India: Effect Of Full And Final Settlement On Arbitration Proceedings

Last Updated: 29 August 2019
Article by Srishti Singhania and Harshita Gupta

Case analysis of United India Insurance Company Limited v. Antique Art Exports Private Limited1

Co-authored by: Ms. Harshita Gupta, 3rd year student of three year LL.B. program of Jindal Global Law School

Factual Matrix

Antique Art Exports, the respondent/ claimant was running a factory and purchased two Standard Fire and Special Perils Insurance Policies. A few months later, two fire accidents happened in the factory on September 25, 2013 and on October 25, 2013, leading to the insurance claims. United India Insurance Company, the appellant, recruited a third company as surveyors and an investigator to submit their report. Subsequently, the appellant company notified the respondent/claimant via email that their claim for fire on October 25, 2013 for Rs. 2,81,44,413/- was approved. Further, the mail mentioned that in order for this payment to be released, the claimant was required to submit certain additional documents. The respondent replied on the same date, accepting the computed amount of the claim so approved and provided the additional documents as asked. The claim for fire on September 25, 2013 was settled at Rs. 2,20,36,840/-.

The dispute arose on July 27, 2016, almost eleven weeks after the full and final discharge of the claim, when the respondent claimed that they were coerced to accept the settlement and they were victims of fraud and undue influence. Thereafter, an application was filed by the respondent in the Delhi High Court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("the Act"). The Delhi High Court relied solely upon Section 11(6A) of the Act and observed, "once there is existence of arbitration agreement, acceptance of the payment disbursed by the appellant company, whether it was under coercion or undue influence, is a matter to be examined by the arbitrator" and accordingly proceeded to appoint a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.

Issue before the Supreme Court

Whether or not was the respondent justified in invoking Section 11(6) of the Act and whether mere allegation that the acceptance of compensation was under coercion or undue in absence of prima facie evidence sufficient for appointment of an arbitrator?

Contentions of the Appellant

  1. The contract or claim ceases to survive upon settlement of claim and receipt of compensation by claimant. Relied upon the judgment in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Genus Power Infrastructure Ltd.2 and argued that having received the payment without any 'demur or protest', it was not open for the respondent to object the claim and allege it was under coercion and undue influence in absence of any supporting evidence. 
  1. It was submitted that Section 11(6A) of the Act comes into picture when subsisting arbitral disputes require adjudication by an arbitrator. Here, however an arbitral dispute does not subsist because the final settlement was reached with the consent of the parties involved, and with their due accord and satisfaction.

Contentions of the Respondent

  1. Objection is limited to the conduct of the procedure wherein the respondent was not in fair bargaining position and because of being under obvious financial stress had to accept the computed amount.
  1. It is contended that mere acceptance of the claim in such circumstances does not vitiate the right of the respondent to establish that it was under undue influence, coercion and thus involuntary. Also, due to existence of an arbitration clause in the agreement, it would be appropriate for an arbitrator to examine the circumstances surrounding the acceptance of claim amount.

Supreme Court's Ruling

The arbitration clause in the insurance contract was not disputed. The Court relied on the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Boghara Polyfab (P) Ltd.3 which laid down examples illustrating as to when claims are subject to arbitration and when they are not in case the parties execute a full and final settlement between themselves. However, the illustrations are not exhaustive and there is no rule to thumb to decide and it depends of facts of each individual case.

Firstly, when a claim is referred to conciliation or pre-litigation Lok Adalat, and the parties negotiate and reach a settlement then it is signed by parties and attested by the conciliator or by the members of the Lok Adalat. So, there is a bar on arbitration because the settlement has been reached by way of accord and settlement. Secondly, with regards to disputed claims when on settlement, the agreed amount is paid and the contractor issues a full and final receipt and the contract is discharged with accord and satisfaction then the contract and disputes thereof cease to exist leading to a bar on arbitration. Thirdly, for instance in a work contract, the payment claimed is of Rs. 10 Lakhs but the employer admits claim for only Rs. 6 lakhs and asks to accept it and sign, only then the amount would be released. Clearly the contractor here is under economic duress on account of coercion by employer thus there is no bar on arbitration. Fourthly, in an insurance claim by an insured when loss is suffered, the insured is informed that unless the claimant furnishes a full and final voucher for a specified amount (less than the amount claimed), the entire claim would be subject to rejection. The claimant agrees and issues an undated discharge voucher in full and final settlement. Thereafter, the admitted amount is paid. The accord and satisfaction is not voluntary and is in duress, compulsion and coercion. Thus, in such a situation there is no bar on arbitration. Lastly, in a claim for damages when there is voluntary reduction in amount claimed by the claimant so as to avoid litigation and achieve timely settlement, later a dispute arising from such set of facts would not be arbitrable and it acts as a bar on arbitration.

