JUDGMENT : M.R. Shah, J. 1. As common question of law and facts arise in this group of applications, they are decided and disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. Miscellaneous Civil Application No.2969 of 2016 has been preferred by the original applicant – M/s. OCI Corporation under section 15(5) of the Commercial courts, Commercial Division and Commercial appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “the Commercial Courts Act”) read with section 2(1)(e)(ii) and section 47 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Arbitration Act”) seeking clarification and appropriate direction for transfer of Execution Petition No.167 of 2015 pending before the District Court, Gandhidham-Kutch either to the High Court of Gujarat or to appropriate Commercial Court/Commercial Division. 2.01. Miscellaneous Civil Application No.2970 of 2016 has been preferred by the original applicant – M/s. OCI Corporation under section 15(5) of the Commercial courts, Commercial Division and Commercial appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “the Commercial Courts Act”) read with section 2(1)(e)(ii) and section 47 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Arbitration Act”) seeking clarification and appropriate direction for transfer of Execution Petition No.168 of 2015 pending before the District Court, Gandhidham-Kutch either to the High Court of Gujarat or to appropriate Commercial Court/Commercial Division. 2.02. Miscellaneous Civil Application No.2971 of 2016 has been preferred by the original applicant – M/s. OCI Corporation under section 15(5) of the Commercial courts, Commercial Division and Commercial appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “the Commercial Courts Act”) read with section 2(1)(e)(ii) and section 47 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Arbitration Act”) seeking clarification and appropriate direction for transfer of Execution Petition No.169 of 2015 pending before the District Court, Gandhidham-Kutch either to the High Court of Gujarat or to appropriate Commercial Court/Commercial Division. 2.03. 2.03. Miscellaneous Civil Application No.2972 of 2016 has been preferred by the original applicant – M/s. OCI Corporation under section 15(5) of the Commercial courts, Commercial Division and Commercial appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “the Commercial Courts Act”) read with section 2(1)(e)(ii) and section 47 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Arbitration Act”) seeking clarification and appropriate direction for transfer of Execution Petition No.170 of 2015 pending before the District Court, Gandhidham-Kutch either to the High Court of Gujarat or to appropriate Commercial Court/Commercial Division. 2.04. Miscellaneous Civil Application No.2973 of 2016 has been preferred by the original applicant – M/s. OCI Corporation under section 15(5) of the Commercial courts, Commercial Division and Commercial appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “the Commercial Courts Act”) read with section 2(1)(e)(ii) and section 47 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Arbitration Act”) seeking clarification and appropriate direction for transfer of Execution Petition No.171 of 2015 pending before the District Court, Gandhidham-Kutch either to the High Court of Gujarat or to appropriate Commercial Court/Commercial Division. 2.05. Miscellaneous Civil Application No.2974 of 2016 has been preferred by the original applicant – M/s. OCI Corporation under section 15(5) of the Commercial courts, Commercial Division and Commercial appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “the Commercial Courts Act”) read with section 2(1)(e)(ii) and section 47 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Arbitration Act”) seeking clarification and appropriate direction for transfer of Execution Petition No.172 of 2015 pending before the District Court, Gandhidham-Kutch either to the High Court of Gujarat or to appropriate Commercial Court/Commercial Division. 2.06. Miscellaneous Civil Application No.2975 of 2016 has been preferred by the original applicant – M/s. OCI Corporation under section 15(5) of the Commercial courts, Commercial Division and Commercial appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “the Commercial Courts Act”) read with section 2(1)(e)(ii) and section 47 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Arbitration Act”) seeking clarification and appropriate direction for transfer of Execution Petition No.173 of 2015 pending before the District Court, Gandhidham-Kutch either to the High Court of Gujarat or to appropriate Commercial Court/Commercial Division. 2.07. 2.07. Miscellaneous Civil Application No.2976 of 2016 has been preferred by the original applicant – M/s. OCI Corporation under section 15(5) of the Commercial courts, Commercial Division and Commercial appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “the Commercial Courts Act”) read with section 2(1)(e)(ii) and section 47 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Arbitration Act”) seeking clarification and appropriate direction for transfer of Execution Petition No.174 of 2015 pending before the District Court, Gandhidham-Kutch either to the High Court of Gujarat or to appropriate Commercial Court/Commercial Division. 2.08. Miscellaneous Civil Application No.2977 of 2016 has been preferred by the original applicant – M/s. OCI Corporation under section 15(5) of the Commercial courts, Commercial Division and Commercial appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “the Commercial Courts Act”) read with section 2(1)(e)(ii) and section 47 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Arbitration Act”) seeking clarification and appropriate direction for transfer of Execution Petition No.175 of 2015 pending before the District Court, Gandhidham-Kutch either to the High Court of Gujarat or to appropriate Commercial Court/Commercial Division. 3. For the sake of convenience facts in Miscellaneous Civil Application No.2969 of 2016 are narrated and considered. 3.01. Miscellaneous Civil Application No.2969 of 2016 has been preferred by the original applicant – M/s. OCI Corporation under section 15(5) of the Commercial courts, Commercial Division and Commercial appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “the Commercial Courts Act”) read with section 2(1)(e)(ii) and section 47 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Arbitration Act”) seeking clarification and appropriate direction for transfer of Execution Petition No.167 of 2015 pending before the District Court, Gandhidham-Kutch either to the High Court of Gujarat or to appropriate Commercial Court/Commercial Division. 3.02. That the applicant herein is the original applicant before the District Court, Gandhidham-Kutch in the Execution Petition No.167 of 2015 filed on 29/6/2015 for execution and enforcement of arbitration award dated 28/4/2014 and Arbitration Appeal Award No.4383 dated 16/4/2015 (hereinafter referred to as “the foreign award”) passed in its favour. The said execution petition has been filed by the applicant – judgment creditor against the respondents – judgment debtors. 3.03. The said execution petition has been filed by the applicant – judgment creditor against the respondents – judgment debtors. 3.03. That the respondent No.1 herein – Kandla Export Corporation is the Partnership Firm registered under the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 and the respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the partners in respondent No.1 and are also original respondents in the Execution Petition No.167 of 2015. 3.04. That during the pendency of the execution petition, Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to “the Arbitration (Amendment) Act, 2015”) came into force on 23/10/2015. By the Arbitration (Amendment) Act, 2015, definition of “Court” as contained in section 2(e) has been amended, more particularly in case of the International Commercial Arbitration, there by giving High Court of the State sole jurisdiction to try such matters. A similar corresponding amendment is also made in section 47 Part-II of the Arbitration Act and the definition of “Court” in section 47 Part-II of the Arbitration Act dealing with the foreign awards, has also been amended to the said definition, as in section 2(1)(e)(ii) of the Arbitration Act. Simultaneously, Commercial Courts Act, 2015 has also come into force w.e.f. 23/10/2015. 3.05. That by notification bearing Reference No.A/1221/2016 dated 2/4/2016 High Court of Gujarat has issued a Notification regarding establishment of Commercial Courts at Ahmedabad, Rajkot and Vadodara and has directed all the Principal District Judicial Officer to transfer all suits and relevant applications under the Commercial Courts Act pending in their Districts/Courts as per the provisions contained in section 9(1) and 15(2) of the Commercial Courts Act w.e.f. 1/6/2015. 