Arbitrability of notified claims and no claim certificates left for the tribunal, not finally decided at referral stage.

Under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the Court confined its inquiry to the existence of an arbitration agreement and the dispute's connection with it, and held that contested questions about whether the contractor's claims were notified, included in the final bill, or settled by a no claim certificate were for the arbitral tribunal. The contractual power of the General Manager to decide notified claims did not make his view conclusive or bar arbitral scrutiny, particularly where the record raised a real dispute over whether the withdrawal of claims and the no claim certificate were voluntary or obtained under pressure. Accord and satisfaction was also treated as a matter for evidence. Reference to arbitration was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Court should refuse appointment of an arbitrator on the ground that the contractor's claims were not notified claims or had been finally settled, where the contract vested the General Manager with power to decide those questions.

Analysis: The arbitration clause was read with the contractual provisions governing notified claims, inclusion in the final bill, and the General Manager's preliminary decision. The Court held that Section 11(6A) confines the judicial inquiry primarily to the existence of an arbitration agreement and the dispute's relation to that agreement, while contested questions as to whether claims were in fact notified, included in the final bill, or discharged by a no claim certificate are ordinarily for the arbitral tribunal. It was further held that the contractual power given to the General Manager did not make his decision conclusive so as to exclude arbitral scrutiny, especially where the record disclosed a real contest on whether the withdrawal of claims and the no claim certificate were voluntary or were obtained under pressure. The Court also treated the issue of accord and satisfaction as one requiring adjudication on evidence.

Conclusion: The objections to reference were rejected and the disputes were held referable to arbitration.

---