9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Appointment of an independent arbitrator under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 2. Whether there was full and final settlement of the claim. 3. Allegations of coercion and undue influence in obtaining the settlement. 4. Determination of whether the dispute is arbitrable. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Appointment of an Independent Arbitrator The petitioner/firm sought the appointment of an independent arbitrator under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to adjudicate the dispute with the respondent/company. The agreement dated 16-2-1995 included an arbitration clause (Clause 56) for resolving disputes. The petitioner/firm claimed that despite repeated requests and exchanges of letters, the respondent/company failed to appoint an arbitrator, necessitating court intervention. Issue 2: Full and Final Settlement of the Claim The respondent/company argued that the petitioner/firm had accepted Rs. 1,02,041 as full and final settlement of the amount due, with Rs. 1 lakh paid through cheque and Rs. 2,041 retained for TDS. The respondent/company claimed there was accord and satisfaction, negating any subsisting dispute. They alleged the petitioner/firm abandoned the site without completing the work. Conversely, the petitioner/firm contended that the final bill submitted on 23-1-1996 was drastically reduced, and the acceptance of Rs. 1 lakh was under duress due to financial crisis. Issue 3: Allegations of Coercion and Undue Influence The petitioner/firm alleged that the respondent/company's Chairman/Managing Director exerted undue influence and coercion, forcing the acceptance of Rs. 1 lakh as full payment. The petitioner/firm argued that the financial crisis and the respondent/company's dominant position led to this coerced settlement. The respondent/company denied these allegations, asserting that the petitioner/firm voluntarily accepted the settlement and signed the final bill without protest. Issue 4: Determination of Arbitrability The court examined whether the issue of full and final settlement, when disputed, is a matter for arbitration or court determination. Citing precedents, the court noted that disputes regarding accord and satisfaction are typically decided by the arbitrator. However, if the settlement is found to be voluntary and unconditional, it ceases to be an arbitrable dispute. The court referenced cases like Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. V.D. Swami & Company Ltd and P.K. Ramaiah & Co. v. Chairman & Managing Director, National Thermal Power Corpn., emphasizing that voluntary settlements are not arbitrable. Conclusion: The court found that the petitioner/firm's acceptance of Rs. 1,02,041 on 13-3-1996 was voluntary and constituted a full and final settlement. The subsequent allegations of coercion and undue influence were deemed afterthoughts, unsupported by evidence. The court held that there was no existing arbitrable dispute to refer to arbitration. Consequently, the application for appointing an independent arbitrator was dismissed, with costs as incurred.
|
