https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165192 A prior dismissal as not pressed of an application under the repealed Arbitration Act, 1940 did not bar recourse to Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, because the two provisions operate differently and Section 8 imposes a mandatory referral duty where its conditions are met; estoppel could not defeat that statutory entitlement. The orders appointing a receiver and refusing to stay the suit were also found unsustainable because the competing interests and practical consequences for the business were not properly balanced. The matter was sent back for fresh consideration under the 1996 Act, with the parties free to seek appropriate reliefs and the interim status quo continued. en-us Wed, 31 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 07 Jul 2014 16:40:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165192 A prior dismissal as not pressed of an application under the repealed Arbitration Act, 1940 did not bar recourse to Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, because the two provisions operate differently and Section 8 imposes a mandatory referral duty where its conditions are met; estoppel could not defeat that statutory entitlement. The orders appointing a receiver and refusing to stay the suit were also found unsustainable because the competing interests and practical consequences for the business were not properly balanced. The matter was sent back for fresh consideration under the 1996 Act, with the parties free to seek appropriate reliefs and the interim status quo continued. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 31 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165192