JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 1. This application, which was originally filed before the learned District Judge, Balotra under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, since repealed, has been returned to be presented before this Court inter alia on the ground that he did not have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the application in view of the notified pecuniary limits fixed for the purpose of exercising jurisdiction as designate of the Chief Justice. 2. Apart from the fact that as per the recent judgment of Supreme Court, the power under Section 11 cannot be delegated to the member of Subordinate Judiciary, from the undisputed facts, it is clear that a request for appointing arbitrator in terms of arbitration agreement in question was made and received by the respondent prior to commencement of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Commencement of arbitral proceedings have been defined under Section 21 of the Act, 1996 and under Section 85(2) of the Act of 1996, it has been made clear that the provisions of the repealed Act, 1940 shall apply in relation to arbitral proceedings which commenced before the Act of 1996 came into force unless otherwise agreed by the parties, but the Act of 1996 shall apply in relation to arbitral proceedings which commenced on or after the Act of 1996 came into force, 3. Thus, proceedings having been commenced in term is of Section 21 before the commencement of the Act of 1996, the application has wrongly been returned to counsel for presenting it before this Court. Therefore, this application may be returned to learned District Judge, Balotra for proceeding further in accordance with the provisions of Arbitration Act, 1940.Application disposed of. *******