3.06. In view of the amendment in Arbitration Act, by Arbitration (Amendment) Act, 2015 and on establishment of Commercial Court/Commercial Division under the provisions of the Commercial courts Act and subject matter of execution proceedings arising out of the foreign award was of the value of more than Rs.1 Crore, the applicant through its advocate addressed a letter dated 18/5/2016 to the Registrar of High Court of Gujarat seeking clarification whether the execution petition falls within the ambit of section 15(2) of the Commercial Courts Act and which court would have jurisdiction to hear the matter. 3.07. The applicant also filed an application below Ex.45 before the District Court on 6/6/2016 seeking clarification with regard to transfer of the execution petition pending before the District Court. 3.08. 3.07. The applicant also filed an application below Ex.45 before the District Court on 6/6/2016 seeking clarification with regard to transfer of the execution petition pending before the District Court. 3.08. In response to the letter dated 18/5/2016, the applicant received a letter from the Registry of High Court of Gujarat on 21/6/2016 forwarding Notification dated 21/6/2016, however, without providing clarification sought. 3.09. That the District Court vide its order dated 25/6/2016 after hearing the parties has partly allowed the clarification application filed by the applicant below Ex.45 and has directed that a reference be forwarded to the High Court for clarification about jurisdiction relating to execution petition of the foreign award. The District Court also gave the applicant/decree holder liberty to approach the High Court under section 15(5) of the Commercial Courts Act for appropriate transfer order by observing that the District court cannot suomotu transfer execution petition pending before it. 3.10. That thereafter the District Court on 5/7/2016 sent a reference under Order 46 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure to the registrar of the High court requesting for passing necessary direction with respect to the transfer of the execution petition pursuant to the liberty reserved by the District Court while passing order below Ex.45, hence, the original applicant - judgment creditor has preferred/submitted present application under section 15(5) of the Commercial Courts Act for appropriate clarification/order and to transfer the execution petition to the appropriate Court having jurisdiction under the provisions of the Arbitration (Amendment) Act, 2015 read with the relevant provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. 4. Mr. Mihir Thakore, learned Senior Advocate has appeared on behalf of the original applicant – applicant herein – judgment creditor and Mr. Archit Jani, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the respondents herein - original respondents – judgment debtors. 4.01. Mr. 4. Mr. Mihir Thakore, learned Senior Advocate has appeared on behalf of the original applicant – applicant herein – judgment creditor and Mr. Archit Jani, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the respondents herein - original respondents – judgment debtors. 4.01. Mr. Mihir Thakore, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant herein – judgment creditor has vehemently submitted that in view of the amendment in the definition of “Court” as per the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 read with amendment in Section 47 part II of the Arbitration act, “Court” means, “High Court” in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction having jurisdiction to decide the question for being subject matter of arbitration if the same had been the subject matter of a suit and in other cases a “High Court” having jurisdiction to hear appeals from decrees of courts subordinate to High Court. It is submitted that in view of Arbitration (Amendment) Act, 2015 which amended definition of “Court”, in case of an International Commercial Arbitration, an execution petition, which arises from an International Commercial Arbitration and relates to enforcement of a foreign award, solely falls under the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court (High Court). 4.03. Mr. Mihir Thakore, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant herein – judgment creditor has further submitted that in view of the establishment of the commercial Courts/Commercial Division under the provisions of Commercial Courts Act, 2015, more particularly on conjoined reading of section 2(1)(i) read with sections 6, 10 and 15 of the Commercial Courts act, execution petition for enforcement of the foreign award arising out of International Commercial Arbitration in which value of the subject matter is more than Rs.1 Crore, is required to be transferred to Commercial Division of the High Court. 4.04. Mr. Mihir Thakore, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant herein – judgment creditor has further submitted that the execution petition pending before the District Court which has been preferred for enforcement of the Foreign Award arising out of the International Commercial Arbitration is required to be transferred to this High Court and more particularly to the Commercial Division/Commercial Court constituted in the High Court of Gujarat, constituted under the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. 4.05. Mr. 4.05. Mr. Mihir Thakore, learned Senior Advocate has appearing on behalf of the applicant herein – judgment creditor has heavily relied upon three decisions of the Delhi High Court in the case of Roger Shashoua and others, rendered in OMP (Commercial) No.1 of 2015; in the case of Ascot estates Pvt. Ltd., rendered in OMP (I) (Commercial) No.16 of 2015 dated 10/12/2015 and recent decision in the case of Raffles Design International India Private Limited and another, Versus Educomp Professional Education Limited and others, rendered in OMP (I) Commercial) No.23 of 2015 and other allied matters, dated 7/10/2016. 5. Present application is opposed by Mr. Archit Jani, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents herein – original respondents – judgment debtors. 5.01. Mr. Jani, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents – judgment debtors has vehemently submitted that in the present case as the execution petition has been filed on 29/6/015, considering the definition of “Court” as referred to in explanation to Section 47 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 prevailing as on 29/6/2015, District Court, Gandhinagar-Kutch only would have jurisdiction to consider the execution petition. 5.02. Mr. Jani, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents – judgment debtors has further submitted that definition of “Court” has been amended and/or substituted in respect of International Commercial Arbitration w.e.f. 23/10/2015. It is submitted that by Arbitration (Amendment) Act, 2015, definition of “Court” as contained in section 2(e) and section 47 of the Arbitration Act has been amended w.e.f. 23/10/2015. It is submitted that therefore, District Court shall continue to have jurisdiction to consider the execution petition for execution of the foreign award as the same has been preferred on 29/6/2015. 5.03. Mr. Jani, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents – judgment debtors has further submitted that only after 23/10/2015 if any one wants to enforce foreign award, is required to move application for execution keeping in mind the provisions as amended by Arbitration (Amendment) Act, 2015. 5.04. Mr. 5.03. Mr. Jani, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents – judgment debtors has further submitted that only after 23/10/2015 if any one wants to enforce foreign award, is required to move application for execution keeping in mind the provisions as amended by Arbitration (Amendment) Act, 2015. 5.04. Mr. Jani, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents – judgment debtors has further submitted that as such Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 even as amended by Amendment Act 2015 has not made any provision for transfer of the execution application/proceedings to the High Court like the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, wherein elaborate provisions are made for transfer of pending proceedings relating to the commercial dispute of specified value. 