IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Vibhu Bakhru, Amit Mahajan, JJ.
Wishwa Mittar Bajaj & Sons - Appellant
Versus
BPTP Ltd. - Respondent
FAO (OS) (COMM) 45 of 2018
Decided On : 22-08-2022
Coercion - Arbitration - Arbitration and Conciliation Act - Section 37(1)(c), Section 34 - 11.05.2010, 21.12.2017, 14.07.2017, 18.04.2007, 19.04.2007, 21.04.2007, 10.05.2010, 11.05.2010, 30.07.2011, 28.09.2012, 11.04.2011, 21.04.2011, 01.06.2010, 05.06.2010, 30.03.2011, 31.03.2011 - The court discussed the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, specifically Section 37(1)(c) and Section 34, and examined the evidence and material regarding coercion, duress, and undue pressure exerted on the appellant prior to foreclosure of the contract. The court concluded that the appellant's claims were neither maintainable nor arbitrable, and the impugned award was not vitiated by patent illegality or in conflict with the public policy of India.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed an appeal under Section 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, challenging the rejection of its application under Section 34 of the A&C Act to set aside an arbitral award. The appellant alleged that it had executed certain agreements under duress, coercion, and protest.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant's claims were neither maintainable nor arbitrable, and the impugned award was not vitiated by patent illegality or in conflict with the public policy of India.
Issues: The issues involved coercion, duress, and undue pressure exerted on the appellant prior to foreclosure of the contract, the validity of the Settlement Agreement, Indemnity Bond, and Affidavit, and the maintainability and arbitrability of the appellant's claims.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a bald plea of fraud, coercion, duress, or undue influence is not enough to undo settlement agreements, and the appellant's claims were not maintainable or arbitrable.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and all pending applications were disposed of.
JUDGMENT
Vibhu Bakhru, J. Wishwa Mittar Bajaj & Sons (hereafter `the appellant') has filed the present appeal under Section 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (hereafter `the A&C Act') impugning an order dated 21.12.2017 (hereafter `the impugned order') passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the appellant's application under Section 34 of the A&C Act, seeking to set aside an arbitral award dated 14.07.2017 (hereafter `the impugned award'), was rejected.
FACTUAL CONTEXT
2. On 18.04.2007, the respondent issued a Letter of Intent and awarded the work of construction of Towers (G, H, J & K) for Group Housing Project at Sector-82, Faridabad (hereafter `the Project') to the appellant. Subsequently, on 19.04.2007, the respondent issued a Work Order in favour of the appellant for completion of the Project. In terms of the Work Order, the effective date of commencement of works was 21.04.2007 and the scheduled date of completion of works was a period of twenty-one months from the date of possession of the site. The contract value of the Project was approximately Rs.16,48,14,449/-.
3. The execution of the works was prolonged beyond the agreed period of twenty-one months. The contract between the parties was foreclosed on 11.05.2010. On the same day, the appellant also signed an Indemnity cum Undertaking. The said undertaking stipulated that the appellant would be given an ad-hoc payment of Rs.15,00,000/- and the said amount would be disbursed within a period of twenty days from the date of signing of the final bill. The relevant terms of the Indemnity cum Undertaking executed between the parties, is set out below:
"WHEREAS the indemnifier has expressed its inability to proceed with the contract and has requested the indemnified vide its letter dated 10th May, 2010 to foreclose the contract and upon the said request, the indemnified has agreed to foreclose the contract vide its letter dated 11th May, 2010.
WHEREAS pending joint measurement of the work in order to ascertain the work completed by indemnifier and the reconciliation of accounts, the Indemnifier has requested the indemnified to release/pay an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Only) to settle the accounts with labour/staff, suppliers, sub-contractors etc in respect of the said Contract.
AND WHEREAS on such request the Indemnified has agreed to pay the amount of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Only) in two installments of Rs.10, 00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) and Rs.5, 00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) each to the indemnifier. The Indemnified is handing over a cheque of amount of Rs.10, 00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) vide cheque no. 368046 dated 11th May 2010 drawn on Punjab National Bank, Connaught Place, New Delhi110001 Branch to the Indemnifier at the time of execution of the present Indemnity cum undertaking.
The balance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) shall be released and paid by the Indemnified on the Documentary proof shown by the Indemnifier to the Indemnified that the earlier amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) was utilized by the Indemnifier for the purpose meant for as per the Terms of present Deed.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
1. That Indemnifier undertakes to utilize the amount of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Only) received from the Indemnified, exclusively to settle the accounts with labour/staff, suppliers, sub-contractors etc and that the amount shall be utilized for the said purpose only.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
6. That the Indemnifier undertakes that it shall fully co-operate with the Indemnified for joint measurements, reconciliation of RMC and steel and shall assist the Indemnified to prepare the Final Bill. The Indemnifier undertakes that it shall assist the Indemnified in order to ensure that the joint measurements, reconciliation of RMC and steel and the final bill is prepared/completed within 30 days from the date of the present deed. The Indemnifier agrees, understands and undertakes that it shall receive
A bald plea of fraud, coercion, duress, or undue influence is not enough to undo settlement agreements.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the decision of the Arbitral Tribunal must be based on evidence and material on record, and the Court will not interfere with the award unless....
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 sat....
The issue of coercion and undue influence in the execution of a settlement agreement is an arbitrable dispute that should be referred to arbitration.
The Ld. Arbitrator's jurisdiction to consider the claims and counter claims, and the finding that the dispute raised by the respondent was arbitrable, were central legal points established in the jud....
Claims raised after acceptance of payments are considered waived if not disputed timely, and allegations of coercion were deemed unfounded by the arbitrator.
The court affirmed that a contract signed under undue influence or coercion is unenforceable, emphasizing the necessity for clear evidence and valid agreement in cases of settlement.
The main legal point established is that the issuance of a No Claim Certificate (NCC) under economic duress can invalidate its validity and preclude the claimant from raising any claim in connection ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.