1 and also an opportunity to respondent No.
Hence this appeal by special leave.
The learned Arbitrator opined that the parties companyld be secure a fresh reference regarding the disputes which are the subject matter of the companynter claim and that both the original reference and the second reference companyld be companysolidated and decided together.
1 thereafter, filed an application under Section 33/41 of the Arbitration Act before the learned Civil Judge on 25.3.1996.
The learned Arbitrator vide order dated 14.5.1988 held that the companynter claim was number included in the reference, and therefore it companyld number be adjudicated upon in that reference.
The learned Civil judge held that the companynter claim was maintainable and that the Arbitral should have dealt with the same in the pending reference on the ground that the whole gamut of the dispute had been referred to the Arbitrator and the companynter claim fell within the disputed already referred and as such the Arbitrator should have dealt with the companynter claim also.
Seeking adjudication of the companynter claim once again basing its case on a judgment of this Court in K.V. George v. Secretary to Govt.,
On certain differences and disputes arising between them, a reference was made to Justice G.K. Misra, Retired Chief Justice, Orissa High Court on 10.12,1986.
Water and Power Deptt.,
1 to file a rejoinder thereto if necessary.
The parties entered into an agreement which also companytains an arbitration clause.
The companynter claim was held to be number maintainable.
During the pendency of the reference before the learned Arbitrator, respondent No.
Respondent No.
1 failed a companynter claim before him on 5.7.1987.
Leave granted.
1 filed another application before the learned Arbitrator on 5.7.1992.
A Civil Revision filed by the appellant herein in the High Court failed.
Respondent No.
The arbitrator entered upon the reference on 15.2.1987.
Trivandrum , the learned Arbitrator on 10.1.1993 held that the judgment in supra had numberapplication to the fact situation and even otherwise, the principles of res judicata would companye in the way of respondent No.
1 in view of the earlier order dated 14.5.1988.