5.05. Mr. Jani, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents – judgment debtors has further submitted that Parliament has also not intended to apply provisions of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 to the execution of the foreign award. It is submitted that therefore, execution proceedings for enforcement of foreign award, if moved before 23/10/2015 will be governed by the relevant definition of “Court” prevailing at the relevant time and after 23/10/2015 the same shall be governed by the amended/substituted definition of “Court”. It is submitted that therefore, the application to invoke provisions under section 2(e)(ii) and section 47 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 with respect to the execution petition filed prior to 23/10/2015, is misconceived. It is submitted that even otherwise and considering section 26 of the Arbitration (Amendment) Act, 2015, nothing contained in Arbitration (Amendment) Act, 2015 shall apply to the arbitral proceedings commenced before the commencement of the Arbitration (Amendment) Act, 2015 i.e. commenced prior to 23/10/2015 and the Arbitration (Amendment) Act, 2015 shall apply in relation to arbitral proceedings commenced on or after the date of commencement of the Arbitration (Amendment) Act, 2015 i.e. 23/10/2015. It is submitted that in the present case, the execution petition has been preferred for execution of the foreign award on 29/6/2015 i.e. much prior to the commencement of the Arbitration (Amendment) Act, 2015. It is submitted that therefore, the amendment in definition of “Court” as per Arbitration (Amendment) Act, 2015 shall not be applicable to the pending execution petition and therefore, District Court would continue to have jurisdiction in respect to execution petition filed prior to 23/10/2015. 5.06. Mr. It is submitted that therefore, the amendment in definition of “Court” as per Arbitration (Amendment) Act, 2015 shall not be applicable to the pending execution petition and therefore, District Court would continue to have jurisdiction in respect to execution petition filed prior to 23/10/2015. 5.06. Mr. Jani, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents – judgment debtors has further submitted that even otherwise it cannot be said that any arbitral proceedings are pending. It is submitted that once award is declared, arbitral proceedings comes to an end. It is submitted that therefore also execution petition is not required to be transferred to the “Court” as per amended provisions of the Arbitration (Amendment) Act, 2015. 5.07. Mr. Jani, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents – judgment debtors has further submitted that even execution petition for enforcement of the Foreign Award arising out of the International Commercial Arbitration is not required to be transferred to Commercial Division and/or Commercial Appellate Division of the High Court constituted under the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, more particularly under section 15(2) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. 5.08. Mr. Jani, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents – judgment debtors has further submitted that for applying section 15(2) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, there must be an application under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 pending in Civil Court which is required to be transferred to such commercial court. It is submitted that in the present case neither suit is pending nor any application is pending in relation to the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1996. It is submitted that present application has been filed seeking for enforcement of foreign award which cannot be said to be an application pending under the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1996. It is submitted that present application for execution is filed under Order 21 of the CPC, which cannot be said to be an application under the Arbitration Act, 1996. 5.09. Mr. Jani, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents – judgment debtors has further submitted that therefore, section 15(2) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 shall not be applicable. It is submitted that therefore, execution petition is not required to be transferred to the Commercial Division and/or Commercial Appellate Division of the High Court. 5.10. Mr. 5.09. Mr. Jani, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents – judgment debtors has further submitted that therefore, section 15(2) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 shall not be applicable. It is submitted that therefore, execution petition is not required to be transferred to the Commercial Division and/or Commercial Appellate Division of the High Court. 5.10. Mr. Jani, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents – judgment debtors has further submitted that even otherwise, considering definition of “commercial dispute” contained in section 2(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, it cannot be said that as on today there is any commercial dispute pending in light of the fact that commercial dispute which arise between the parties is already decided and/or adjudicated by the Arbitral Tribunal and confirmed in appeal. It is submitted that therefore also when there is no commercial dispute pending, the execution petition for execution of the foreign award cannot be said to be a proceedings in relation to commercial dispute and therefore, the same is not required to be transferred as per section 15 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Making above submissions it is requested to dismiss the present application and answer the reference accordingly. 6. In reply to the submissions made by Mr. Jani, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents – judgment debtors, relying upon section 26 of the Arbitration (Amendment) Act, 2015, Mr. Mihir Thakore, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant – judgment creditor has vehemently submitted that section 26 of the Arbitration (Amendment) Act, 2015 shall not be applicable to the international arbitration proceedings/awards. 6.01. Mr. Mihir Thakore, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant – judgment creditor has further submitted that section 26 of the Arbitration (Amendment) Act, 2015 shall apply to arbitral proceeding in accordance with section 21 of the Act before commencement of the Act. It is submitted that the arbitral proceedings commenced in accordance with section 21 of the Act would be in respect of domestic arbitration and/or the same shall be with respect to the arbitral proceedings in India. It is submitted that section 21 is in Part-I of the Act and therefore, shall apply to arbitral proceedings in India. It is submitted that in section 26 of the Arbitration (Amendment) Act, 2015 there is no reference to arbitration proceedings commenced other than under Part-I of the Act. It is submitted that section 21 is in Part-I of the Act and therefore, shall apply to arbitral proceedings in India. It is submitted that in section 26 of the Arbitration (Amendment) Act, 2015 there is no reference to arbitration proceedings commenced other than under Part-I of the Act. It is submitted that therefore, first part/limb of the Amendment Act would not cover arbitral proceedings commenced outside India. It is submitted that therefore in respect of the arbitral proceedings commenced outside the India, provisions of Part-II of the Arbitration Act as amended by Amendment Act would be applicable and nothing in section 26 of the Arbitration Act bars applicability of amendment to those proceedings. 6.02. Mr. Mihir Thakore, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant – judgment creditor has further submitted that if the submissions made by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents – judgment debtors are accepted, in that case, object and purpose of Arbitration (Amendment) Act, 2015 as well as object and purpose of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 shall be frustrated and the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 shall become nugatory. Making above submissions, it is requested to pass appropriate order making suitable clarification and to transfer the execution petition to the Commercial Division/Commercial Division of the High Court and answer the issue/question/reference accordingly. 7. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. 7.01. Short but interesting question of law posed for consideration of this Court is with respect to applicability of the provisions of the Arbitration (Amendment) Act, 2015 in case of International Commercial Arbitration and applicability of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 in respect of the International Commercial Arbitration and jurisdiction of the “Court” in case of International Commercial Arbitration. 7.02. 