Skip to main content

Once discharge voucher is received against payment received, no debt exists

Cause Title : Balkrishna Spintex Private Limited Vs The New India Assurance Company Limited, R/petn. Under Arbitration Act No. 66 Of 2020, The Supreme Court of India

Date of Judgment/Order : 10/06/2022

Corum : Honourable The Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar

Citied: United India Insurance Company versus Antique Art Exports Private Limited reported in (2019) 5 SCC 362, Supreme Court

Background

A claim was raised against by the Petitioner on account of a fire accident which broke out on at the go-down of petitioner factory premises which was insured with respondent, resulting in stock of cotton and the building being gutted in fire and same got destroyed. A sum of Rs. 6,02,74,557/- was paid to petitioner by respondent against the claim. After having received said amount, it was made known to respondent by petitioner that it had received under protest or in other words it is contended that on account of the financial circumstances in which the petitioner was placed, he was perforced to receive the said amount with no other option. It is contended that respondent ought to have paid entire amount claimed and on account of non-payment, dispute has arisen and as such, petitioner has sought for appointment of an Arbitrator.

The Respondent replied that there is no arbitrable dispute and petitioner after having received the money, has in discharge of full and final settlement, executed discharge voucher and was also given a consent letter on 13.03.2019 stating thereunder that consent of payment of Rs. 06,06,16,122/- is being given and as such it is stated that there is no amount due and payable and there are no arbitrable dispute existing between the parties. Hence, they have sought for dismissal of the petition.

Judgment

The Hon'ble court took the considered view that respondent is correct in contending that petitioner is not entitled to invoke the arbitration clause or in other words no dispute subsisted after the discharge voucher being signed by the respondents that too without any protest or demur. Merely because after receipt of amount, petitioner has contended within 15 days thereafter that said amount was received under duress, would not be a tenable ground to entertain the plea for referring the dispute to be arbitrated by a Sole Arbitrator. The court referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in United India Insurance Company versus Antique Art Exports Private Limited reported in (2019) 5 SCC 362, wherein  has been observed that :-

“Where the dispute raised by the claimant with regard to validity of the discharge voucher or no claim certificate or settlement agreement, prima facie, appears to be lacking in credibility, there may not be a necessity to refer the dispute for arbitration at all.”

In the said case, the SC had also held that the Hon’ble Apex Court held that mere plea of fraud, coercion or undue influence by itself is not enough and the party who alleges is under obligation to prima facie establish the same by placing satisfactory material on record before the Chief justice or his designate to exercise the power under Section 11(6) of the Act and the Petitioner has not done so. On the other hand, the respondent with eyes wide open has affixed the signature to the discharge voucher. Hence, it would be too late in the day for the petitioner to turn around to contend that under the circumstances prevailing, he was perforced to receive said amount with no other option, can only be said as an after-thought.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even
Post a Comment
Read more