Arbitration clauses survive disputed discharge vouchers; accord and satisfaction is usually for the arbitral tribunal at Section 11 stage.

A discharge voucher or no-claim certificate does not by itself extinguish the arbitration agreement, because the arbitration clause survives separability even if the underlying contract is said to have been discharged by accord and satisfaction. A disputed challenge to the voluntariness of the discharge, including allegations of coercion or undue influence, is ordinarily for the arbitral tribunal. At the Section 11 stage, the referral court's scrutiny is limited to the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement and may refuse appointment only where the case is manifestly ex facie meritless or non-arbitrable. The cited stamp duty decision reinforces this narrow pre-reference inquiry and minimal judicial intervention.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether execution of a discharge voucher in purported full and final settlement bars invocation of arbitration; (ii) the scope of judicial scrutiny under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 when a plea of accord and satisfaction is raised; (iii) the effect of the decision in In Re: Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 on the referral court's powers.

Issue (i): Whether execution of a discharge voucher in purported full and final settlement bars invocation of arbitration.

Analysis: A discharge voucher or no-claim certificate does not, by itself, extinguish the arbitration agreement. The underlying contract may stand discharged by accord and satisfaction, but the arbitration clause survives by virtue of separability. If the validity of the discharge is disputed on grounds such as coercion or undue influence, that dispute itself arises out of the contract and is capable of arbitration.

Conclusion: The execution of the discharge voucher did not, in the facts of the case, bar recourse to arbitration.

Issue (ii): What is the scope of judicial scrutiny under Section 11(6) when a plea of accord and satisfaction is raised.

Analysis: The referral court's role is confined to a limited prima facie review of the existence of an arbitration agreement. Questions whether the claim has been fully settled, whether the discharge was voluntary, and whether accord and satisfaction actually occurred are ordinarily matters for the arbitral tribunal. Only in manifestly ex facie meritless or non-arbitrable cases may the referral court refuse appointment; the present dispute was not such a case.

Conclusion: The plea of accord and satisfaction was a matter for the arbitral tribunal and not a ground to decline appointment of an arbitrator.

Issue (iii): What is the effect of In Re: Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 on the referral court's powers.

Analysis: The decision emphasises that, at the Section 11 stage, courts are to examine only the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement and should not embark upon wider contested enquiries that properly belong to the arbitral tribunal. That principle reinforces minimal judicial intervention and negative competence-competence at the pre-reference stage.

Conclusion: The decision supports a narrow referral inquiry and does not justify refusal of arbitration on the basis of disputed accord and satisfaction.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, the appointment of the arbitrator was upheld, and the parties were left to raise all objections before the arbitral tribunal.

Ratio Decidendi: At the Section 11 stage, the referral court should ordinarily confine itself to the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement; disputes over accord and satisfaction, including the voluntariness of a discharge voucher, are generally for the arbitral tribunal unless the claim is manifestly ex facie non-arbitrable.

---