7.01. Short but interesting question of law posed for consideration of this Court is with respect to applicability of the provisions of the Arbitration (Amendment) Act, 2015 in case of International Commercial Arbitration and applicability of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 in respect of the International Commercial Arbitration and jurisdiction of the “Court” in case of International Commercial Arbitration. 7.02. While considering the aforesaid issue/question, relevant provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1996 as well as Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 in case of International Commercial Arbitration and provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 are required to be referred to, which are as under :- Section 2(e) of Arbitration Act, 1996 (unamended): “(e) “Court” means the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district, and includes the High Court in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction, having jurisdiction to decide the questions forming the subject-matter of the arbitration if the same had been the subject-matter of a suit, but does not include any civil court of a grade inferior to such principal Civil Court, or any Court of Small Causes;” Section 47 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (unamended): 47. Evidence.- (1) The party applying for the enforcement of a foreign award shall, at the time of the application, produce before the court- (a) the original award or a copy thereof, duly authenticated in the manner required by the law of the country in which it was made; (b) the original agreement for arbitration or a duly certified copy thereof; and (c) such evidence as may be necessary to prove that the award is a foreign award. (2) If the award or agreement to be produced under sub-section (1) is in a foreign language, the party seeking to enforce the award shall produce a translation into English certified as correct by a diplomatic or consular agent of the country to which that party belongs or certified as correct in such other manner as may be sufficient according to the law in force in India. Explanation.- In this section and all the following sections of this Chapter, “Court” means the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district, and includes the High Court in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction, having jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the award if the same had been the subject-matter of a suit, but does not include any civil court of a grade inferior to such principal Civil Court, or any Court of Small Causes. Section 2(e) of the Arbitration Act, 1996 [as amended by Arbitration (Amendment) Act, 2015]. ‘(e) “Court” means- (i) in the case of an arbitration other than international commercial arbitration, the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district, and includes the High Court in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction, having jurisdiction to decide the questions forming the subject-matter of the arbitration if the same had been the subject-matter of a suit, but does not include any Civil Court of a grade inferior to such principal Civil Court, or any Court of Small Causes; (ii) in the case of international commercial arbitration, the High Court in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction, having jurisdiction to decide the questions forming the subject-matter of the arbitration if the same had been the subject-matter of a suit, and in other cases, a High Court having jurisdiction to hear appeals from decrees of courts subordinate to that High Court” (II) in sub-section (2), the following proviso shall be inserted, namely:- “Provided that subject to an agreement to the contrary, the provisions of sections 9, 27 and clause (a) of subsection (1) and sub-section (3) of section 37 shall also apply to international commercial arbitration, even if the place of arbitration is outside India, and an arbitral award made or to be made in such place is enforceable and recognised under the provisions of Part II of this Act.”. Section 47 Part-II of the Arbitration Act, 1996 (As amended by Arbitration (Amendment) Act, 2015. Section 47 Part-II of the Arbitration Act, 1996 (As amended by Arbitration (Amendment) Act, 2015. In section 47 of the principal Act, for the Explanation, the following Explanation shall be substituted, namely:- ‘Explanation.- In this section and in the sections following in this Chapter, “Court” means the High Court having original jurisdiction to decide the questions forming the subject-matter of the arbitral award if the same had been the subject matter of a suit on its original civil jurisdiction and in other cases, in the High Court having jurisdiction to hear appeals from decrees of courts subordinate to such High Court.’ Relevant provisions of Commercial Courts Act are also required to be referred to, which are as under :- Section 2(1)(i) of the Commercial Courts Act : “2(1)(i) “Specified Value”, in relation to a commercial dispute, shall mean the value of the subject-matter in respect of a suit as determined in accordance with section 12 which shall not be less than one crore rupees or such higher value, as may be notified by the Central Government.” Section 6 of the Commercial Courts Act : 6. The Commercial Court shall have jurisdiction to try all suits and applications relating to a commercial dispute of a Specified Value arising out of the entire territory of the State over which it has been vested territorial jurisdiction. Explanation.- For the purposes of this section, a commercial dispute shall be considered to arise out of the entire territory of the State over which a Commercial Court has been vested jurisdiction, if the suit or application relating to such commercial dispute has been instituted as per the provisions of sections 16 to 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Section 10 of the Commercial Courts Act : 10. Where the subject-matter of an arbitration is a commercial dispute of a Specified Value and- (1) If such arbitration is an international commercial arbitration, all applications or appeals arising out of such arbitration under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 that have been filed in a High Court, shall be heard and disposed of by the Commercial Division where such Commercial Division has been constituted in such High Court. (2) If such arbitration is other than an international commercial arbitration, all applications or appeals arising out of such arbitration under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 that have been filed on the original side of the High Court, shall be heard and disposed of by the Commercial Division where such Commercial Division has been constituted in such High Court. (3) If such arbitration is other than an international commercial arbitration, all applications or appeals arising out of such arbitration under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 that would ordinarily lie before any principal civil court of original jurisdiction in a district (not being a High Court) shall be filed in, and heard and disposed of by the Commercial Court exercising territorial jurisdiction over such arbitration where such Commercial Court has been constituted. Section 15 of the Commercial Courts Act : 15. (1) All suits and applications, including applications under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, relating to a commercial dispute of a Specified Value pending in a High Court where a Commercial Division has been constituted, shall be transferred to the Commercial Division. (2) All suits and applications, including applications under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, relating to a commercial dispute of a Specified Value pending in any civil court in any district or area in respect of which a Commercial Court has been constituted, shall be transferred to such Commercial Court: Provided that no suit or application where the final judgment has been reserved by the Court prior to the constitution of the Commercial Division or the Commercial Court shall be transferred either under sub-section (1) or subsection (2). (3) Where any suit or application, including an application under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, relating to a commercial dispute of Specified Value shall stand transferred to the Commercial Division or Commercial Court under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the provisions of this Act shall apply to those procedures that were not complete at the time of transfer. (3) Where any suit or application, including an application under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, relating to a commercial