DEWAN CHAND Vs. INDIAN WELFARE RAILWAY ORGANISATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition for appointment of an Arbitrator on various grounds as mentioned in the petition. However, the same are not important as learned counsel for the petitioner has confined her arguments only on one aspect that if No Claim Certificate was given by the petitioner to trie respondent, still the question whether there was an accord of satisfaction between the parties-has to be referred to the. Arbitrator. Ms.Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioner has cited various authorities of this Court as well as of the Supreme Court in support of her contention. She has contended that whether there is an accord of satisfaction between the parties is a question which has to be decided by the Arbitrator and not by this Court. In support of this contention, she. has cited M/s Navbharat Dal Mills vs Food Corporation of India and another AIR 1993 Delhi 87, M/s Bharat Heavy Electrical Limited vs. M/s Amar Nath Bhan Prakash (1982) 1 SCC 625, Mehta and Co. vs. Union of India 1983 (I) Arbitration Law Reporter 71. She has also cited Union of India and another vs. M/s.L.K. Ahyja. and Co. AIR 1988 SC 1172.

(2.) On the other hand, counsel for the, respondent has contended that the plea of the petitioner that the No Claim Certificate- was issued under coercion and duress was an after thought as No Claim Certificate was issued on 28/05/1997 and the petitioner did not ever protest to the respondent that the said No Claim Certificate was issued under duress or coercion or same was under protest. It was contended before me that not only it was not protested -to the respondent but as a matter of fact from May, 1997 till the filing of the petition on 23.7.98, the petitioner never took said plea. It was only when in the reply to the present petition the respondent stated that a No Claim Certificate has been issued by the petitioner, the petitioner as an afterthought made a reference in the rejoinder that the No Certificate was signed under protest.

(3.) It was further contended by learned counsel for the respondent that the authorities cited by counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the present case as by agreement "between the parties and specifically in view of Clauses 5.7.2 and 5.9.0 (II) and in view of the No Claim Certificate-given, the arbitration clause ceases to have any effect after issuance of the No Claim Certificate by the petitioner.