Back
ARAVIND KUMAR
Plastene India Limited – Appellant
Versus
Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co. Ltd. – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The short point which arises for consideration in this petition is whether sole Arbitrator has to be appointed despite two e-mails dated 08.04.2021 namely one from the respondent addressed to the petitioner and in reply petitioner accepting the claim made by it and had restricted its claim to Rs. 5,37,24,725/-
2. Petitioner raised a claim in respect of the insurance policy obtained from the respondent under two heads namely material damage loss and Business Interruption Loss of Rs.106,42,56,638/- and 39,90,55,000/- respectively. During the consideration of the claim certain amounts were paid namely ad-hoc payments between 31.07.2017 to 19.09.2017 and in all a sum of Rs. 24,98,70,432/- was paid. After negotiations, survey reports, discussions and deliberations, settlement agreement was executed for material damage claim for Rs. 68,39,13,309/- and thus giving deductions to the amount already paid, a balance of Rs. 43,36,89,396/- was paid to the petitioner by the respondent. It is thereafter petitioner pursued its grievance for payment of business interruption loss or loss of profit and in this regard, petitioner forwarded an e-mail on 26.08.2020 to the respondent and raised
The execution of a discharge voucher in full and final settlement of a claim without reservation or demur indicates lack of credibility in claiming compulsion or duress.
A discharge voucher signed under coercion is not a bar to arbitration for resolving disputes regarding the validity and amount of claims.
Appointment of Arbitrator – Any dispute pertaining to full and final settlement itself by necessary implication being a dispute arising out of or in relation to or under substantive contract would no....
Execution of discharge voucher does not bar arbitration if validity challenged; tribunal decides jurisdiction under Kompetenz-Kompetenz.
In the absence of any prima facie proof regarding duress/coercion, the court can refuse to appoint an arbitrator.
Discharge vouchers signed by the claimant negate the maintainability of further claims, and courts will not interfere unless findings are arbitrary or perverse.
The court emphasized the limited scope of the High Court's power under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the requirement of prima facie satisfaction regarding the allegati....
The Court's power under Section 11(6) is limited to testing the existence of a valid arbitration agreement. The issues pertaining to the quantum of claim and the maintainability of the petitioner's c....
The issue of coercion and undue influence in the execution of a settlement agreement is an arbitrable dispute that should be referred to arbitration.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
