disputed by the petitioner that request for referring the dispute was made before the commencement of the Act of 1996. The impugned order, therefore needs no interference. 4. It appears that the executing court, thereafter, proceeded with the execution case and in execution of decree attached the bank accounts standing in the name of Garrison Engineer. The Commander Works Engineer filed an application in that execution case stating that since Garrison Engineer is not the judgment-debtor, therefore, their account could not have been attached. In reply to that the decree holder stated that Garrison Engineer is subordinate to Commander Works Engineer and, therefore, there is no illegality in attaching the account of Garrison Engineer. The prayer of the judgment debtor, however, was rejected by the executing court by passing the impugned order dated 20.12.2002. 5. Mr. P. K. Prasad, learned Standing counsel, Central Govt. though assailed the impugned order but he has not disputed that both Garrison Engineer and Commander Works Engineer are the wings of the Union of India. Admittedly, there is a decree against the Union of India and an execution case is pending for recovery of the decretal amount. 5. Mr. P. K. Prasad, learned Standing counsel, Central Govt. though assailed the impugned order but he has not disputed that both Garrison Engineer and Commander Works Engineer are the wings of the Union of India. Admittedly, there is a decree against the Union of India and an execution case is pending for recovery of the decretal amount. In my opinion, on the aforesaid technical ground the decree holder cannot be deprived of the fruits of the decree. 6. The impugned order is, therefore, modified to the extent that the Union of India shall deposit the decretal amount in the executing court within 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On deposit of the decretal amount by Union of India, the orders of attachment of all the accounts shall be withdrawn. The decree holder shall be allowed to withdraw the decretal amount on furnishing security to the satisfaction of the executing court but not in the form of bank guarantee.