https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415408 A fresh reference of the same contractor claims before the M.P. Arbitration Tribunal was barred because those claims had already been referred by consent to the Housing Commissioner, decided by award, and never challenged. The earlier award had attained finality, and the later reference sought to reagitate identical disputes without disclosing the prior proceedings. Applying the principles of finality and issue estoppel, the Tribunal held that the same claims could not be reopened in a fresh forum. The reference was therefore not maintainable, and the Tribunal's dismissal of it was upheld as correct. en-us Fri, 03 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 06 Dec 2021 09:34:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415408 A fresh reference of the same contractor claims before the M.P. Arbitration Tribunal was barred because those claims had already been referred by consent to the Housing Commissioner, decided by award, and never challenged. The earlier award had attained finality, and the later reference sought to reagitate identical disputes without disclosing the prior proceedings. Applying the principles of finality and issue estoppel, the Tribunal held that the same claims could not be reopened in a fresh forum. The reference was therefore not maintainable, and the Tribunal's dismissal of it was upheld as correct. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 03 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415408