JUDGEMENT

J. B. PARDIWALA, J.:

For the convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided into the following parts: -

INDEX A. FACTUAL MATRIX ............................................................................................. 3 B. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT ................................... 14 C. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT ............................... 16 D. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION .................................................................... 18 E. ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................ 19 i. Whether the execution of a discharge voucher towards the full and final settlement between the parties would operate as a bar to invoke arbitration? ...................... 21 a. Whether the arbitration agreement contained in a substantive contract survives even after the underlying contract is discharged by “accord and satisfaction”? .............. 25 ii. What is the scope and standard of judicial scrutiny that an application under Section 11(6) of the Act, 1996 can be subjected to when a plea of “accord and satisfaction” is taken by the defendant? .................................................................. 31 iii. What is the effect of the decision of this Court in In Re: Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1966 and the Indian Stamp Act 1899 on the scope of powers of the referral court under Section 11 of the Act, 1996? .................................................................................................... 65 a. Arbitral Autonomy ........................................................................................ 66 b. Negative Competence-Competence .............................................................. 69 c. Judicial Interference under the Act, 1996 .....................................................

F. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................

1. Leave granted.

2. Since the issues raised in both the captioned appeals are the same, the subject-matter also being the same and the parties are also the same, they were taken up analogously for hearing and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

3. The SLP(C) No. 7220 of 2024 arises from the impugned judgment and order dated 22.09.2023 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Arbitration Petition No. 209 of 2021 wherein the High Court after assigning detailed reasons for allowing the application filed by the respondent for the appointment of an arbitrator, directed that the said application be listed before the appropriate bench in accordance with the roster for the purpose of passing appropriate order for appointment of arbitrator.

4. The SLP(C) No. 3792 of 2024 arises from the impugned judgment and order dated 01.12.2023 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Arbitration Petition No. 209 of 2021 wherein relying upon the judgment and order dated 22.09.2023 referred to above passed by a co-ordinate bench in the self-same arbitration application, the High Court allowed the application of the respondent for the appointment of an arbitrator and thereby appointed Justice K.A. Puj, former Judge of the High Court of Gujarat as an arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the parties.

A. FACTUAL MATRIX

5. The appellant, SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd., is a Private Sector General Insurance Company engaged in the business of providing general insurance to its customers, having one of its offices at 1st floor, Shukan Business Centre, Swastik Cross Road, C.G. Road, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad.

6. The respondent, M/s Krish Spinning, is a partnership firm registered under the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act, 193