The validity of the settlement agreement and the effect of the agreement on the fresh cause of action were the central legal points established in the judgment.

A.K. CHAWLA, J.

1. This appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in short 'the Act' challenges the judgment of a learned Single Judge, which rejected the Petition preferred by the appellant (hereafter “Balaji”) under Section 34 of the Act impugning the award dated 31.12.2017 of an Arbitral Tribunal.

2. The facts relevant to the appeal are that under a Franchise Agreement dated 17.8.2006 in short 'the Franchise Agreement', Balaji was appointed a retailer of the sports apparel, footwear, apparel, bags, sportswear accessories or any other related product bearing 'Reebok' trademarks. As a Franchise, Balaji was to operate a retail outlet at the premises bearing no.68/150/04, 9th Main Road, 3rd Block, J.R. Nagar, Bangalore under the name and style M/s Balaji Enterprises. During the subsistence of such arrangement, it appears, Reebok sought to discontinue the existing business arrangement by the end of the year 2012 and offered a new business module to Balaji, which did not persist for long. The parties therefore signed a settlement agreement dated 27.02.2013 in short 'the settlement agreement' under which, Balaji agreed to make payment of a negotiated amount of Rs. 1,18,73,851/- (Rupees One Crore Eighteen Lakh Seventy Three Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty One only) to Reebok towards full and final settlement of all the claims of Reebok and issued six cheques dated March 10, 2013; April 10, 2013; May 10, 2013; June 10, 2013; July 10, 2013; and, August 10, 2013 for Rs. 15 lakhs each. Reebok complained that Balaji had failed to honour the commitments under the settlement agreement and this compelled it to file a suit being CS(Comm) 245/2016 seeking a decree for a sum of Rs. 2,06,60,230.74 along with pendente lite and future interest, which comprised principal amount of Rs. 1,18,73,851/-, as was agreed upon under 'the settlement agreement'. During the pendency of such suit, Balaji filed an application under Section 8 of the Act, which was initially objected to by Reebok but consented to later. Upon agreement by the parties, the disputes subject matter of the suit as well as other disputes arising out of or in relation to the Franchise Agreement as also the settlement agreement, were referred to sole arbitration of Justice V.B. Gupta (Retd.).

3. On such reference, the Arbitrator conducted arbitration proceedings entertaining Balaji’s claim and Reebok’s counter claim. Issues were framed inter alia whether the claim of Balaji was barred by the Limitation Act. Parties led their evidence to prove their respective pleas. Giving findings on the issues framed, the learned Arbitrator passed an award of Rs. 1,18,73,851 with interest in favour of Reebok and against Balaji. Reebok’s counter claim was dismissed. Aggrieved, Balaji filed objections under Section 34 of the Act. That were dismissed by the impugned judgment.

4. Balaji impugns the impugned order dated 11.04.2018 passed by the learned single judge on the grounds (i) settlement agreement was executed by Balaji under threat, coercion and duress, without any free consent and consideration and therefore, the said settlement agreement dated 27.02.2013 was not enforceable and that, Balaji had rescinded it vide an immediate email sent to Reebok, to which Reebok did not respond; (ii) settlement agreement was neither stamped nor registered and was not even attested by any witnesses; (iii) no witness, who could testify about the authenticity of the settlement agreement, was examined before the Arbitrator; (iv) the tribunal failed to note that the attorney of Reebok, who deposed as CW1, was not aware of the transactions between the parties and was not even aware of the circumstances for the execution of the settlement agreement and therefore, his deposition was inconsequential; (v) learned Arbitrator did not appreciate the evidence before it in the right perspective; (vi) learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that vide letter dated 03.04.2012, Reebok had admitt