SARVESH CHOPRA Vs. IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal assails the Judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 27.5.2008 by which the Objections of the Appellant under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'A&C Act') had been dismissed. The learned Single Judge opined that the Petitioner had "miserably failed to show that the award was in contravention of any law or was against the public policy of India or was contrary to the evidence on record or contrary to the contract". The Arbitrator had concluded that accord and satisfaction had been arrived at between the parties which was not vitiated by coercion or undue influence and hence was binding on the parties. In this analysis, it is evident that the Appeal assails concurrent findings of law and fact.

(2.) We have perused the subject Award passed by the Arbitrator which takes note of the pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in some of the Judgments contained in the following Table:- Case Name Bench Strength Citation B.H.E.L. -vs- Amar Nath Bhan Prakash 2 (1982) 1 SCC 625 Union of India -vs- L.K. Ahuja 2 (1988) 3 SCC 76 State of Maharashtra -vs- Navbharat Builders 2 1991 Supp (1) SCC 68 P.K. Ramaiah -vs- NTPC 2 1994 Supp (3) SCC 126 Nathani Steels Ltd. -vs- Associated Constructions 3 1995 Supp (3) SCC 324 Jayesh Engineering Works -vs- New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 2 (2000) 10 SCC 178 Union of India - vs- Popular Builders, Calcutta 3 (2000) 8 SCC 1 NTPC -vs- Reshmi Constructions, Builders & Contractors 2 (2004) 2 SCC 663 Ambica Construction -vs- Union of India 2 (2006) 13 SCC 475 Associated Constructions -vs- Pawan Hans Helicopters 2 AIR 2008 SC 2911

(3.) The learned Arbitrator thought it proper not to dilate on the legal regime since he preferred to consider the merits of the dispute, viz., as to whether the settlement between the parties in the present case was vitiated by coercion. Since this exercise had been completed by him, it is obvious that he thought it otiose to arrive at a conclusion whether the Supreme Court had enunciated the law to the effect that once a 'No Claim Certificate' or any other document purportedly evidencing accord and satisfaction had been executed, it was no longer open to the parties to invoke the Arbitration Clause and seek an adjudication on this question through the aegis of the arbitration. In order to decide this question, the Arbitrator had examined the background in which the settlement was made in detail.