dispute of Specified Value shall stand transferred to the Commercial Division or Commercial Court under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the provisions of this Act shall apply to those procedures that were not complete at the time of transfer. (4) The Commercial Division or Commercial Court, as the case may be, may hold case management hearings in respect of such transferred suit or application in order to prescribe new timelines or issue such further directions as may be necessary for a speedy and efficacious disposal of such suit or application in accordance with Order XIV-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Provided that the proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 of Order V of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall not apply to such transferred suit or application and the court may, in its discretion, prescribe a new time period within which the written statement shall be filed. (5) In the event that such suit or application is not transferred in the manner specified in sub-section (1), sub-section (2) or sub-section (3), the Commercial Appellate Division of the High Court may, on the application of any of the parties to the suit, withdraw such suit or application from the court before which it is pending and transfer the same for trial or disposal to the Commercial Division or Commercial Court, as the case may be, having territorial jurisdiction over such suit, and such order of transfer shall be final and binding. At this stage section 26 of the Arbitration (Amendment) Act, 2015 is also required to be referred to, which reads as under :- “26. Act not to apply to pending arbitral proceedings.- Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the arbitral proceedings commenced, in accordance with the provisions of section 21 of the principal Act, before the commencement of this act unless the parties otherwise agree but this Act shall apply in relation to arbitral proceedings commenced on or after the date of commencement of this Act.” 7.03. As is plainly evident from the language of Section 26 of Arbitration (Amendment) Act, 2015, it is in two parts. As is plainly evident from the language of Section 26 of Arbitration (Amendment) Act, 2015, it is in two parts. The first is couched in negative form; the opening words expressly provide that the Amendment Act shall not apply to arbitral proceedings commenced in accordance with section 21 of the Act, before the commencement of the Act unless the parties agree otherwise. The second limb is in the affirmative; that is, the Act would apply in relation to arbitral proceedings commenced on or after the date of commencement of the Amendment Act. 7.03.1. First limb - which is in the negative form - only refers to proceedings commenced in accordance with section 21 of the Act prior to the commencement of the Amendment Act (23.10.2015). Section 21 is in Part I of the Act and, indisputably, applies only to arbitral proceedings in India. There is no reference to arbitral proceedings that have commenced other than under Part-I of the Act. Thus, clearly, the first limb of Section 26 of the Amendment Act would not cover arbitral proceedings commenced outside India - arbitral proceedings to which Part I of the Act does not apply. In the context of those arbitral proceedings clearly the provisions of Part II of the Act as amended by the Amendment Act shall be applicable and nothing in Section 26 of the Amendment Act bars the applicability of the Amendment Act to those proceedings. 7.03.2. Section 26 of the Amendment Act is silent as to arbitral proceedings commenced before 23/10/2015 to which Part-I does not apply. 7.03.3. Act as is stand in the statute book stands amended w.e.f. 23/10/2015. The applicability of Amendment Act to arbitration proceedings commenced in accordance with section 21 of the principal Act and that have commenced prior to that date only has expressly been excluded. 7.03.4. As observed hereinabove, Section 26 of the Amendment Act is silent as to arbitral proceedings commenced before 23/10/2015 to which Part-I does not apply. 7.03.5. This is so because as explained by the Supreme Court in Anant Gopal Sheorey v. State of Bombay, reported in AIR 1958 SC 915 , "no person has any right in any course of procedure". As observed hereinabove, Section 26 of the Amendment Act is silent as to arbitral proceedings commenced before 23/10/2015 to which Part-I does not apply. 7.03.5. This is so because as explained by the Supreme Court in Anant Gopal Sheorey v. State of Bombay, reported in AIR 1958 SC 915 , "no person has any right in any course of procedure". In Amireddi Raja Gopala Rao v. Amireddi Sitharamamma and Ors., reported in (1965) 3 SCR 122 , the Supreme Court had observed that "It is a wellrecognised rule that a statute should be interpreted, if possible, so as to respect vested rights." 7.03.6. The well accepted principle of interpretation is that all statutes affecting substantive rights should be interpreted as being applicably prospectively unless indicated otherwise either expressly or by necessary implication. There is a general presumption that unless the statute expressly indicates, it would not be applied retrospectively to impair a vested right or impose a fresh burden based on past transaction/events. However, procedural laws are presumed to apply retrospectively. This is so because as explained by the Supreme Court in Anant Gopal Sheorey v. State of Bombay, reported in AIR 1958 SC 915 , "no person has any right in any course of procedure". In the case of Amireddi Raja Gopala Rao v. Amireddi Sitharamamma and Ors, reported in (1965) 3 SCR 122 , the Supreme Court has observed that "It is a well-recognised rule that a statute should be interpreted, if possible, so as to respect vested rights." These principles have to be kept in mind while addressing the above issue. 8. Identical question came to be considered by the Delhi High Court in the recent decision dated 7/10/2016 in the case of Reffles Design International India Private Limited and another Versus Educomp Professional Education Limited and others rendered in O.M.P.(I) (Comm.) 23/2015 and other allied matters. The relevant observations of the Delhi High Court are as under :- “32. It is also well settled law that an amending enactment is not retrospective merely because it also applies to persons to whom the pre-amended Act applies. The relevant observations of the Delhi High Court are as under :- “32. It is also well settled law that an amending enactment is not retrospective merely because it also applies to persons to whom the pre-amended Act applies. In Punjab University v. Subhash Chander and Anr., reported in 1984 (3) SCC 603 , the Supreme Court set aside the decision of the Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, whereby it was held that the amendment to the rules to award lower grace marks would not be applicable to students who had been admitted to the course prior to the amendment. In Bishan Naraian Mishra vs. State of U.P, reported in 1965 (1) SCR the Supreme Court held that the amendment in the rules reducing the age of superannuation from 58 years to 55 years could not be considered as retrospective and would apply to all employees altering the age of superannuation after the amendment notwithstanding that the age of superannuation was higher when they had joined the employment. The Court held that merely because a legislation applies to past acts does not make the law retrospective. In The Queen v. The Inhabitants of St. Mary, Whitechapel, (1848) 12 QBD 120 the court observed that a statute "is not properly called a retrospective statute because a part of the requisites for its action is drawn from a time antecedent to its passing". This principle was cited with approval by the Supreme Court in Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh and Anr. v. State of Vindhya Pradesh reported in AIR 1953 SC 394 . 33. Most enactments would invariably affect some existing rights however they cannot be considered as a retrospective legislation only for that reason. 