1. The petitioner has filed the present application under section 11(5) and 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with a prayer to appoint the arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties.

2. The petitioner’s case in brief is that a contract was entered into between the parties for construction work and the petitioner by accepting the terms and conditions had signed the work order. Thereafter a supplementary work order was got executed. There was some delay in the execution of the contract, therefore, the dispute arose between the parties and on 27.11.2006 the petitioner was informed about the decision to hold the construction work till further instructions. No instructions thereafter were given to recommence and/or complete the incomplete work. According to the petitioner he was forced to sign an undertaking as a pre- condition for release of cheque of Rs.9,86,512/- notwithstanding its claim being unsettled for various other issues. Vide communication dated 19.6.2010, the petitioner had made a request to the respondents to settle the claim or refer the matter to arbitration. The said letter was duly received and acknowledged by D.K. Singh, Project Manager of the respondent but no action was taken in pursuance to the said letter, therefore, the petitioner approached this Court.

3. The respondent has filed the reply raising the plea that on 31.8.2010 a meeting took place at the Zonal Office of the respondent at Nagpur for settlement of the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent, in which the settlement took place and the petitioner has been paid Rs.9,86,612/- by cheque as full and final settlement. A further issue has been raised that a statutory notice of appointment of arbitrator was not sent. The receipt of the notice dated 19.6.2010 has been denied.

4. In the rejoinder the petitioner has raised the issue that the undertaking (Annexure P-6) and the minutes of meeting dated 30.8.2010 (Annexure R-1) were got executed by undue influence and coercion, therefore, they are not binding.

5. In the present matter the execution of the agreement containing the arbitration clause is not in dispute. The clause No.24.0 relating to the settlement of disputes reads as under :

“24.0 Settlement of disputes. -- If any dispute arises under this work it shall be first settled amicably between the parties. In the event of the dispute, controversy or claim not settled amicably, it shall be referred to sole arbitrator to be appointed by Sahara India Pariwar and award given by such arbitrator shall be binding and non-appealable on both parties.”

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is noticed that there is dispute between the parties in respect of final settlement of the claim of the petitioner in the meeting dated 31.8.2010 (Annexure R-1). The petitioner has raised the plea that the said minutes of the meeting and undertaking was got signed by him under pressure and undue coercion.

7. The Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Limited v. Boghara Polyfab Private Limited, reported in (2009)1 SCC 267, has held that whether a contract has been discharged by performance is a mixed question of fact and law, and if there is a dispute in regard to that question, that is arbitrable. A party which has executed the discharge agreement/voucher alleges fraud/coercion/undue influence practised by the other party and is able to establish the same, then obviously the discharge of such contract by such agreement/voucher is rendered void and cannot be acted upon. Consequently, any such dispute raised by the executor of the discharge agreement/voucher would be arbitrable. In the said judgment, it has been held by the Supreme Court that :

“24. What is however clear is when a respondent contends that the dispute is not arbitrable on account of discharge of the contract under a settlement agreement or discharge voucher or no-claim certificate, and the claimant contends that it was obtained by fraud, coerc