Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the petition for appointment of an arbitrator was maintainable when the contractor had issued a no demand certificate and accepted the final payment in full and final settlement.
Analysis: The contract work had been completed and the petitioner had signed a no demand certificate after the bills were processed and the amount was received. There was nothing to show coercion, pressure, or undue influence at the time of signing. The plea that the certificate was in a proforma prepared by the respondent did not displace the effect of the admitted full and final settlement. Applying the principle that an arbitrator can be appointed only if an arbitrable dispute subsists at the time of reference, the Court held that a dispute cannot survive once accord and satisfaction is established. The later allegation of coercion, raised much after the settlement and for the first time in reply, was treated as an afterthought.
Conclusion: No arbitrable dispute subsisted after the admitted full and final settlement, and the petition for appointment of an arbitrator was not maintainable.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a contractor issues a no demand certificate and unconditionally accepts the final payment in full and final settlement, and no contemporaneous material shows coercion or undue influence, the dispute stands concluded by accord and satisfaction and cannot be referred to arbitration.