The main legal point established in the judgment is that false allegations of coercion and duress, along with the suppression of a Settlement Agreement, can demonstrate a clear case of accord and satisfaction, discharging the contract.

JUDGMENT :

1. These are two applications filed under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short “ACA”) whereby the applicants have prayed for appointment of an arbitral tribunal to adjudicate the disputes and differences between the parties, which have arisen under Sub-Contract Agreements dated 10 August, 2017 and 22 September, 2018 respectively, under which the applicants have been appointed by the respondent as a sub-contractors for the work of excavation of soil/muck/rock/debris at Hutatma Chowk and Churchgate Station, which was in execution of the contract as awarded to the respondent for the Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. The arbitration agreement between the parties is contained in Clause 60.1 of the Agreements in question in regard to which there is no dispute.

2. The applicants contended that the applicants were awarded work by the respondent under the sub-contracts in question primarily for excavation of the soil from the sites in question. According to the applicants, the work having being undertaken amounts had become due and payable by the respondent to the applicant, however, the respondent refused to make payment of such amounts.

3. It is case of the applicants that on or about October, 2020, as the applicants were in financial difficulties, the applicant was requesting the respondent to release funds at the earliest. The applicants contend that the respondent however coerced the applicants to agree to their settlement terms for release of the said outstanding payments. It is contended that the respondent unilaterally drafted Minutes of the meeting and forced the applicant to accept all the terms of the respondent. The applicant has contended that despite signing of the Minutes of Meeting on 21 May, 2021, the respondent did not release any payment. Accordingly, the applicant on 21 May, 2021 made a request to the respondent to look into the matter and make payment. It is contended that ultimately on 25 June, 2021, the applicant by its advocate’s notice invoked the arbitration agreement and called upon the respondent to appoint an arbitral tribunal for adjudicating the disputes and differences between the parties. The applicants however have contended that on 2 July, 2021, the applicant addressed a letter of unconditional withdrawal of its notice invoking arbitration. It is next contended that the respondent despite this has refused to make any payment although demanded by the applicant by its email dated 15 August, 2021 as also letter dated 23 September, 2021 as addressed to the respondent. It is the applicant’s case that consequently by its notice dated 18 October, 2021 the applicant invoked the arbitration agreement calling upon the respondent to appoint an arbitral tribunal. It is contended that as the respondent did not agree for appointment of the arbitral tribunal, the present applications were required to be filed.

4. A reply affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent denying the case of the applicants that there exists an arbitration agreement. The case of the respondent is of an accord and satisfaction. The primary contention of the respondent is to the effect that there was a Settlement Agreement dated 31 October, 2020 as entered between the parties, which came to be signed on 2 July, 2021 which according to the respondent is not disputed on behalf of the respondent. The primary contention as urged on behalf of the respondent is that although such Settlement Agreement was entered between the parties and all disputes in regard to the contract in question were put to an end, there is a clear suppression of these facts as revealed from the documents not annexed by the applicants. It is the respondent’s contention that in invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under section 11(6) of ACA, the applicant ought to have approached this Court with clean hands and ought to have necessarily placed on record the document of settlement. It is the case of the respondents that the cas