JUDGMENT This is an application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act for referring the disputes to arbitration. These disputes are mentioned in paragraph 17 of the petition. It appears that in respect of the same Contract No.5 of 1973-74 dated the' 19th May, 1973 the present petitioner had made a previous application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act for referring the disputes which had arisen between the parties at that time for arbitration, Before taking out that first application the petitioner bad written a letter dated the 4th November, 1980 to the General Manager, Hindusthan Fertilizer Corporation Limited for adjudicating the disputes between the parties. It was further stated in that letter "some of the issues for determination are cited below to enable you to take immediate necessary action in the matter :- 1. Difference in cost of transport of coal by rail and road transport Rs. 1,48,000/- (a) Interest on above at 10% per annum from the date of submission of the claim upto this date. (b) Further interest at 18% per annum from this date till the date of realisation. 2. Excise deposit made at the request of the then FCT now HFCL Rs. 12,000/- (a) Interest @ 18% from the date of payment made till today. (b) Further interest at 18% per annum from this date till the date of realisation. 1. Method of measurement for completing the quantum of earthwork done. Rs. 10,000/- 4. Other claims will be submitted before the Arbitrator." 2. As the respondent did not pay any heed to this letter the first application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act was moved by the petitioner as already mentioned above. No dispute was mentioned in, the body of that petition but the letter dated the 4th November, 1980 was made Annexure G to that petition. In fact An.nc1ture G was the basis of the first petition under section 20 of the Arbitration Act. On that application an order was passed on the 18th June, 1981 for filing the arbitration agreement and it was further mentioned in that order that the disputes mentioned in the petition along with the counter claims Of the defendant respondent, if any, be referred to the arbitration of the said Arbitrator. 3. By that order Mr. Sisir Kumar Mukherjee, a retired Judge of this Court was appointed the sole Arbitrator. 3. By that order Mr. Sisir Kumar Mukherjee, a retired Judge of this Court was appointed the sole Arbitrator. Before the Arbitrator the petitioner as claimant alongwith the disputes specifically mentioned in Annexure 'G' also submitted the disputes mentioned in paragraph 17 of the present petition. The respondent contended before the Arbitrator that these disputes were not mentioned in the petition before Salil Kumar Roy Chowdhury, J. and, therefore, these disputes were not referred to arbitration. As, the Arbitrator himself was in doubt as to whether these disputes were referred to him or not, the petitioner took out the present application for a fresh order of reference under section 20 of the Arbitration Act for referring the disputes mentioned in paragraph 17 of the present petition to the Arbitrator, Sisir Kumar Mukherjee for adjudication. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent in this matter the respondent has taken a point that the disputes mentioned in paragraph 17 of the present petition were already in existence on the 18th June, 1981 when the first order of reference was made by Salil Kumar Roy Chowdhury, J. As these disputes were not incorporated or mentioned in the first petition the petitioner cannot agitate these disputes any further because all these disputes are hit by the principles of constructive res judicata. Moreover, according to the petitioner the present application is also barred by limitation. 4. I have gone through the first petition made before Salil Kr. Roy Chowdhury, J. and I find that the learned Judge by the words "the disputes mentioned in the petition" actually referred to the disputes referred to in Annexure 'G' to the petition because no dispute was mentioned in the body of the said petition. It is, therefore, clear that Salil Kr. Roy Chowdhury, J. has referred all the disputes mention in Annexure 'G', viz. The letter dated the 4th November, 1980, to the first petition for adjudication which includes Item No. (4) "other claims will be submitted before the Arbitrator". Reading this letter dated the 4th November, 1980 I have no doubt in my mind that the disputes referred to in paragraph 17 of the present petition were also intended to be referred to arbitration under "other claims" mentioned in Item No. (4) therein. Reading this letter dated the 4th November, 1980 I have no doubt in my mind that the disputes referred to in paragraph 17 of the present petition were also intended to be referred to arbitration under "other claims" mentioned in Item No. (4) therein. As a matter of fact in the affidavit-in-opposition filed in the present proceeding the respondent also admits that all these disputes were in existence when the order was made. In that view or the matter, there can be no fresh order for reference as the earlier order passed by Salil Kr. Roy Chowdhury, J. covered all the disputes mentioned in paragraph 17 of the present petition. This application is therefore liable to be dismissed and is dismissed. The respondent will get the costs of the application.