<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2011 (4) TMI 1471 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197266</link>
    <description>Acceptance of final payment and execution of an unambiguous no-claim certificate will generally indicate accord and satisfaction, so no arbitral dispute survives under Section 11(6) unless the settlement is prima facie shown to have been induced by fraud, coercion, duress, or undue influence. A bare allegation of coercion is insufficient; it must be supported by material. Here, the contractor signed full and final settlement certificates, raised no immediate objection after payment, and produced no prima facie evidence of financial duress. The Supreme Court therefore treated the contract as discharged by full and final settlement and held that arbitration could not be ordered.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 25 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 Aug 2023 09:43:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=501947" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (4) TMI 1471 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197266</link>
      <description>Acceptance of final payment and execution of an unambiguous no-claim certificate will generally indicate accord and satisfaction, so no arbitral dispute survives under Section 11(6) unless the settlement is prima facie shown to have been induced by fraud, coercion, duress, or undue influence. A bare allegation of coercion is insufficient; it must be supported by material. Here, the contractor signed full and final settlement certificates, raised no immediate objection after payment, and produced no prima facie evidence of financial duress. The Supreme Court therefore treated the contract as discharged by full and final settlement and held that arbitration could not be ordered.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197266</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>