Full and final settlement defeats arbitration where coercion is not prima facie proved with credible material.

A dispute is not referable to arbitration at the Section 11 stage where a discharge voucher and subrogation letter show a full and final settlement and the plea of coercion or undue influence is not prima facie supported by credible material. A bare allegation of fraud, duress or coercion is insufficient; the claimant must produce concrete particulars and prompt protest to displace the apparent settlement. On the stated facts, the coercion plea was found unsupported and delayed, so the settlement was treated as voluntary and binding, and no arbitrable dispute survived.

---

---

Issues: Whether the discharge voucher and letter of subrogation were executed voluntarily so as to constitute accord and satisfaction and bar reference to arbitration under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Analysis: A mere assertion of fraud, coercion, duress or undue influence is insufficient. The party raising such a plea must prima facie establish it with material before the Chief Justice or designate. Where the discharge document appears to be a valid full and final settlement, and the claimant does not raise a prompt protest or produce concrete particulars showing compulsion, the settlement may be treated as binding and the dispute as non-arbitrable. On the facts, the allegation of coercion was found to be a bald assertion unsupported by particulars, especially in view of the delayed protest and the absence of credible material showing financial compulsion.

Conclusion: The discharge and subrogation were held to be voluntary and effective as full and final settlement. No arbitrable dispute survived, and the order appointing an arbitrator was unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: At the Section 11 stage, a dispute is not referable to arbitration where full and final settlement is shown and the plea of coercion or undue influence is not prima facie established with credible material.

---