https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105109 A petition for appointment of an arbitrator was not maintainable where the contractor had issued a no demand certificate and accepted the final payment in full and final settlement. The HC found no contemporaneous material showing coercion, pressure, or undue influence when the certificate was signed, and treated the later allegation of coercion as an afterthought. Applying the principle that arbitration requires a subsisting arbitrable dispute at the time of reference, the Court held that the claim stood concluded by accord and satisfaction and could not be referred to arbitration. en-us Mon, 13 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 02 Mar 2012 15:15:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105109 A petition for appointment of an arbitrator was not maintainable where the contractor had issued a no demand certificate and accepted the final payment in full and final settlement. The HC found no contemporaneous material showing coercion, pressure, or undue influence when the certificate was signed, and treated the later allegation of coercion as an afterthought. Applying the principle that arbitration requires a subsisting arbitrable dispute at the time of reference, the Court held that the claim stood concluded by accord and satisfaction and could not be referred to arbitration. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 13 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105109