( 1 ) THESE two appeals involve same question of law to be decided which relates to interpretation of Section 22 of The Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 ("sica" for short ). As per the provisions of Section 22 (1) of the SICA where in respect of a industrial company an inquiry under Section 16 is pending or any scheme referred under Section 17 is under preparation or consideration or a sanctioned scheme is under implementation or where an appeal under Section 25 relating to an industrial company is pending, then, among others, no suit for recovery of money shall lie or be proceeded with further, except with the consent of the Board or, as the case may be, the Appellate Authority. It is therefore an admitted position that in respect of such an industrial company no civil suit for recovery of money is maintainable and if it is pending it is not be proceeded with further. Further progress of proceedings in such a suit have to be halted and the suit can proceed only if Board or Appellate Authority consents for the same. The question to be determined is as to whether this bar would apply to arbitration proceedings pending under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 as well? In both the appeals, arbitrators have rendered their awards after the arbitration proceedings which were conducted under the Arbitration Act, 1940. Arbitration awards were filed in the Court for making rule the Court. Cement Corporation of India Ltd. ("cci Ltd. " for short) which is a party in both the cases has suffered awards. Not satisfied with th awards, it has filed objections in both the cases. One is registered as suit No. 171-A/95 out of which FAO (OS) No. 84/97 arises and other suit is registered as Suit No. 3125a of 1992 out of which FAO (OS) 1/98 arises. CCI Ltd. has made reference to Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction ("board" for short) constituted under SICA which has been registered. In view thereof in both the cases, CCI Ltd. filed application under Section 22 of SICA with the prayer that the proceedings in the aforesaid cases be stayed and be not proceeded with.

( 2 ) IA filed in Suit No. 171-A/95 by the CCI Ltd. has been allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 5/02/1997 and proceedings in the suit are stayed. This order is LLoyd Insulations (India)) Ltd. v. Cement Corporation of India, 1997 (66) DLT 858. On the other hand, IA filed in suit No. 3125a of 1992, has been dismissed vide order dated 20/11/1997 by another learned Single Judge holding that provisions of Section 22 of SICA are not applicable to such proceedings. This order is reported as Wekcast Steels Ltd. v. Cement Corporation of India, 1997 (70) DLT 783. In this order, the learned Single Judge has noted the order dated 5/02/1997 passed in suit No. 171-A/95 but has not agreed with the view taken on the ground that it goes contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Shree Chamundi Moped s Ltd. v. Church of South India Trust Association, Madras, AIR 1992 SC 1439. Thus there is an apparent conflict between the two views taken by two learned Judges. Appellant, Lloyd Insulation has filed FAO (OS)) No. 84 of 1997 against order 5/02/1997 and CCI Ltd. is the appellant in FAO (OS) 1 of 1998 which has felt aggrieved by order dated 20/11/1997. This is the background in which the aforesaid question of law arises for consideration and for resolution as to which view is correct. Before proceeding to consider this question, it would be useful to reproduce the provisions of Section 22 of SICA in its entirety:

"section 22: Suspension of legal proceedings, contracts, etc. : (1) Where in respect of an industrial company, an inquiry under Section 16 is pending or any scheme referred to under Section 17 is under preparation or consideration or a sanctioned scheme is under implementation or where an appeal under Section 25 relating to an industrial company is pending, then, notwithstanding anything contained in t