Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Don't have an account? Register Here
<h1>Settlement Deemed Voluntary, Arbitrator Appointment Unjustified</h1> <h3>New India Assurance Company Ltd. Versus Genus Power Infrastructure Ltd.</h3> New India Assurance Company Ltd. Versus Genus Power Infrastructure Ltd. - 2014 (12) SCR 360, 2015 (2) SCC 424, 2014 (14) JT 95, 2014 (13) SCALE 530 Issues Involved:1. Validity of the appointment of an arbitrator by the High Court.2. Assessment and settlement of the insurance claim.3. Allegations of duress, coercion, and undue influence in signing the discharge voucher and subrogation letter.4. Existence of an arbitrable dispute under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Appointment of an Arbitrator by the High Court:The appeal challenges the order dated 30.05.2013 by the High Court of Delhi, which appointed an arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. The High Court observed that there was a valid arbitration agreement and disputes covered under it, leading to the appointment of a sole arbitrator despite the appellant's objections.2. Assessment and Settlement of the Insurance Claim:The respondent had an insurance policy with the appellant, covering a sum of Rs. 91 crores and 10 lacs. After a fire explosion on 29.10.2009, the appellant's surveyor assessed the damage at Rs. 6,09,77,406/-. The respondent signed a letter of subrogation on 11.03.2011, accepting Rs. 5,96,08,179/- in full and final settlement. The letter of subrogation detailed the rights and remedies transferred to the insurer.3. Allegations of Duress, Coercion, and Undue Influence:On 31.03.2011, the respondent alleged that the discharge voucher was signed under extreme duress and coercion due to financial difficulties. The appellant contended that the settlement was voluntary, noting the respondent's substantial annual turnover. The respondent's plea of coercion was supported by a reference to the decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Boghara Polyfab (P) Ltd., where it was established that if a discharge voucher is executed under fraud, coercion, or undue influence, it is rendered void.4. Existence of an Arbitrable Dispute Under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996:The court examined whether the discharge upon acceptance of compensation and signing of the subrogation letter was voluntary or under compulsion, impacting the jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Act. The law, as stated in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Boghara Polyfab Pvt. Ltd. and Union of India vs. Master Construction Co., requires that allegations of coercion must be prima facie established with material evidence. The respondent's petition lacked detailed particulars, and the delay in raising objections post-settlement indicated the absence of coercion.Judgment Conclusion:The court concluded that the respondent's plea was a bald assertion without substantial details or evidence. The financial condition of the respondent did not suggest coercion, and the discharge and signing of the subrogation letter were deemed voluntary. Consequently, the court held that no arbitrable dispute existed, and the High Court's exercise of power under Section 11 of the Act was unjustified. The appeal was allowed, and the High Court's order was set aside, with no order as to costs.