SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 2197

Abhay Ahuja, J
Reliance Asset Reconstruction Company Limited – Appellant
Versus
Hiroo Hotchand Advani – Respondent
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.550 OF 2019 IN COMMERCIAL EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.43 OF 2025 | CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.552 OF 2019 IN COMMERCIAL EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.44 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ashish Kamat, Nikhil Rajani, Vinay Deshpande, Ajay Deshmane
For the Respondents: Pankaj Savant, Joshua D’Souza, Chirag Sancheti, Asif Lampwala, Saad Memon

Under Section 8 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, an offeree who encashes a cheque or demand draft tendered as 'full and final settlement' is deemed to have accepted the offer in its entirety. A subsequent protest letter cannot negate the legal effect of such acceptance by conduct.

Headnote:(A) Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Section 8 - Accord and Satisfaction - Acceptance of demand draft tendered as full and final settlement - Applicant, decree holder, encashed the demand draft while simultaneously protesting the computation in a subsequent letter - Held, acceptance by conduct constitutes binding contract under Section 8 - Once the benefit is accepted, the condition attached to the offer cannot be unilaterally rejected thereafter. (Paras 15, 17, 19)

Facts of the case:
The Applicant initiated execution proceedings against the Respondents for the recovery of arbitral award amounts. The Respondents tendered a demand draft for a calculated sum towards full and final settlement of the dues. Although the Applicant initially disputed the calculation, it deposited the demand draft (encashed it) and then issued a formal letter stating the deposit was made under protest and that execution proceedings would continue. The issue was whether this conduct amounted to full and final satisfaction of the awards.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that the Applicant’s action of encashing the demand draft, which was explicitly offered as "full and final settlement," operated as an acceptance of the proposal under Section 8 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The subsequent letter of protest was ineffective because the Applicant could not accept the benefit while rejecting the condition.

Issues: Whether the encashment of a demand draft tendered towards full and final settlement constitutes complete satisfaction of the arbitral award despite a subsequent protest letter by the decree holder.

Ratio Decidendi: If an offer is made on a condition (full and final settlement), the offeree must either reject it entirely or accept it with the condition. By encashing the cheque/draft, the conduct signifies acceptance of the offer in its entirety, precluding a later change of mind.

Result: Chamber Summonses rejected.

Table of Content
1. background facts regarding the execution of arbitral awards and the disputed nature of debt settlement. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
2. precedents establishing that encashing payments offered in settlement constitutes binding acceptance. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
3. applying the 'accord and satisfaction' principle: encashment of payment with protest-post-dating is ineffective. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)

ORDER :

1. The two Chamber Summonses seek assistance in execution of the awards dated 22nd October 2012 and for deposit of the decretal amounts along with interest after respectively adjusting part of the amounts of Rs.5,11,113/- and Rs.13,51,740/- of the demand draft of Rs18,62,853/- received from the Judgment Debtors. The Applicant in the Execution Applications as well as in the Chamber Summonses is the assignor of the Decree holder who had loaned monies around 2010 to 2011 to the Judgment Debtors under two loan accounts : loan account no.RALPMUM000043150 amounting to INR 2,50,00,000/- and loan account no.RALPMUM000045338 amounting to INR 1,56,00,000/-. Since disputes arose between the parties on account of the two Judgment Debtors failing to service the loan, arbitral proceedings commenced. On 22nd October 2012, the awards were passed in the arbitral proceedings pertaining to both the loans. As regards the loan amount of Rs.1,56,00,000/-, the Judgment Debtors were directed to inter alia jointly and/or severally pay to the Claimant a sum of Rs.1,79,16,334.95 together with interest at the rate of 14.50 percent per annum from 21st April 2012 till payment or realization (the “Rs.1,56,00,000/- loan Award”) and as regards the loan amount of Rs.2,50,00,000/-, the Judgment Debtors were inter alia directed to jointly and/or severally pay to the Claimant a sum of Rs.2,75,53,436.78 together with interest thereon at the rate of 14.50 percent per annum from 11th April 2012 till payment or realization (the “Rs.2,50,00,000/- loan Award”).

2. The Judgment Debtors, thereafter, on 24th January 2013 preferred Arbitration Petition No.95 of 2013 impugning the Rs.1,56,00,000/- loan award and Arbitration Petition No.96 of 2013 impugning the Rs.2,50,00,000/- loan award.

3. Thereafter, on 13th August 2018 an email was sent on behalf of the Judgment Debtors to the Decree holder requesting for No Objection Certificate (NOC) with respect to a Car loan of Rs.17,40,000/- bearing Loan Agreement No.RLNCMUM000168211. The Applicant on 16th August 2018 addressed an email to the Judgment Debtors stating that since a Car loan was linked with the Rs.1,56,00,000/- loan, the NOC along with Form 35 could be released only after termination of both the loan accounts. In view of the said e-mail communication, on 31st August 2018, the Judgment Debtors filed Suit No.2353 of 2018 before the City Civil Court, Greater Bombay, challenging the refusal of the Decree Holder to issue NOC for the car loan. On 24th November 2018, a common order dated 24th November 2018 was passed by this Court in the Arbitration Petitions reading down and altering the impugned awards so as to exclude the additional interest of 3 percent per annum. On 1st January 2019, the Decree holder’s Advocate addressed a letter to the Judgment Debtors calling upon them to pay the following revised amounts towards satisfaction of the awards (after considering discharged payments and computing interest) :

(i) 2.5 crore loan award : INR 1,47,80,329.33

(ii) 1.56 crore loan award : INR 96,89,207.33.

4. By letter dated 11th January 2019, the Advocate for the Judgment Debtors addressed the following letter attaching the demand draft for a sum of Rs.18,64,351/- towards full and final settlement of the captioned matter.

CHIRAG SANCHETI

Advocate, Solicitor & Company Secretary

104 – A, MITTAL TOWER, ‘A’ WING, 10TH FLOOR, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI 400 021

Tel: 2283 2425, 2288 5858

Email: chiragsancheti01@gmail.com

January 11, 2019

By Hand Delivery

Reliance Asset Reco

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top