35. Thus, in my view, a more appropriate approach would be to consider the nature of arbitration law and effect of the Amendment Act as a whole. Essentially, the provisions of an arbitration law can be classified into four broad categories. The first being the provisions which relate to matters which define the scope of arbitrations; this includes provisions defining the matters that are arbitrable; the scope of arbitration agreements, etc. Such provisions define the entire scope of arbitration and the legal policy of the Alternate Dispute Resolution Mechanism. The second category of provisions relate to the conduct of arbitrations. These provisions essentially provide for the manner in which arbitration shall be conducted. Such provisions define the entire scope of arbitration and the legal policy of the Alternate Dispute Resolution Mechanism. The second category of provisions relate to the conduct of arbitrations. These provisions essentially provide for the manner in which arbitration shall be conducted. The provisions under chapter V of the Act clearly fall within this category. The parties are free to derogate from most of such provisions and agree to a separate set of rules for conduct of arbitrations. The parties are also free to adopt the rules of any institutional arbitration such as International Chambers of Commerce (ICC), London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA), Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) etc. The third category of provisions relate to the interface between the courts and the arbitration process. The Act contains provisions in aid of arbitral proceedings such as role of courts in appointment of arbitrators, assistance in taking evidence, etc. This category would also include provisions relating to exercise of supervisory role by courts including setting aside of awards. One facet of this category would also be enforcement of awards by courts. 36. As discussed earlier, insofar as the rules pertaining to conduct of arbitral proceedings are concerned the legislature in his wisdom has specifically provided that Amendment Act would not apply to arbitral proceedings that were commenced prior to 23.10.2015. The applicability of the provisions of the Amendment Act that relate to the supportive and supervisory role of courts, may be considered in the context of the reasons that led to enactment of such provisions. 37. The Consultation Paper (hereafter 'the consultation paper') on the proposed amendments to the Act placed in public domain in April, 2010 by the Government of India, indicated the reasons for amending the Act as under:- “As we know that main purpose of the 1996 Act is to encourage an ADR method for resolving disputes speedy and without much interference of the Courts. In fact Section 5 of the Act provides, “Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, in matters covered by this Part (i.e. Part I), no judicial authority shall intervene except where so provided in this Part. “However, with the passage of time, some difficulties in its applicability of the Act have been noticed. In fact Section 5 of the Act provides, “Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, in matters covered by this Part (i.e. Part I), no judicial authority shall intervene except where so provided in this Part. “However, with the passage of time, some difficulties in its applicability of the Act have been noticed. The Supreme Court and High Courts have interpreted many provisions of the Act and while doing so they have also realized some lacunas in the Act which leads to conflicting views. Further, in some cases, courts have interpreted the provisions of the Act in such a way which defeats the main object of such a legislation. Therefore, it becomes necessary to remove the difficulties and lacunas in the Act so that ADR method may become more popular and object of enacting Arbitration law may be achieved.” 38. The amendments introduced by the Amendment Act are based on 246th Report of the Law Commission of India. A plain reading of the said report clearly indicates that most of the amendments are occasioned by the decisions rendered by the courts (mainly the Supreme Court of India). In some cases, the courts had pointed out certain anomalies while in the other cases, the courts had interpreted the law, which the Government felt was different from India's legal policy relating to arbitration. Thus, several amendments have also been introduced to overcome the decisions rendered by the courts. 44. The essential purpose of the Act is to provide the legal framework for an Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanism. And, as stated above, the Amendment Act has been enacted for removing the difficulties and the lacunae in the Act. The entire purpose of the Amendment Act is to improve the efficacy of the ADR. Whilst it is understandable that the arbitral proceedings that have already commenced, should be continued in accordance with the procedure as adopted; it is difficult to understand the rationale as to why the supportive and supervisory role of Courts in regard to those proceedings be not provided as per the Amendment Act. If the contention as advanced by the respondents is accepted, it would mean that the courts would adopt different approach in lending their aid to proceedings and enforcement of awards depending upon when the arbitral proceedings commenced. 46. If the contention as advanced by the respondents is accepted, it would mean that the courts would adopt different approach in lending their aid to proceedings and enforcement of awards depending upon when the arbitral proceedings commenced. 46. The amendment for effective enforcement of the award would also principally be a procedural matter. The Supreme Court in Narhari Shivram Shet Narvekar v. Pannalal Umediram reported in (1976) 3 SCC 203 , held that a decree passed by an Indian Court against a foreigner which was non- executable in Goa (which was not a part of India) at the time when it was passed, became executable once Goa became a part of India and the Code of Civil Procedure was extended to Goa. The Supreme Court further observed:- “It seems to us that the right of the judgment- debtor to pay up the decree passed against him cannot be said to be a vested right, nor can be question of executability of the decree be regarded as a substantive vested right of the judgment-debtor. A fortiorari the execution proceedings being purely a matter of procedure it is well settled that any change in law which is made during the pendency of the cause would be deemed to be retroactive in operation and the Appellate Court is bound to take notice of the change in law.” 47. In Kuwait Minister of Public v. Sir Frederick Snow & Partners:, reported in (1984) 1 AllER 733 (HL), the Court held that an arbitral award would be executable in United Kingdom if the foreign State was a party to the New York Convention, notwithstanding that such State was not a party to the convention when the award was made. Therefore, lifting the stay of enforcement on an award would essentially be an alteration in the procedure. 52. The view that a statutory provision can be applied retrospectively on the doctrine of fairness was accepted by the Supreme Court in Vijay v. State of Maharashtra reported in 2006 (6) SCC 289 . In that case, the Court was concerned with the applicability of provisions of Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 which enacted that no person, who has been elected as Councillor of Zila Parishad or as member of the Panchayat Samiti shall be a member of Panchyat or continue as such. In that case, the Court was concerned with the applicability of provisions of Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 which enacted that no person, who has been elected as Councillor of Zila Parishad or as member of the Panchayat Samiti shall be a member of Panchyat or continue as such. The Supreme Court rejected the contention that the said provision would not be applicable to the existing members. The relevant observations of the court are quoted below:- "It is now well-settled that when a literal reading of the provision giving retrospective effect does not produce absurdity or anomaly, the same would not be construed to be only prospective. The negation is not a rigid rule and varies with the intention and purport of the legislature, but to apply it in such a case is a doctrine of fairness. When a law is enacted for the benefit of the community as a whole, even in the absence of a provision, the statute may be held to be retrospective in nature. The appellant does not and cannot question the competence of the legislature in this behalf." 53. Thus, even in cases where there is no provision that the new law is to be applied retrospectively, the Courts would nonetheless apply the same if it is fair to do so and if it furthers the intention of the legislature. 54. The question whether Section 26 of the Amendment Act should be interpreted in a manner so as to exclude its applicability to Court proceedings in relation to the arbitral proceedings that have commenced before 23.10.2015 would also have to be viewed on the basis whether it could be fair to do so and whether it would further the object of the legislation. 