IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 07.04.2011 Arb. Case No.36 of 2006 M/s Bawa Ram & Company ...Petitioner Versus Punjab Health Systems Corporation & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present : Mr. B.S.Walia, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ankit Goel, Advocate, for Mr. Govind Goel, Advocate, for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act’) for appointment of an Arbitrator in respect of the disputes arising out of work of extension and renovation of Community Health Centre, Manawala (Jandiala), Amritsar. The petitioner was allotted the aforesaid work vide acceptance letter dated 15.10.1998. As per the petitioner certain disputes in respect of execution of the contract were referred to adjudicator namely Shri P.P.S.Basur, Chief Engineer (B&R), Retd., but the claim of the petitioner was rejected by the Department on 18.04.2000 being time barred. The petitioner sought appointment of an Arbitrator vide communication dated 27.10.2002, but since the Arbitrator was not appointed, the present petition for appointment of an Arbitrator was filed on 12.12.2002 before the Court Arb. Case No.36 of 2006 of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chandigarh in terms of the scheme framed by Hon’ble the Chief Justice at that time. In reply, the respondents, inter alia, asserted that the work stands completed by the petitioner on 22.02.2000 and no claim or dispute has been raised by the petitioner before the Adjudicator. Therefore, there is no question of appointing any Arbitrator. It is further pleaded that vide cheque dated 26.07.2001, a sum of Rs.2,77,308/- has been paid to the petitioner in respect of full and final settlement and, thus, the petitioner cannot raise any dispute after accepting the payment in full and final settlement. Receipt (Annexure R-1) attached with the written statement reads as under: “RECEIPT Dated: 26.07.2001 Received Cheuqe No.355721 dated 26.07.2001 amounting to Rs.2,77,308/- (Rupees Two lacs, Seventy Seven Thousand, Three Hundred Eight only) of Punjab & Sind Bank, S.S.S.S. Sr./Sec. School Branch, Amritsar on account of payment of final bill (Voucher No.113 & 114 dated 26.07.2001) for the work of Extension & Renovation of CHC Manawala (Jandiala). Package No.CW/ASR/MANAWALA-JANDIALA/08 from the Executive Engineer (Civil) PHSC, Amritsar. We have received full and final payment of this work and we have no further claim of any kind with the Punjab Health Systems Corporation.” The petitioner filed a rejoinder and in reply to para 3 of the preliminary objection in the written statement, it was asserted that no full and final certificate was ever issued by the petitioner in favour of the respondent. 2 Arb. Case No.36 of 2006 Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that Receipt Annexure R-1 has not been executed by the petitioner, as the petitioner does not sign in English. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I do not find that the petitioner has laid enough foundation to, prima facie, dispute the execution of the Receipt (Annexure R-1). In National Insurance Co. ltd. Vs. M/s Boghara Polyfab Pvt. Ltd. AIR 2009 SC 170, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the question whether the agreement is actuated by fraud, coercion and undue influence is required to be examined by the Court appointing an Arbitrator. It will be a question of fact in each case, the dispute regarding due execution of the receipt requires to be referred for adjudication by an Arbitrator or not. In the present case, the petitioner has not made any reference to such receipt in the subsequent communication dated 20.10.2002 (Annexure P-6) or in the notice seeking appointment of an Arbitrator dated 27.10.2002. There is no reference to such receipt in the petition filed before this Court under Section 11 of the Act. In the rejoinder filed, there is no averment that such receipt does not bear the signatures of the petitioner or that there was any fraud, coercion and undue influence in the execution of the said receipt. Since there is no dispute raised by the petitioner in respect of execution of receipt (Annexure R-1) at any point of time, therefore, in view of the judgment rendered by this Court in Arbitration Case No.66 of 2005 titled “Ram Niwas Goyal Vs. Northern Railway through its General Manager, Baroda and others” decided on 09.03.2011, there is not arbitral dispute, which can be referred for adjudication to an Arbitrator. It may be noticed that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.7970 of 2010 titled 3 Arb. Case No.36 of 2006 “Union of India and others Vs. Hari Singh” decided on 10.09.2010 has held to the following effect: “15. In this case the Court relied on earlier judgments of this Court and reiterated the legal position which has been crystallized by a series of judgments where both the parties to a contract confirmed in writing that the contract has been fully and finally discharged by the parties and there was no outstanding claim or dispute and thereafter the matter could not have been referred to the arbitration.” In view of the above, I find that the petitioner has executed an agreement accepting full and final payment and consequently waived his right to seek appointment of an arbitrator. Therefore, there is no dispute, which can be referred to an Arbitrator. Dismissed. 07.04.2011 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE 4