S. Muralidhar, J.

1. Gas Authority of India Ltd. (‘GAIL’) has filed this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act’) challenging an Award dated 26th April 2002 passed by the sole Arbitrator (Respondent No. 2) in the disputes between the GAIL and Respondent No. 1 SAB Industries Ltd. (‘SIL’) arising out of a letter of intent (‘LoI’) dated 23rd December 1996 whereunder SIL was to construct hundred houses for the GAIL at Sector 23, Noida for a total value of Rs. 5,37,83,775.

2. Before the sole Arbitrator appointed by the GAIL, SIL filed twenty-eight items of claims in the sum of Rs. 1,97,52,143.62 together with future interest at 24% per annum compounded quarterly on the amounts claimed under Claim Nos. 1 to 28.

3. In its reply statement filed on 14th August 2001 a preliminary objection was raised by GAIL that since SIL had accepted the payment of the amount under the final bill in absolute satisfaction no further claim was maintainable. Along with the reply statement, GAIL enclosed a copy of the completion certificate, 18th RA bill as finalized and the no demand certificate (‘NDC’) issued by SIL. In other words, GAIL’s plea was that since there was an ‘accord and satisfaction’ of all the claims of SIL, and payment against the final bill had been accepted by SIL without protest, SIL’s claims were not arbitrable.

4. In the impugned Award, the learned Arbitrator dealt with this preliminary submission as under:

“c) As regard contention of the Respondents that a ‘No Claims Certificate’ had been issued by the Claimants to the Respondents, the Respondents has shown that said ‘No Claims Certificate’ which is printed document and it was the case of the Claimants that the Claimants was made to sign on the dotted line. This fact has not been disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the Respondents. The Claimants has also relied upon a letter dated 26.6.2000, written by C.P. Kukreja Associates Pvt. Ltd., i.e. the consultant of the Respondents, wherein the consultant of the Respondents has asked the Claimants to “furnish the requisite ‘No Claims Certificate’ in the prescribed proforma as enclosed, which may please be obtained from them before releasing payment of the Contract against their 18th and final bill.” Again, at pages 5 and 6 of the documents filed by the Respondents Company, the said Consultant have again reiterated in Point No. IV that “the Contractor in furnishing the ‘No Claim Certificate’ in the proforma enclosed”. A perusal of the above makes it clear that the No Claim Certificate which was being sought by the Respondents was in the prescribed proforma, on which the Claimants was required to sign. In addition to the aforesaid, a perusal of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India as mentioned earlier, make it absolutely clear that the issuance of the ‘No Claims Certificate’ only weakens the case of the concerned party; but the entire matter is a subject of arbitration.”

5. Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, learned Senior counsel, appearing for GAIL referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Boghara Polyfab Private Limited (2009) 1 SCC 267 and Union of India v. Master Construction Company (2011) 12 SCC 349 and urged that the mere averment by SIL in its rejoinder for the first time that it had signed the NDC under ‘coercion and duress’ was not sufficient for the learned Arbitrator to conclude that SIL was made to sign on the dotted line. He submitted that the statement in the above extracted paragraph of the Award that the said fact was “not disputed by learned counsel appearing for the Respondent” was incorrect inasmuch as GAIL had categorically stated on affidavit before the learned Arbitrator that the NDC had been issued by SIL not under any ‘coercion or duress’. He referred to the entries in the bank accounts to show that the final payment by GAIL of the amount mentioned in the NDC to SIL was made on 23rd October 2000 contemporaneous with