55. The stated object of Arbitration Act has always been to provide for a speedy resolution of disputes and provide an efficacious ADR mechanism. The Act was enacted in 1996 to consolidate laws relating to Domestic Arbitrations, International Commercial Arbitrations and enforcement of Foreign Awards. After its enactment, it was felt that the Act had certain lacunae which needed to be addressed. In the year 2001, the Law Commission of India undertook a comprehensive review and recommended several Amendments in its 176th Report to the Government of India. After its enactment, it was felt that the Act had certain lacunae which needed to be addressed. In the year 2001, the Law Commission of India undertook a comprehensive review and recommended several Amendments in its 176th Report to the Government of India. The Government of India decided to accept most of the recommendations and accordingly, the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Bill, 2003 was introduced in the Rajya Sabha on 22.12.2003. Thereafter, in July, 2004, the Government constituted a Committee under the Chairmanship of Justice Dr B.P. Saraf to undertake the study of implications of the recommendations of the Law Commission relating to Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Bill, 2003. The Bill was thereafter referred to the Departmental Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice. The said Committee after taking evidence of eminent advocates, representatives of Trade and Industry and other stake holders submitted a report on 04.08.2005. The Committee also recommended that the Bill of 2003 may be withdrawn to bring a fresh legislation. The said Bill of 2003 was thereafter withdrawn for further examination. In 2010, the Government of India issued the Consultation Paper inviting suggestions from public and other stakeholders. 56. Thereafter, the Ministry of Law and Justice asked the Law Commission of India to undertake a study of the proposed amendments. The Law Commission of India submitted its report on 05.08.2014 and proposed several amendments to the Act. The Amended Act is essentially based on the said proposals. Most of the amendments also address the issues that were sought to be addressed by the 2003 Bill. Thus, it is clear that there has been a long standing demand for amending the Act to make it more effective. The amendments for restricting Judicial Review and for removing the provision for an automatic stay of execution of the awards have been on the anvil since several years. The Government of India caused the President to promulgate the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015 [No.9 of 2015], which was published in the Gazette of India on 23.10.2015 and it came into effect immediately. The Government of India caused the President to promulgate the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015 [No.9 of 2015], which was published in the Gazette of India on 23.10.2015 and it came into effect immediately. The fact that Government caused the Ordinance to be issued under Article 123 of the Constitution of India - which is issued where the President is satisfied that circumstances exist which make it necessary for him to take immediate action - without waiting for the Parliament Session to commence clearly indicates that the Government was of the view that it was necessary to immediately implement the proposed amendments. In the circumstances, it is difficult to accept that the intention of the Legislature was not to apply the said provisions in respect of proceedings instituted before the courts after 23.10.2015 either under Section 34 or under Section 36 of the Act. 59. As mentioned hereinbefore, there is no indication in Section 26 of the Amendment Act that it would not be applicable to the proceedings instituted in courts after the Amendment Act came into force. As stated earlier, the Amendment Act is based on the amendments as provided by the Law Commission in its 246th Report. In the said report, the Law Commission had proposed that a new section-Section 85-A be inserted in the Act, which reads as under:- “Transitory provisions.- (1) Unless otherwise provided in the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amending) Act, 2014, the provisions of the instant Act (as amended) shall be prospective in operation and shall apply only to fresh arbitrations and fresh applications, except in the following situations- (a) the provisions of Section 6-A shall apply to all pending proceedings and Arbitrations. Explanation: It is clarified that where the issue of costs has already been decided by the court/tribunal, the same shall not be opened to that extent. (b) the provisions of Section 16 sub-section (7) shall apply to all pending proceedings and arbitrations, except where the issue has been decided by the court/tribunal. (c) the provisions of second proviso to Section 24 shall apply to all pending arbitrations. (2) For the purposes of the instant section,- (a) "fresh arbitrations" mean arbitrations where there has been no request for appointment of arbitral tribunal; or application for appointment of arbitral tribunal; or appointment of the arbitral tribunal, prior to the date of enforcement of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amending) Act, 2014. (2) For the purposes of the instant section,- (a) "fresh arbitrations" mean arbitrations where there has been no request for appointment of arbitral tribunal; or application for appointment of arbitral tribunal; or appointment of the arbitral tribunal, prior to the date of enforcement of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amending) Act, 2014. (b) "fresh applications" mean applications to a court or arbitral tribunal made subsequent to the date of enforcement of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amending) Act, 2014.” [NOTE: This amendment is to clarify the scope of operation of each of the proposed amendments with respect to pending arbitrations/proceedings.] It is clear from the above that the proposal was to apply The Amendment Act, not only to all applications filed before a court/ arbitral tribunal after the Amendment Act came into force, but it was also proposed that certain provisions be applied retrospectively to proceedings before the arbitral tribunal. The proposal with regard to retrospective application to pending proceedings was not accepted, therefore, Section 26, expressly provides that nothing in the Amendment Act would apply to pending arbitral proceedings. The proposal that the Amendment Act shall apply only to fresh arbitrations was accepted as is plainly evident from the language of the latter part of Section 26 of the Amendment Act. No specific provision was enacted with regard to the applicability of the amendment to “fresh applications”. However, it was enacted that the Amendment Act would come into force from 23.10.2015 and therefore would be plainly applicable to the proceedings instituted after the said date. The Parliament had specified the date on which the Amendment Act came into force and unless enacted otherwise, it would be applicable to all proceedings instituted after the specified date. There is no reason to hold that the Amendment Act would not apply to the applications filed in Courts. For the reasons stated herein before the Amendment Act would also apply to pending proceedings before courts.” 9. There is no reason to hold that the Amendment Act would not apply to the applications filed in Courts. For the reasons stated herein before the Amendment Act would also apply to pending proceedings before courts.” 9. Thus, considering the specific bar provided under section 26 of the Arbitration (Amendment) Act which specifically provides that Arbitration (Amendment) Act, 2015 shall not apply to arbitral proceedings commenced in accordance with section 21 of the Principal Act commenced before the commencement of the Amendment Act i.e. 23/10/2015 and the bar does not apply to arbitral proceedings before 23/10/2015 to which Part-I of the Act does not apply and that there is no reference to arbitral proceedings that being commenced other than under Part I of the Act, Section 26 of the Amendment Act would not cover arbitral proceedings commenced outside India – arbitral proceedings to which Part-I of the Act does not apply and therefore, Amendment Act, 2015 shall be applicable with respect to the foreign award and more particularly with respect to the proceedings pending before the Court for enforcement of the foreign award, may be commenced and pending before the District Court i.e. prior to 23/10/2015. 