3 jointly is number a matter agreed either between Defendant No.
However.
Thereafter the appellant filed T.S. No.
1 from prosecuting the arbitration proceeding bearing reference No.
against the plaintiff and Defendant No.
1 or amongst plaintiff, Defendant No 1 and Defendant No.3 to be referred to arbitration under the said document dated 20.4.1982 numberenclatured as marketing Agreement or otherwise.
After leave was granted, all these Special Leave Petitions were numbered as Civil Appeals as mentioned above.
The relevant clauses in the Ordinance will be referred to at the relevant place hereinafter.
By the Order under appeal, the High Court has reversed the Order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar dated 26.3.94, by which the learned Subordinate Judge accepting an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 P.C., rejected the plaint in title suit No.
Brief facts, shorn of details, necessary for the disposal of these Appeals are as under The first respondent herein, namely, Klockner Company entered Company, entered into an agreement on 20.4.82 described as Marketing Agreement with Orissa Mining Corporation hereinafter referred to as O.M.C. for short , a Government of Orissa Undertaking.
231/92 filed by the first respondent in Special Leave Petition.
in its said request fol arbitration dated 21.4.93 and said statement of claim dated 21.4.93 appended thereto.
J U D G M E N T VENKATASWAMI.
Against a single Order of the learned Civil Judge, Bhubaneswar in M.C. No.426/93, the State of Orissa filed one Miscellaneous Appeal No.553/94 and Civil Revision Petition No.
The High Court rendered its decision in Civil Revision Petition No.
7574 76/1996 Orissa Minining Corporation V. Klockner Co. Ors.
W I T H CIVIL APPEAL NOS.
Likewise, the Orissa Mining Corporation appellant in C.A. Nos.7574 16/95 and third respondent before the High Court , has also filed three Special Leave Petitions against the companymon order of the High Court and of Civil Judge.
The respondent herein on companying to know of the suit filed by the appellant moved the Miscellaneous Case No.
3 or between the plaintiff and Defendant No.
262/94.
After the taking over as mentioned above, the Charge Chrome Division was transferred by way of sale to Tata Iron Steel Company.
At this stage, the first respondent Klockner Co. after unsuccessful attempts to negotiate with OMC for fulfillment of the terms of the agreement, took steps to refer the dispute for arbitration to the International Chamber of Commerce, invoking clause 15 in the Agreement.
Case No.
J. The above Civil Appeals arise out of an Order passed in Misc.
W I T H SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION C NO.
14/95 dated 12.5.95.
The appellant, State of Orissa, received numberice of the arbitration proceedings on 3.5.93.
426/93 in T.S.152/93 on the file of Civil Judge, Bhubaneswar dated 16.4.94 which was later upheld by the Orissa High Court by Order dated 12.5.95.
The appellant stoutly resisted the application for stay of the suit.
Permanent injunction injunction Defendant No.
19846/1995 M s. Klockner Company V. Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd Ors.
262/94 before the Orissa High Court on the plea that there was a doubt whether an appeal or revision petition would lie against the Order of the Civil Judge in the said Miscellaneous Case.
1 and Defendant No.
