Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.11 – Appellant claimed loss and damages under the insurance policies taken from the respondent – After a considerable delay, a grossly inadequate amount was offered by the respondent – Due to financial strain, appellant signed the undated and standardized voucher/advance receipt – Pursuant thereto, appellant received the cheque issued by the respondent – Later, appellant invoked arbitration clause to settle the balance amount being the difference between the claim lodged by the appellant and the amount paid by the respondent – Respondent denied any liability and refused to accept arbitration – Appellant filed applications u/s.11 of the Act for appointment of arbitrator – High Court held that no arbitrator could be appointed in view of acceptance of the amount in full and final settlement – Correctness:
Held: High Court was wrong in rejecting the s.11(6) applications of the appellant – The question as to whether the appellant was compelled to sign the standardized voucher/advance receipt forwarded to it by the respondent out of economic duress and whether notwithstanding receipt of Rs. 1,88,14,146.00 as against the claim of Rs. 5,71,69,554.00 the claim to arbitration is sustainable or not are clearly within the domain of the arbitral tribunal – Thus, impugned order set aside. [Paras 41, 42]
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Invocation of arbitration after settlement between the parties – Concept of ‘accord and satisfaction’ – Discussed. [Paras 33-39]
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Doctrine of kompetenzkompetenz firmly embedded in arbitration jurisprudence in India – Discussed. [Para 40]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.