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.

4. The learned Single Judge has discussed Nathani Steels Ltd. –vs- Associated Constructions, 1995 Supp (3) SCC 324 and NTPC –vs- Reshmi Constructions, Builders & Contractors, (2004) 2 SCC 663 and arrived at the conclusion that the Arbitrator was competent to decide the dispute regarding coercion and duress. In Nathani Steels, the parties had set together for arriving at an amicable settlement, alongwith an Architect who appears to have performed the role of a Mediator. Finding that once the parties have arrived at “a settlement in respect of any dispute or difference arising under a contract and that dispute or the difference is amicably settled by way of a final settlement by and between the parties, unless that settlement is set aside in proper proceedings, it cannot lie in the mouth of one of the parties to the settlement to spurn it on the ground that it was a mistake and proceeded to invoke the Arbitration clause. If this is permitted the sanctity of contract, settlement also being a contract, would be wholly lost and it would be open to one party to take the benefit under the settlement and then to question the same on the ground of mistake without having the settlement set aside. In the circumstances, we think that in the instant case since the dispute or difference was finally settled and payments were made as per the settlement, it was not open to the respondent unilaterally to treat the settlement as non est and proceed to invoke the Arbitration clause.” Nathani Steels should not be misunderstood. The Court came t