As per case facts, the respondent firm filed a suit for a declaration and interim injunction against the appellant Corporation. The District Manager of the Corporation appeared, sought time to ... reply, and then filed an application to stay the suit under the Arbitration Act, citing an arbitration agreement. The trial court granted the stay, and the District Judge upheld it. However, the High Court reversed this decision, holding that seeking time to reply to an interim injunction application constituted a "step in the proceedings," disentitling the Corporation from invoking arbitration, and ignored a binding Division Bench precedent. The Corporation appealed. The question arose whether an appearance and contesting an interlocutory order constitutes 'taking any other steps in the proceedings' under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. Finally, the Supreme Court held that merely contesting an application for interim injunction or other interim relief, without anything more, does not constitute a 'step in the proceedings' that would disentitle a party from seeking a stay under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. Such a step must unequivocally manifest an intention to waive the arbitration agreement benefit and acquiesce in court proceedings. The Court also emphasized the importance of judicial propriety in adhering to binding Division Bench decisions.