https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196592 A Section 20 application under the Arbitration Act, 1940 was held within limitation under Article 137 because the right to apply arose when the contractual authority failed to act on the request for reference; the objection that the underlying claim was time-barred was treated as a matter for the arbitrator, not a ground to refuse reference. A separate additional claim was found not referable to arbitration because it fell within the same broad head of dispute already covered by an earlier reference and award, and permitting it would amount to splitting the dispute. The Court also relied on principles analogous to constructive res judicata and Order II Rule 2 to prevent multiplicity of proceedings. en-us Thu, 17 Mar 1977 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 Dec 2017 12:14:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196592 A Section 20 application under the Arbitration Act, 1940 was held within limitation under Article 137 because the right to apply arose when the contractual authority failed to act on the request for reference; the objection that the underlying claim was time-barred was treated as a matter for the arbitrator, not a ground to refuse reference. A separate additional claim was found not referable to arbitration because it fell within the same broad head of dispute already covered by an earlier reference and award, and permitting it would amount to splitting the dispute. The Court also relied on principles analogous to constructive res judicata and Order II Rule 2 to prevent multiplicity of proceedings. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 17 Mar 1977 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196592