1. Admittedly, in the instant case, arbitral proceedings commenced before coming into force of the Jammu & Kashmir Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997. The arbitral proceedings which thus commenced admittedly was under the Jammu and Kashmir Arbitration Act, Svt. 2002. At the same time, admittedly, award was made and published after coming into force the Jammu & Kashmir Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997. The award, however, was filed in Court by the Arbitrator. Feeling dissatisfied with the award, the appellant filed an application for setting aside the same under Section 34 of the Jammu & Kashmir Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997. Said application has been rejected on the ground that Section 34 of the Jammu & Kashmir Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997 had no role to play in relation to the award in question. 2. In the instant appeal, it is being contended that it is the respondent who has initiated proceedings under the Jammu & Kashmir Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997 for recovery of the amount as awarded by the Arbitrator and, accordingly, it is estopped from contending that the said Act had no application in the instant case. 3. Section 68 of 1997 Act is akin to Section 85 of the Central Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. In terms thereof, while the earlier Arbitration Act stands repealed, but the provisions thereof have been directed to apply in relation to arbitral proceedings, which commenced before coming into force the later Act unless otherwise agreed to by the parties. There appears to be no contention that, at any stage subsequent to commencement of the arbitral proceedings, parties had agreed that 1997 Act will apply to the said proceedings. That being the situation, by the mandate of law the Arbitration Act Samvat 2002 applied to arbitral proceedings being subject matter of the case at hand, and, accordingly, the appellant could not take any step in relation thereto under the provisions of the Jammu & Kashmir Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997. 4. We, accordingly, see no reason to interfere with the judgment and order under appeal but make it clear that since the validity of the award has not been decided on merits, it shall be open to the appellant to take such steps as are required to be taken under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, Samvat 2002 in relation to the award. It is also made clear that, if so advised, while taking steps under Section 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, Samvat 2002, it shall be open to appellant to file an application for condonation of delay. The appeal, accordingly, stands disposed of.