UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. versus ANTIQUE ART EXPORTS PVT. LTD.

Citation: [2019] 5 S.C.R. 521 · Decided: 28-03-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. KHANWILKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
521
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
v.
ANTIQUE ART EXPORTS PVT. LTD.
(Civil Appeal No. 3284 of 2019)
 MARCH 28, 2019
[A.M. KHANWILKAR AND AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.]
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 –  s.11(6) – Appointment
of arbitrator – Fire and Special Perils Insurance Policy taken by
respondent-claimant for his factory – Fire took place in his factory
– Insurance company settled the claim which was accepted by
claimant without any demur or protest – Full and final settlement –
After 11 weeks, claimant invoked arbitration clause contained in
the contract of insurance raising plea that fraud, coercion and undue
influence was exercised by the insurance company and he was forced
to sign on the dotted lines – High Court proceeded to appoint a
sole arbitrator – On appeal, held: Prima facie no dispute subsisted
after the discharge voucher was signed by the claimant without any
demur or protest and after the claim was finally settled with accord
and satisfaction – A letter was sent for the first time after 11 weeks
of the settlement of claim raising protest that the discharge voucher
was signed under undue influence and coercion – No supportive
prima facie evidence was placed on record – In absence thereof, it
must follow that the claim was settled with accord and satisfaction
leaving no arbitral dispute subsisting under the agreement to be
referred to the Arbitrator for adjudication.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 In the instant case, for the two incidents of fire,
the appellant Company based on the Surveyor’s report sent
e-mails for settlement of the claims for both the fires which was
responded by the respondent through e-mail on the same date
itself providing all the necessary information to the Regional
Office of the Company and also issued the discharge voucher in
full and final settlement with accord and satisfaction.  Thereafter,
on 12th July, 2016, the respondent desired certain information
with details that too was furnished and for the first time on
[2019] 5 S.C.R. 521
 521
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
522
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019]  5 S.C.R.
27th July, 2016, it took a U-turn and raised a voice of undue
influence/coercion being used by the appellant stating that being
in financial distress left with no option than to proceed to sign on
the dotted lines.  The phrase in itself is not sufficient unless there
is a prima facie evidence to establish the allegation of coercion/
undue influence, which is completely missing in the instant case.
[Para 18]  [533-B-E]
1.2 In the given facts and circumstances, the discharge and
signing the letter of subrogation was not because of any undue
influence or coercion as being claimed by the respondent and
upon execution of the letter of subrogation, the claim was settled
with due accord and satisfaction leaving no arbitral dispute to be
examined by an Arbitrator to be appointed under Section 11(6) of
the Act. [Para 19] [533-E-F]
National Insurance Company Limited v. Boghara
Polyfab Private Limited (2009) 1 SCC 267 : [2008] 13
SCR 638; Union of India and Others v. Master
Construction Co. (2011) 12 SCC 349 : [2011] 5 SCR
853; New India Assurance Company Limited v. Genus
Power Infrastructure Limited (2015) 2 SCC 424 :
[2014] 12 SCR 360 – relied on.
Duro Felguera S.A. v. Gangavaram Port Limited (2017)
9 SCC 729 : [2017] 10 SCR 285 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2014] 12 SCR 360
 relied on
Para 9
[2008] 13 SCR 638
relied on
Para 12
[2011] 5  SCR 853
relied on
Para 14
[2017] 10 SCR 285
referred to
Para 20
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION:   Civil Appeal No. 3284
of 2019
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.05.2017 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in  Arbitration Petition No. 105 of 2017
                               With
Civil Appeal No.3285 of 2019.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
523
Vineet Malhotra, Yasir Rauf, Obhirup Ghosh, Vishal Ghori, Mohit
Paul, Advs. for the Appellant.
Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv., Rahul Sharma, P. N. Puri, Vivek Sibal,
Advs. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
RASTOGI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals have been filed by the Insurance Company
assailing the order dated 30th May, 2017 passed by the High Court of
Delhi appointing an Arbitrator in exercise of power under Section 11(6)
of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996(hereinafter being referred
to as “the Act”) to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.
3. The facts in brief manifest from the record and relevant for the
present purpose are that the respondent claima

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.