The Supreme Court further relied on Union of India v. Master Construction Co.4, and observed that if the claimant's reason for a dispute with respect to validity of a settlement agreement lacks credibility on the first instance, then such disputes need not be referred to arbitration at all. The Court opined that the Chief Justice or his designate should exercise power under Section 11(6) of the Act when the party alleging fraud, coercion or undue influence, substantiates this claim by placing sufficient and relevant material before them and mere plea on these accounts would not suffice. In the present case, the averment was made eleven weeks after the settlement of the claim and there was no substantial evidence to support the allegation.

The Court held that the letter of subrogation was signed voluntarily and not under coercion or undue influence. The claim, in fact, was settled with due accord and satisfaction of both the parties, leaving no arbitral dispute in its wake, to be examined by an arbitrator, who is to be appointed under section 11(6) of the Act.

The Court further criticized the High Court order and observed that the High Court had committed an error in passing its order and was wrong in adopting a mechanical approach in its adjudicatory process.


Section 11(6) of the Act deals with procedure of appointment as agreed upon by the parties and  pertains to situations where parties voluntarily agree through documents towards appointment of an arbitrator and in situations where either a party fails to comply with such procedure to act or when the arbitrators fail to reach an agreement or where the institution fails to perform functions laid down in the procedure, then the parties may request the Supreme Court or the High Court to appoint an arbitrator so that the matter can be settled.

The issue in the present case is not with respect to the procedure followed but with respect to resorting to arbitration in the first place. The insurance company is of the view that since the amount claimed was agreed upon amicably between the parties without exercise of any coercive means or putting the respondent claimant in a tight spot. The claimant is wrong is asserting that they were made to agree to the amount by exercise of undue influence. The parties entered into the agreement with eyes wide open and under no compulsion, had the opportunity to negotiate when the first email was sent; however, no objection or any discontentment was raised at that time.

The Supreme Court referred to the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Boghara Polyfab Private Limited5 which deals with the question of whether a dispute remains even after parties have concluded the contract or transaction by recording their satisfaction. There, the Court opined that when a contract has been performed in its entirety, it amounts to discharge of contract by performance and then the contract comes to an end. In regards to such fulfilled contracts, neither the right to ask for specific performance nor any obligation to perform remains. Therefore, a dispute ceases to exist. A similar contention has been raised by the counsel for the appellant company in the present case.

The Supreme Court in the present case has been right in following this precedent in the sense that when both the parties to the contract have confirmed via writing (here via email correspondence), that they have fully and finally discharged their obligation and no outstanding claims or disputes exist, then the courts are not to refer any subsequent claim or dispute stemming from that transaction to arbitration, thereby reversing the High Court order. If, respondent claimant had been successful in establishing that their discharge agreement was on account of fraud/coercion/undue influence practiced by the insurance company then the discharge of contract by such agreement would have been rendered void and the matter would be arbitrable. However, in the present case there is absence of evidence to prove such allegations.

The case of New India Assurance Company Limited v. Genus Power Infrastructure Limited4 has a similar set of facts as the present case. There the Court delved upon the tenability of the claim by the respondent claimant which said that they had signed the letter due to extreme financial difficulties, under duress, coercion and undue influence exercised by the appellant. The Court observed that the plea raised by the respondent was bereft of details and particulars; it was a mere assertion because the respondent did not protest when the letter was signed and issued notice after three weeks. The Court opined that if it is found that such plea is an afterthought or lacks credibility, then the matter should be put to rest there and then. The Court also observed that the financial position of the respondent was not so precarious that they would have had to sign under undue influence. Thus, it was held that the claim was settled voluntarily and free from coercion and that no arbitrable dispute existed between the parties.

Further, the Court relied upon the case of Union of India and Others v. Master Construction Co.6, where the learned judge opined that when a claimant contends that settlement has been obtained by fraud/coercion/undue influence and the other side contests the correctness of such allegation, the Chief Justice or his designate must look into this aspect and find out prima facie the genuineness of such claim. The Court also observed that the cost of arbitration is quite high and just because one party presses for arbitration based on pleas not supported by evidence, it would be unfair to the other party to drag them to arbitration based on an allegation which lacks credibility or is malafide.

The cases do not define what could be the prima facie evidence but on a plain reading of facts of a case it can be fairly determined if the instance of fraud/coercion/undue influence is present or not. This judgment in United India Insurance Company Limited v. Antique Art Exports Private Limited, relies heavily on the law settled by the precedents and the Supreme Court has made it clear that mere existence of an arbitration agreement does not mean that an arbitrator is to be appointed in event of a dispute, instead the Judges need to satisfy themselves first that a prima facie case based upon the credibility of such allegations exists and then appoint an arbitrator.


1 (2019) 5 SCC 362

2  (2015) 2SCC 424

3  (2009) 1 SCC 267

4  (2011) 12 SCC 349

5  (2009) 1 SCC 267

6  (2015) 2SCC 424

7  (2011) 12 SCC 349

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Singhania & Partners LLP, Solicitors and Advocates
In association with
Practice Guides
by Mondaq Advice Centres
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Singhania & Partners LLP, Solicitors and Advocates
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions