$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 10 March 2026 Pronounced on: 16 March 2026 + FAO(OS) (COMM) 286/2022 SUPERMINT EXPORTS PVT LTD .....Appellant Through: Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Bhaskar Tiwari, Mr. Ramakant Shukla and Ms. Priscilla Kom, Advs.

versus NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD. & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Saurav Agrawal, Mr. Rajat Dasgupta, Ms. Sidhika Dwivedi, Ms. Anadi Mishra, Ms. Raadhika Chawla and Mr.

Tushar Nair, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA

JUDGMENT

% 16.03.2026 C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

A. Facts

1. The appellant manufactures and deals in mint and pine based essential oil. It was the beneficiary of an Insurance policy issued by the respondent New India Assurance Company Ltd., which has been impleaded at three addresses. The policy insured the appellant for a total sum of ₹ 32,25,00,000/- and covered fire and risks involving the building, plants and machinery, stocks, furniture and fixtures and fittings of the appellant. The policy was to remain in force from 20 August 2012 to 19 August 2013.

2. On 13 February 2013, a fire broke out in the appellant’s premises, resulting in loss of the building, plant and machinery and stocks.

3. The appellant lodged a claim with the respondent for ₹

27,08,30,874.13.

4. The respondent appointed a spot surveyor who conducted an initial survey of the loss suffered by the appellant, followed by a final survey by M/s. J. Basheer and Associates. The Final Survey Report1 assessed the loss suffered by the appellant to be ₹ 12,18,21,908. This amount was paid to the appellant.

5. Asserting its claim of ₹ 27,08,30,874.13, as originally claimed, the appellant sought arbitration of its entitlement for the balance amount invoking the arbitration clause contained in the insurance policy. A former Chief Justice of a High Court was appointed as the Arbitrator. The learned Arbitrator rendered his award on 28 December

2019.

6. Before the learned Arbitrator, in its statement of defence, the respondent disputed the appellant’s entitlement on the ground, inter alia, that the appellant had executed two discharge vouchers dated 30

1‘FSR’,hereinafter

March 2014 and 2 July 2014 in which the appellant had accepted an amount of ₹ 12,18,21,908/- towards full and final settlement of the claim due to it. Having thus executed and signed the said discharge vouchers, the respondent contended that the appellant was estopped from claiming any higher amount. The respondent further submitted that the discharge vouchers had been executed by the appellant voluntarily and without any pressure, coercion, undue influence or duress. The claim of the appellant, therefore, stood discharged by accord and satisfaction and was not therefore any more open to arbitration.

7. The appellant, before the learned Arbitrator, did not dispute the factum of execution of the afore-noted discharge vouchers dated 30 March 2014 and 2 July 2014. However, the appellant submitted that it had executed the discharge vouchers under compulsion, duress and financial distress as the respondent was not releasing the claim without the execution of the full and final discharge vouchers by the appellant. The appellant submitted that it was under tremendous pressure from creditors and that, consequent on the fire, there was severe depletion of its credit facilities resulting in considerable financial distress. It was also submitted that the appellant’s bankers had downgraded its accounts and started charging heavy penal interests, seriously hampering the appellant’s business operations and practically bringing its factory to the brink of closure. Under such straitened circumstances, it was submitted that the appellant had no option but to sign the discharge vouchers. They could not, therefore, be regarded as having been voluntarily executed.

B. The Arbitral Award

8. The learned Arbitrator framed the following issues as arising for adjudication :

“1. Whether the disputes forming the su