9.01. Therefore, amended section 47 of the Arbitration Act which provides that in respect of a foreign award “Court” means a “High Court” having original jurisdiction to decide question forming subject matter of the arbitral award if the same had been subject matter of a suit on its original civil jurisdiction and in other case in High Court having jurisdiction to hear appeals from decrees of Courts subordinate to such High Court shall be applicable even with respect to the pending execution proceedings filed for the enforcement of the foreign award. Therefore all the execution petitions pending before the Courts/District Courts for enforcement of the foreign award are required to be considered and dealt with by the “Court” mentioned in section 47 of the Act and as per section 2(2)(e) of the Act i.e. by the concerned High Court. 10. Now, next question posed for consideration of this Court is whether execution petitions pending before the concerned District Court as on 23/10/2015 which are filed for execution/enforcement of the foreign award are required to be transferred, and if yes, to which Court ? 10.01. 10. Now, next question posed for consideration of this Court is whether execution petitions pending before the concerned District Court as on 23/10/2015 which are filed for execution/enforcement of the foreign award are required to be transferred, and if yes, to which Court ? 10.01. As per sub-section (1) of Section 10 where the subject matter of arbitration is commercial dispute of a specified value and if such arbitration is an international commercial arbitration, all the applications and appeals arising out of such arbitration under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 that have been filed in a High Court, shall be heard, decided and disposed of by the Commercial Division where such Commercial Division has been established by the High Court. 10.02. As per sub-section (1) of section 15 of the Commercial Courts Act, all suits and applications including applications under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 relating to a commercial dispute of specified value pending in a High Court where Commercial Division has been constituted, shall be transferred to the Commercial Division. 10.03. As per sub-section (2) of section 15, all suits and applications including the applications under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 relating to a commercial dispute of a specified value pending in any Civil Court in any District or area in respect of which a Commercial Court has been instituted, shall be transferred to such Commercial Court. 10.04. At this stage object and purpose of establishment of Commercial Courts Act is required to be referred to and considered:- “The object and purpose of establishment of Commercial Courts, Commercial Divisions and Commercial Appellate Divisions of the High Court is to ensure that the cases involved in commercial disputes are disposed of expeditiously, fairly and at reasonable cost to the litigant. The Commercial Courts, Commercial Divisions and Commercial Appellate divisions of the High Courts are intended to serve as a pilot project in the larger goal of reforming the civil justice system in India. The Commercial Courts, Commercial Divisions and Commercial Appellate divisions of the High Courts are intended to serve as a pilot project in the larger goal of reforming the civil justice system in India. As per the recommendations made by the Law Commission on the basis of which the Commercial Courts have been established, the Commercial Courts more particularly will benefit the litigant, other potential litigants (especially those engaged in trade and commerce) shall also be advantaged by the reduction in backlog caused by the quick disposal of the commercial disputes, which in turn, will further economic growth, increase foreign investment, and make India an attractive place to do business. From the 188th report of the Law Commission it appears that the constitution of Commercial Divisions Courts were necessitated due to inordinate delays, and the need to ensure the fast disposal of high value commercial disputes to provide assurance to domestic and foreign investors. It has been aimed to give a clear assurance to investors that high value commercial suits would directly go before the Commercial Division/Commercial Courts/Commercial Appellate Courts, which would follow fast track procedures.” 10.05. Considering the object and purpose of Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 read with object and purpose of establishment of Commercial Courts under the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and on conjoined reading of the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 and the relevant provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 referred to hereinabove and with a view to see that the object and purpose of the aforesaid Acts are not frustrated, execution petitions to enforce the foreign award are required to be considered, dealt with and disposed of by the High Court and all the applications/appeals arising out of the international commercial arbitration relating to a commercial dispute of a specified value is required to be heard, decided and disposed of by Commercial Division where such Commercial Division has been constituted in such High Court. In other cases, where the subject matter of an arbitration is not a commercial dispute of a specified value and if such arbitration is international commercial arbitration, all the applications or appeals arising out of such arbitration under the provisions of the Arbitration are to be heard, decided and disposed of by the concerned High Court. In other cases, where the subject matter of an arbitration is not a commercial dispute of a specified value and if such arbitration is international commercial arbitration, all the applications or appeals arising out of such arbitration under the provisions of the Arbitration are to be heard, decided and disposed of by the concerned High Court. Thus, the respective applications including the execution applications for enforcement of foreign award or appeals arising out of such arbitration (international commercial arbitration) are to be either transferred to Commercial Division constituted by the High Court and constituted in the High Court or concerned High Court, as the case may be. 11. The sum and substance of the above discussion would be, (1) Where the subject matter of an arbitration is a commercial dispute of a specified value and if such arbitration is international commercial arbitration, all the applications or appeals arising out of such arbitration under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 shall be heard, decided and disposed of by the Commercial Division where such commercial Division has been constituted in the High Court i.e. in the present case High Court of Gujarat. (2) Where the subject matter of an arbitration is a commercial dispute but not of a specified value and if such arbitration is international commercial arbitration, considering the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 the same shall be heard, decided and disposed of by the concerned High Court. (3) Where the subject matter of an arbitration is a commercial dispute of a specified value and if such arbitration is other than international arbitration, all the applications or appeals arising out of such arbitration under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 shall be filed in and heard, decided and disposed of by the Commercial Court exercising territorial jurisdiction over such arbitration where such commercial court has been constituted. Considering section 15 of the Commercial Courts Act, all the applications/appeals in question under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, therefore are required to be transferred to the concerned Commercial Division of the High Court of Gujarat or before the Gujarat High Court or before the concerned commercial court and as observed hereinabove and as the case may be. 12. Considering section 15 of the Commercial Courts Act, all the applications/appeals in question under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, therefore are required to be transferred to the concerned Commercial Division of the High Court of Gujarat or before the Gujarat High Court or before the concerned commercial court and as observed hereinabove and as the case may be. 12. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, all these applications stand disposed of and it is held that the concerned Executing Court before whom the respective Execution Petitions are pending shall not have any jurisdiction to execute foreign awards for which the Execution Petitions are filed. Consequently, the concerned Commercial court to return the respective Execution Petitions to the concerned original applicant to present it before “appropriate Court” considering the observations made in para 11 of the present judgment and order. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. No order as to costs.