https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105920 Proceedings for appointment of an arbitrator under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 are not stayed by section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 merely because the respondent company has been declared sick and a revival scheme is pending. Section 22 bars specified recovery-related actions, such as winding up, execution, distress, and enforcement of security, but a section 11 application is confined to appointment of an arbitrator and does not itself amount to a suit or recovery proceeding against the sick company. The application seeking discontinuance of the section 11 proceedings was therefore not maintainable and was dismissed. en-us Mon, 05 Feb 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 10 Mar 2012 13:54:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105920 Proceedings for appointment of an arbitrator under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 are not stayed by section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 merely because the respondent company has been declared sick and a revival scheme is pending. Section 22 bars specified recovery-related actions, such as winding up, execution, distress, and enforcement of security, but a section 11 application is confined to appointment of an arbitrator and does not itself amount to a suit or recovery proceeding against the sick company. The application seeking discontinuance of the section 11 proceedings was therefore not maintainable and was dismissed. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 05 Feb 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105920