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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more