1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CAM NO. 12 OF 2009 AND ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 9 OF 2009 (Sita Madhav Gore & Ors. vs. Union of India, through G.M. Central Railway) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. JANUARY 25, 2010. The matter is for final disposal. Heard Shri Gharote, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Gadkari, learned counsel for the respondents. It appears that in earlier proceedings i.e. Arbitration Case No. 345 of 1987 on 12.03.1992, the judgment at Exh. 28 was delivered and Arbitrator came to be appointed. The proceedings were thus referred to Arbitrator. The said Arbitrator has not delivered any award till date. According to the respondents, the compromise was reached and in view of the letter at Exh. 73 dated 02.12.1994, the appellant accepted some amount in full and final settlement of his claim. In view of that settlement, the further prosecution of arbitration was not necessary. According to the appellant, his total claim was exceeding Rs.30 lakh and he was called upon to scale it down to Rs. 10 lakh. Accordingly, he brought 2 down his claim but then ultimately he was paid an amount of Rs.70,000/- roughly in full and final settlement. Shri Gharote, learned counsel argues that because of his poverty and other pressing circumstances, the appellant had no option but to accept that amount. He states that Exh. 73 dated 02.12.1994 cannot be read as accord and satisfaction of the demand made. Shri Gadkari, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, states that Arbitration Case No. 345 of 1987 was unconditionally withdrawn and then in view of letter dated 02.12.1994, which has been proved even in cross examination, the further prosecution of Arbitration proceedings was not necessary. He also points out that the appellant is not seeking further prosecution of those proceedings but has filed another suit Regular Civil Suit No. 515 of 1998 for appointment of Arbitrator under Sections 9, 12 read with Section 20 of Arbitration Act, 1940. After hearing parties, it is apparent that in earlier Arbitration Case No. 345 of 1987, Arbitrator has already been appointed. Whether claim made by the appellant originally or as scaled down or then as accepted by him vide Exh. 73 was in full and final settlement, ought to have been considered and decided in those proceedings. The parties state that after reference to Arbitration, there was pre-arbitration negotiations and according to the respondents, during those negotiations settlement, by submitting Exh. 73, 3 payment of amount of Rs.70,000 (approximately) was accepted by the appellant in full and final settlement of his claim. It is clear that as the matter was before the Arbitrator, the Arbitrator ought to have passed an award in accordance with Exh. 73 or otherwise in accordance with law. That has not been done and hence those proceedings are still pending before the Arbitrator then appointed. The filing of subsequent Civil Suit i.e. RCS No. 515 of 1998 for very same purpose was, therefore, not necessary. After the Arbitrator delivers award in accordance with Exh. 73 or otherwise, as per provisions of Section 14 of Arbitration Act, 1940, he is supposed to file that award in Court and then aggrieved party gets an opportunity to raise objection in relation to that award before the Court. The grievance in relation to alleged coercion or unfair settlement or then about accord and satisfaction is open for consideration at that stage. In such circumstances, the Arbitrator then appointed i.e. officer working under respondents or his successor as may be appointed for this purpose, shall proceed further with the matter and shall pass appropriate award as early as possible and in any case by 30th April 2010. This shall be done after giving previous notice to both sides. The award so delivered shall then be filed in Court in accordance with law. All contentions in this respect raised by the respective parties are kept open. 4 In view of these developments, prayer made in Civil Application No. 12 of 2009 are granted and time to deliver award is extended till 30th April 2010. Arbitration Appeal No. 9 of 2009 is accordingly allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.