ORDER Vikramajit Sen, J.
1. In the present case the Petitioner had, on 25th March, 1994 issued a letter to the Respondent stating the receipt of a cheque No.173639 for Rs.1,41,696/- would be towards full and final payment of dues in respect of the said construction. Even thereafter the present petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act has been filed. On a reading of the petition, it is at once clear that the Petitioner has altogether failed to deal with the circumstances in which the letter dated 25th March, 1994 was issued. Knowing that it had issued such a letter, it was essential that the question addressed explicitly. All that has been stated is that it "seems" that some discrepancy in the account exists. In my opinion due significance and sanctity must be given to letters where full and final satisfaction is recorded. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that it is well settled that the issuance of a letter such as that dated 25th March, 1994 does not bar the party to seek initiation of arbitration. However, in this case there must be a categorically pleading in the petition itself that the letter was extracted from the Petitioner under circumstances which would disclose that his free consent was absent. As mentioned, the pleadings do not set up such a case. It would, therefore, not be appropriate for the Petitioner to rely on decision stating that the issue whether there was free consent at the time of the issuance of a full and final certificate was a arbitrable dispute. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has relied on Union of India Vs. M/s. Ajit Mehta and Associates, Pune and Others, . The Hon'ble Division Bench had discussed all the precedents and delivered a detailed and erudite judgment, which demands to be read. Hence I shall do no more than reproduce the ratio set down and suggest that the decision be read with care.
" Thus the authorities discussed above can be said to lay down the law that in spite of full and final settlement of the claim, the arbitration clause in the contract may subsist where the party invoking it alleges that in fact there was no accord and satisfaction for some reasons such as the final bill was submitted or receipt was given under coercion, mistake or misrepresentation, without prejudice, under protest etc. For then that itself becomes a dispute arbitrable under the clause. However when there is no such allegation made when invoking the arbitration clause, and it is invoked simpliciter, it will have to be held that the contract itself had come to an end and with it the arbitration clause which is a part and parcel of it. We have come across no decision which has taken a contrary view. On the other hand the decisions discussed above support our conclusion."
2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has ignored the sentence underlined by me which sets down the rider and exception to the general proposition that whether there has been a full and final settlement or accord is an arbitrable dispute. It should have been explained in the plaint in detail why the full and final certification is not enforceable, i.e. for absence of consent, or presence of coercion and fraud of the Respondent. If the arbitration clause has been invoked simpliciter, as has evidently been done in the present case, it will have to be held that the contract itself had come to an end and with it the Arbitration Clause which was a part and parcel of it. The accord/satisfaction is not bereft of legal efficacy. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has thereafter relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in M/s. Navbharat Dal Mills Vs. Food Corporation of India & another, in which it was held that it was not for the court to decide whether there was accord or satisfaction between the parties or not and that this should be referred to the Arbitrator to determine. I am unable to agree that this observation would apply even in those cases where a letter of full and final accord has been exchanged and the petition fails to set out that this letter was illegally extracted from the petitioner. Learned counsel for the Petitioner also relied on Jiwani Engineering Works (P) Ltd. V. Union of India, . But this decision does not set out that a letter of full and final settlement is to be ignored and has no legal efficacy. While it does acknowledge the fact that very often 'No Claim Certificate' is demanded before payment is made, the fact set out in the present petition do not fall within that ambit. This decision was not followed by the Division Bench in Union of India Vs. Ajit Mehta and Associates, Pune and Others, , and in my humble opinion rightly so.
3. Learned counsel for the Respondent has relied on M/s. P.K. Ramaiah and Company Vs. Chairman & Managing Director, National Thermal Power Corpn. 1994 Supp. (3) Supreme Court Cases 126. In my view it applies on all fours to the dispute before me. A reading of the petition, as also the application which had been filed thereto appears to me to indicate that the Petitioner was not happy with the manner in which the accounts were drawn and was, therefore, challenging the accounts also by way of applications seeking production of sundry documents. It was not the petitioner's case in the pleadings that the letter dated 25th March 1994 was extracted. This is an onerous and strict duty cast on the Petitioner, since the reference of the parties to arbitration would have the direct effect of rendering the letter totally ineffectual. If public policy would call for protecting a party from signing a full and final receipt in order to secure payment, this public policy would also dictate that where such certification was given willingly and without inducement or fraud, it should be honoured. The Respondent cannot be tricked into making final payment, in circumstances where the Petitioner intends to raise disputes thereafter. In the Supreme Court case it was observed as follows:
"6. The reading of the above arbitration clause would clearly establish that all questions and disputes relating to the meaning of the specifications, designs, drawings and instructions hereinbefore mentioned and as to the quality of workmanship or materials used on the work or as to any other question, claims,right, matter or things whatsoever in any way arising out of or relating to the contract, designs, drawings, specifications, estimates,instructions, orders or these conditions or otherwise concerning the works, or the execution or failure to execute the same whether arising during the progress of the work or after the completion or abandonment thereof shall be referred to the sole arbitration of the General Manager of the N.T.P.C. Ltd. On his inability or unwillingness, another arbitrator appointed by C.M.D. alone has to arbitrate the dispute. Thus it is clear that is there is an arbitrable dispute, it shall be referred to the named arbitrator. But there must exist a subsisting dispute. Admittedly the appellant acknowledged in writing accepting the correctness of the measurements as well as the final settlement and received the amount. Thereafter no arbitrable dispute arises for reference.
7. In Damodar Valley Corpn. V. K.K. Kar this Court noted the facts thus: (SCR p.241:SCC p.143, para 2) "It is the case of the appellant that these payments including the return of the deposit amount finally settled the claims of the respondent. No doubt the respondent was asked to submit his bill along with a receipt stating that he received the payment in full and final settlement of all payments and that there was no other claim. But the respondent while submitting his bill did not give the receipt as desired. The amount of the bill was, however, paid after receipt of which the respondent claimed further sums from the appellant including damages for repudiation of the contract."
4. On the strength of this authority as well as the views expressed by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court I am satisfied that the petition is not maintainable.
5. The applications filed by the petitioner are to the effect that certain documents be produced. Substantial compliance in this regard has already been made by the Respondent but the Petitioner's attempt is to lead the Court into a roving enquiry into settled accounts. None of these documents discloses that there was an absence of free consent at the time when the letter dated 25th March, 1994 was written.
6. The petitioner having failed to assail the validity of the letter, in specific and categorical terms, has disentitled himself from raising points which would otherwise have been arbitrable. If a case had been made out in the pleadings indicating that the Petitioner had been coerced or induced by fraud into signing the letter, I would not have hesitated in referring this dispute for adjudication by arbitration.
7. The petition is dismissed and all pending applications are also dismissed.