the subsequent dates, however, the proceedings were adjourned as parties were exploring possibility of settlement. Eventually, on 20/8/2008 it transpired that parties could not agree on the mode of settlement and Defendant No.1 wanted to file his counter claim. In the context of the stand taken by the Defendant No. 1, the Arbitrator opined that counter claim of the Defendant No. 1 would mean expansion of the scope of reference and would include additional disputes. Resultantly, the Arbitrator called upon the Defendant No. 1 to deposit his separate fees if he was interested in espousing his counter claim which would give rise to additional disputes. The Defendant No. 1, however, was reluctant to abide by the said direction. It appears that the objection of the Defendant No. 1 was two fold. Firstly, that the counter claim was the result of the defence taken by the Defendant No. 1 to resist the claim of the Plaintiff. In that sense, it did not raise any additional dispute. In any case, as per the order passed by the High Court on 13/10/2006, it is the Plaintiff who was liable to pay the cost of the arbitration proceedings at the first instance. These pleas of the Defendant No. 1 did not find favour with the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator, however, acceded to the request of the Defendant No. 1 to give him time to move the High Court for appropriate reliefs. It may be apposite to reproduce the relevant extract of
