ORDER : Sujata V. Manohar, J. - These petitions are under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an arbitrator. The respondent Companies in both these petitions are before the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. In the case of the respondent in Arbitration Petition No. 24 of 1998, enquiry before BIFR is pending. In the case of the respondent in Arbitration Petition No. 27 of 1998, a scheme has already been framed under the said Act and is in the course of implementation. The question is whether in view of Section 22(1) and Section 22(3) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 the present proceedings under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 can be proceeded with. This is an important question which requires to be considered by a regular Bench of this Court. My attention was drawn to a decision of this Court in Maharashtra Tubes Ltd. v. State Industrial and Investment Corpn. of Maharashtra Ltd., (1993) 2 SCC 144 in which this Court interpreted Section 22(1) to include proceedings under the State Financial Corporations Act. Hence these proceedings would be suspended. In the case of Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. v. Church of South India Trust Assn., (1992) 3 SCC 1 : (1992) 75 Comp Cas 440 this Court held that pending eviction proceedings taken by a private landlord against the sick company were not covered by Section 22(1) and could be proceeded with. This judgment, however, was prior to the amendment to Section 22(1). 2. None of these judgments deals with proceedings under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Hence the matters may be placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders.