Arabian Exports Private Ltd vs National Insurance Co. Ltd

2025 INSC 630 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6372-6373 OF 2025 (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOS. 16907-16908 OF 2012)

ARABIAN EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

UJJAL BHUYAN, J.

Leave granted.

2. These appeals by special leave are directed against

the order dated 02.12.2011 passed by the High Court of

Judicature at Bombay in Arbitration Application Nos. 186-187

of 2011.

3. In this case, delay was condoned and notice was Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by

issued on 11.05.2012.

ASHISH KONDLE Date: 2025.05.06 15:01:57 IST Reason: 1

4. The short issue for consideration in these appeals is

whether a dispute raised by an insured after giving a full and

final discharge voucher to the insurer can be referred to

arbitration.

5. As we shall deliberate upon, this issue is no longer

res integra.

6. However, for a proper perspective, relevant facts

may be briefly noted.

7. Appellant is a company incorporated under the

provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in the

business of exporting meat and meat products. For this

purpose, appellant used to process the meat and store the

same at its factory premises at Taloja in the State of

Maharashtra.

8. On 08.10.2004, appellant took a comprehensive

Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy bearing No.

260301/11/04/3100585 from the respondent towards

insuring the meat processing and cold storage unit as also the

building, plant and machinery, furniture, fixtures and fittings

2 in the Taloja plant for an amount of Rs.3,28,55,000.00 which

was for the period from 09.10.2004 to 03.10.2005.

9. Appellant also took a Fire Declaration Policy bearing

No. 260301/11/04/3301441 insuring all its stock-in-trade

and finished products stored in the cold storage facility at its

factory premises at Taloja. This policy was for an amount of

Rs.5,76,85,000.00 and covered the period from 15.03.2005 to

15.03.2006.

10. It is stated that appellant had paid the insurance

premium towards both the insurance policies.

11. On 26.07.2005, there was very heavy and

unprecedented rainfall in several parts of Maharashtra

including at Taloja. Because of such unprecedented and very

heavy rainfall, the factory premises at Taloja was completely

flooded and got submerged under water for several hours. It is

stated that all communication lines had broken down and

there were no means of communication to and fro the Taloja

plant leaving the incident unnoticed till 28.07.2005. It is

further stated that appellant had suffered severe loss due to

3 the damage caused to the factory building, plant and

machinery, furniture, fixtures and accessories as well as the

stock lying at the Taloja plant.

12. Appellant had informed the respondent on

29.07.2005 regarding the damage suffered at the Taloja plant

and requested the respondent to depute a surveyor to assess

the damage. Appellant claimed loss and damage to the plant

and machinery etc. under the Standard Fire and Special Perils

Policy for an amount of Rs. 56,07,027.00. Appellant

also claimed loss and damage qua the stock in cold storage

under the Fire Declaration Policy for an amount of Rs.

5,15,62,527.00

13. It is stated that on 28.07.2005, Dr. A.S. Patil (it is

not stated who he was or who had authorized him) had

inspected the factory premises at Taloja and after inspecting

the stock-in-trade certified that the same was unfit for human

consumption. On 29.11.2005, Chempro Inspection Private

Limited, the surveyor appointed by the respondent, conducted

4 a survey at the Taloja plant. In its report dated 29.11.2005,

the surveyor acknowledged the loss suffered by the appellant.

14. Unfortunately, despite repeated requests and

reminders by the appellant, respondent failed to settle the

claims of the appellant.

15. After a considerable delay, appellant was presented

with an undated and standardized voucher/advance receipt

for a sum of Rs. 1,88,14,146.00 sometime in December, 2008.

16. Due to financial strain caused by the delay on the

part of the respondent to settle the claims coupled with the

pressure exerted by various bankers and creditors,

appellant was left with no other option but to sign and submit

to the respondent the said undated and standardized

voucher/advance receipt on 12.12.2008 for an amount of

Rs. 1,88,14,146.00 being claimed under the Fire Declaration

Policy. Pursuant thereto, appellant received the cheque issued

by the respondent for a sum of Rs. 1,88,14,146.00 on

19.12.2008.

5

17. It may be mentioned that the two insurance policies

had identically worded arbitration clause.

18. On 24.12.2008, appellant while reserving its right to

invoke the aforesaid arbitration clause called upon the

respondent to settle and pay the balance amount of Rs.

3,83,55,408.00 being the difference between the claim lodged

by the appellant and the amount paid by the respondent.

Appellant also sought for a copy of the surveyor’s report.

19. By letter dated 21.03.2009, respondent provided the

appellant with a copy of the surveyor's report giving details of

the respondent’s assessment of the appellant's claim.

20. Though the appellant made repeated attempts to

resolve the matter but the respondent did not cooperate.

Consequently, appellant addressed letter dated 17.04.2009 to

the respondent invoking the arbitration clause contained in

the insurance policy and at the same time nominated

Mr. Ramakant W. Gudal, a retired Joint Commissioner

and Controlling Authority, Food and Drugs Administration,

6 Maharashtra as the sole arbitrator. It is stated that this letter

was hand delivered to the respondent on 20.04.2009.

21. Respondent issued letter dated 18.05.2009 to the

appellant through its lawyer denying its liability and refusing

to accept arbitration and failed to nominate an arbitrator in

terms of Clause 30 of the insurance policy. Respondent vide

further letter dated 12.10.2009 stated that it was not

agreeable to refer the matter to arbitration.

22. Thereafter, appellant filed applications under

Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

(briefly, ‘the 1996 Act’ hereinafter) before the High Court of

Judicature at Bombay for appointment of an arbitrator to

arbitrate the claims of the appellant. Thus two arbitration

applications were filed in respect of the two policies which

were registered as arbitration application Nos. 186 of 2011

and 187 of 2011.

23. Learned Single Judge of the High Court of

Judicature at Bombay (briefly, ‘the High Court’ hereinafter)

observed that the amount paid by the respondent was

7 accepted by the appellant in full and final settlement of the

claim. It was accepted without any demur and after encashing

the cheque, the dispute was raised on 24.12.2008. Therefore,

vide the impugned order dated 02.12.2011, learned Single

Judge held that no arbitrator could be appointed in view of

acceptance of the amount in full and final settlement. Both the

arbitration applications were accordingly dismissed.

24. Mr. Kavin Gulati, learned senior counsel for the

appellant has drawn our attention to the relevant facts and

submits that learned Single Judge had rejected the

applications under Section 11 of the 1996 Act on the ground

that the discharge voucher signed by the appellant in favour of

the respondent constituted full accord and satisfaction having

accepted the amount paid by the respondent without demur.

24.1. Learned senior counsel submits that in the present

case, ‘accord and satisfaction’ is not voluntary but under

compulsion. Appellant was under financial duress on account

of the huge loss caused by the rainwater and flooding;

additionally, there was long delay on the part of the

8 respondent in processing the claim. That apart, appellant was

pressurized by the banks and creditors for repayment of credit.

In such circumstances, appellant had no other option but to

sign the undated and standardized voucher/advance receipt

for a wholly inadequate amount of Rs. 1,88,14,146.00 against

the bona fide claim of Rs. 5,71,69,554.00. In this connection,

learned senior counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to

the letter dated 24.12.2008 and the pleadings in the

applications under Section 11 of the 1996 Act which reads

thus:

The fact that the voucher relating to payment of our claim under the Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy refers to article/property “stolen” clearly establishes the complete non application of mind and disregard by your company to our repeated representations and the nature of our loss. Looking to the financial strain cast on us by virtue of the willful delay on the part of your organization in settlement at our claims coupled with the pressure exerted by our bankers and creditors, we were left with no option but to sign and submit to you the said undated and standardized voucher on December

9 12th 2008, for the grossly inadequate amount of Rs. 1,88,14,146.00.

24.2. Learned senior counsel submits that the case of the

appellant is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in

National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Boghara Polyfab

Private Limited1. He has also distinguished the decision of this

Court in Nathani Steels Ltd. Vs. Associated Constructions 2

relied upon by the respondent. He submits that in Nathani

Steels (supra), there were negotiations between the parties

culminating in a voluntary negotiated settlement of all pending

disputes. Contract was thus discharged by ‘accord and

satisfaction’. This is not so in the present case. He further

submits that issue in question is covered by the decision of

this Court in Boghara Polyfab (supra).

24.3. In any event, the discharge voucher was in relation

to only one policy i.e. Fire Declaration Policy. It did not cover

the Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy. Learned senior

counsel has referred to and relied upon the circular dated

1 (2009) 1 SCC 267 2 (1995) Supp (3) SCC 324

10 24.09.2015 issued by the Insurance Regulatory and

Development Authority of India clarifying that execution of

vouchers as full and final discharge did not foreclose the rights

of the policy holders to seek higher compensation before any

judicial fora or any other fora established by law. This has

been endorsed and reiterated vide subsequent circular dated

07.06.2016 issued by the Insurance Regulatory and

Developmentary Authority of India. He, therefore, submits that

learned Single Judge erred while rejecting the applications for

appointment of arbitrator. Therefore, the impugned order is

liable to be set aside.

25. Per contra, Dr. Manish Singhvi, learned senior

counsel for the respondent submits that a three Judge Bench

of this Court in Nathani Steels (supra) has clearly held that

once a dispute or difference between the parties arising out of

a contract is amicably settled by the parties, unless such

settlement is set aside in proper proceedings, it is not open to

one of the parties to the settlement to further seek arbitration.

11 According to him, this case is squarely covered by Nathani

Steels Ltd. (supra).

25.1. Learned senior counsel submits that Nathani Steels

Ltd. (supra) is a decision of a three Judge Bench whereas

Boghara Polyfab (supra) is by a two Judge Bench. Therefore,

the conflict between Nathani Steels (supra) and Boghara

Polyfab (supra) needs to be resolved by referring the matter to

a larger Bench.

25.2. He submits that in so far the present case is

concerned, there is no question of any fraud. In fact, there was

no pleading and argument as regards fraud. There is also no

pleading as to duress or coercion. Mere citation of the

expressions fraud, duress or coercion will not make it a case of

fraud, duress or coercion. There has to be adequate pleadings.

That apart, appellant has not produced any document to even

prima-facie show that the appellant was being pressurized by

the respondent to enter into a settlement.

25.3. In so far letter of the appellant dated 24.12.2008 is

concerned, learned senior counsel submits that the said letter

12 mentioned about the policies but did not contain any

statement to the effect that the settlement was only for one

policy. Respondent had processed the claim of the appellant

on the basis of the report of the surveyor. The figure of Rs.

1.88 crores was not an imaginary or illusory figure but based

on the assessment of the surveyor.

25.4. Dr. Singhvi also argued an alternative prayer. If the

Court is of the opinion that the High Court had not considered

the aspect of duress and coercion, then the matter may be

referred back to the High Court. In that event the High Court

would consider the aspect of duress and coercion. Otherwise,

no case for arbitration is made out. Therefore, he seeks

dismissal of the appeals.

26. Submissions made by learned counsel for the

parties have received the due consideration of the Court.

27. The two insurance policies contain an identically

worded arbitration clause which read as follows:

13. If any dispute or difference shall arise as to the quantum to be paid under this policy liability

13 being otherwise admitted such difference shall independently of all other questions be referred to the decision of sole arbitrator to be appointed in writing by the parties to or if they cannot agree upon a single arbitrator within 30 days of any party invoking arbitration, the same shall be referred to a panel of three arbitrators, comprising of two arbitrators, one to be appointed by each of the parties to the dispute/difference and the third arbitrator to be appointed by such two arbitrators and arbitration shall be conducted under and in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

It is clearly agreed and understood that no difference or dispute shall be referable to arbitration as hereinbefore provided, if the Company has disputed or not accepted liability under or in respect of this policy.

It is hereby expressly stipulated and declared that it shall be a condition precedent to any right of action or suit upon this policy that the award by such arbitrator/arbitrators of the amount of the loss or damages shall be first obtained.

28. In its letter dated 24.12.2008 addressed to the

respondent, appellant stated that after an inordinate delay of

14 42 months, a grossly inadequate amount of Rs.1,88,14,146.00

was offered by the respondent in response to the bona fide and

genuine claim of the appellant for the aggregate sum of

Rs.5,71,69,554.00. Appellant further stated that because of

the financial strain caused due to the delay on the part of the

respondent in settling its claims coupled with the pressure

exerted by its bankers and creditors, appellant was left with

no other option but to sign and submit to the respondent

the undated and standardized voucher forwarded by it on

12.12.2008 for Rs.1,88,14,146.00. Appellant further stated

that it received a cheque for the aforesaid amount on

19.12.2008. Referring to the arbitral clause in the insurance

policies, appellant stated that there is an arbitrable dispute in

the context of the quantum of claim, the liability being

admitted by the respondent. Appellant called upon the

respondent to pay the balance amount of Rs.3,83,55,408.00

with interest at the rate of 18 percent. Respondent was put to

notice that if the said amount was not paid, appellant would

invoke the arbitration clause not only claiming the balance

amount but also damages and compensation.

15

29. Finally, appellant through its advocate issued notice

to the respondent on 17.04.2009 invoking the arbitration

clause and nominated Mr. Ramakant W. Gudal, retired

Joint Commissioner and Controlling Authority, Food &

Drugs Administration, Maharashtra as the Sole Arbitrator.

Respondent was called upon to concur with the said

nomination or alternatively to nominate its own arbitrator in

which event the two nominated arbitrators would appoint a

presiding arbitrator.

30. However, respondent informed the appellant vide

letter dated 12.10.2009 that it was not agreeable to refer the

matter to arbitration as the appellant had accepted the

amount offered in full and final settlement which amounted to

‘accord and settlement’.

31. It was thereafter that appellant approached the

High Court by filing applications under Section 11 of the 1996

Act. The relevant pleadings have already been extracted and

noted.

16

32. Learned Single Judge vide the impugned order

observed that the amount offered by the respondent was

accepted by the appellant in full and final settlement of the

claim. The acceptance was not without prejudice to the rights

and contentions of the appellant or reserving the right to

challenge the amount that was being paid. The payment was

made on 19.12.2008. It was accepted without any demur and

after encashing the cheque the dispute was raised on

24.12.2008. Learned Single Judge referred to one of his

previous orders where he had taken a view that if such a

receipt is issued which accepts the payment in full and final

settlement, then a dispute cannot be raised. He therefore held

that no arbitrator can be appointed in view of acceptance of

the amount in full and final settlement.

33. In Nathani Steels (supra), a three-Judge Bench of

this Court opined that once the parties reach a settlement in

respect of any dispute or difference arising under a contract

and that dispute or difference is amicably settled by way of a

final settlement by and between the parties, unless that

17 settlement is set aside in proper proceedings it cannot lie in

the mouth of one of the parties to the settlement to spurn it on

the ground that it was a mistake and thereafter proceed to

invoke the arbitration clause.

33.1 Of course the Bench held that unless the settlement

is set aside in proper proceedings, it would not be open to one

of the parties to the settlement to invoke arbitration. But at

the same time, it needs to be pointed out that this view was

taken in the context of an amicable settlement arrived at

between the parties in the presence of a third party and

reduced to writing. If there is an amicable settlement of the

dispute between the parties unless such settlement is set

aside in proper proceedings, it would not be open to one of the

parties to invoke arbitration. Therefore, the crucial expression

here is ‘amicable settlement’.

34. This decision was explained by this Court in

Boghara Polyfab (supra). A two-Judge Bench of this Court

noted that in Nathani Steels (supra) this Court on examination

of the facts of that case was satisfied that there were

18 negotiations leading to voluntary settlement between the

parties in all pending disputes. Thus the contract was

discharged by ‘accord and satisfaction’. The Bench categorized

such claims under two categories. In the first category there

would be cases where there is bilateral negotiated settlement

of pending disputes, such settlement having been reduced to

writing either in the presence of witnesses or otherwise.

Nathani Steels (supra) falls in this category. In the second

category of cases, there would be ‘no dues/claims certificate’

or ‘full and final settlement discharge vouchers’ insisted upon

and taken, either in a printed format or otherwise, as a

condition precedent for release of the admitted dues. In the

latter group of cases, the disputes are arbitrable. Mere

execution of a full and final settlement receipt or a discharge

voucher cannot be a bar to arbitration even when validity

thereof is challenged by the claimant on the ground of fraud,

coercion or undue influence. The Bench further distinguished

Nathani Steels (supra) by clarifying that the observations made

that unless the settlement is set aside in proper proceedings, it

would not be open to a party to the settlement to invoke

19 arbitration was with reference to a plea of ‘mistake’ taken by

the claimant and not with reference to allegations of fraud,

undue influence or coercion. Further, the said decision was

rendered in the context of the provisions of the Arbitration Act,

1940. The perspective of the 1996 Act is different from the

Arbitration Act, 1940.

35. In Duro Felguera, S.A. Vs. Gangavaram Port Ltd.3, a

two-Judge Bench of this Court examined Section 11(6) of the

1996 Act as well as Section 11(6A) inserted in the 1996 Act by

way of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act 2015

and concluded that courts should look into only one aspect:

existence of an arbitration agreement. Already the width of

jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act was

considerably wide following judicial dicta but post the

aforesaid amendment, all that the courts need to see is

whether an arbitration agreement exists – nothing more,

nothing less. The legislative policy and purpose is essentially

to minimize the court’s intervention at the stage of appointing

the arbitrator.

3 (2017) 9 SCC 729

20

36. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Vidya Drolia

Vs. Durga Trading Corporation 4 held that subject matter qua

arbitrability cannot be decided at the stage of Sections 8 or 11

of the 1996 Act unless it is a clear case of dead wood. The

court under Sections 8 and 11 has to refer a matter to

arbitration or to appoint an arbitrator, as the case may be,

unless a party has established a prima facie case of non-

existence of a valid arbitration agreement. The court should

refer a matter if the validity of the arbitration agreement

cannot be determined on a prima facie basis. The rule should

be: when in doubt, do refer.

37. In Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Dicitex

Furnishing Ltd.5, a two-Judge Bench of this Court considered

the objection of the insurer about maintainability of the

application under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act in which the

High Court had appointed an arbitrator. The objection was

that the claimant had signed the discharge voucher and had

accepted the amount offered, thus signifying ‘accord and

4 (2021) 2 SCC 1 5 (2020) 4 SCC 621

21 satisfaction’ which in turn meant that there was no arbitrable

dispute. This Court rejected the objection of the insurer and

held thus:

26. An overall reading of Dicitex's application [under Section 11(6)] clearly shows that its grievance with respect to the involuntary nature of the discharge voucher was articulated. It cannot be disputed that several letters — spanning over two years—stating that it was facing financial crisis on account of the delay in settling the claim, were addressed to the appellant. This Court is conscious of the fact that an application under Section 11(6) is in the form of a pleading which merely seeks an order of the court, for appointment of an arbitrator. It cannot be conclusive of the pleas or contentions that the claimant or the party concerned can take in the arbitral proceedings. At this stage, therefore, the court which is required to ensure that an arbitrable dispute exists, has to be prima facie convinced about the genuineness or credibility of the plea of coercion; it cannot be too particular about the nature of the plea, which necessarily has to be made and established in the substantive (read : arbitration) proceeding. If the court were to take a contrary approach and

22 minutely examine the plea and judge its credibility or reasonableness, there would be a danger of its denying a forum to the applicant altogether, because rejection of the application would render the finding (about the finality of the discharge and its effect as satisfaction) final, thus, precluding the applicant of its right even to approach a civil court. There are decisions of this Court (Associated Construction v. Pawanhans Helicopters Ltd. and Boghara Polyfab) which upheld the concept of economic duress. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the reasoning in the impugned judgment cannot be faulted.

37.1. Thus, this Court held that at the stage of Section

11(6) of the 1996 Act, court is required to ensure that an

arbitrable dispute exist; it has to be prima facie convinced

about the genuineness or credibility of the plea of coercion; it

cannot be too particular about the nature of the plea which

naturally has to be made and established in the arbitral

proceeding. If the courts were to take a contrary approach,

there would be the danger of denying a forum to the claimant

altogether. This Court upheld the concept of economic duress

and held that notwithstanding signing of discharge voucher

23 and accepting the amount offered, the dispute is still

arbitrable. Pleading in a Section 11(6) application cannot be

conclusive whether there is fraud, coercion or undue influence

or otherwise.

38. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in SBI General

Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Krish Spinning 6 held that even if the

contracting parties in pursuance to a settlement agree to

discharge each other of any obligations arising under the

contract it is does not ipso facto mean that the arbitration

agreement too would come to an end, unless the parties

expressly agree to do the same. The Bench also explained the

concept of ‘accord and satisfaction’ under Section 63 of the

Indian Contract Act, 1872. Any dispute pertaining to the full

and final settlement itself by necessary implication being a

dispute arising out of or in relation to or under the substantive

contract would not be precluded from reference to arbitration

as the arbitration agreement contained in the original contract

continues to be in existence even after the parties have

6 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1754

24 discharged the original contract by ‘accord and satisfaction’.

This Court held thus:

53. Thus, even if the contracting parties, in pursuance of a settlement, agree to discharge each other of any obligations arising under the contract, this does not ipso facto mean that the arbitration agreement too would come to an end, unless the parties expressly agree to do the same. The intention of the parties in discharging a contract by “accord and satisfaction” is to relieve each other of the existing or any new obligations under the contract. Such a discharge of obligations under the substantive contract cannot be construed to mean that the parties also intended to relieve each other of their obligation to settle any dispute pertaining to the original contract through arbitration.

54. Although ordinarily no arbitrable disputes may subsist after execution of a full and final settlement, yet any dispute pertaining to the full and final settlement itself, by necessary implication being a dispute arising out of or in relation to or under the substantive contract, would not be precluded from reference to arbitration as the arbitration agreement contained in the original contract continues to be

25 in existence even after the parties have discharged the original contract by “accord and satisfaction”.

39. Again, in the case of Aslam Ismail Khan Deshmukh

Vs. Asap Fluids Pvt. Ltd.7, a three-Judge Bench of this Court

reiterated the above proposition and held as under:

51. It is now well-settled law that, at the stage of Section 11 application, the referral courts need only to examine whether the arbitration agreement exists - nothing more, nothing less. This approach upholds the intention of the parties, at the time of entering into the agreement, to refer all disputes arising between themselves to arbitration. However, some parties might take undue advantage of such a limited scope of judicial interference of the referral courts and force other parties to the agreement into participating in a time-consuming and costly arbitration process. This is especially possible in instances, including but not limited to, where the claimant canvasses either ex facie time-barred claims or claims which have been discharged through “accord and satisfaction”, or cases where the impleadment of a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement is sought, etc.

7 (2025) 1 SCC 502

26

52. In order to balance such a limited scope of judicial interference with the interests of the parties who might be constrained to participate in the arbitration proceedings, the arbitral tribunal may direct that the costs of the arbitration shall be borne by the party which the tribunal ultimately finds to have abused the process of law and caused unnecessary harassment to the other party to the arbitration

40. Thus, the doctrine of Kompetenz-Kompetenz is now

firmly embedded in the arbitration jurisprudence in India. This

doctrine is based on the principle that an arbitral tribunal is

competent to rule on its own jurisdiction including on the

issue of existence or validity of an arbitration agreement. The

object is to minimize judicial intervention which is an

acknowledgment of the concept of party autonomy.

41. In view of the clear legal proposition, we have no

hesitation in holding that the High Court was wrong in

rejecting the Section 11(6) applications of the appellant.

The question as to whether the appellant was compelled to

sign the standardized voucher/advance receipt forwarded to it

by the respondent out of economic duress and whether

27 notwithstanding receipt of Rs.1,88,14,146.00 as against

the claim of Rs. 5,71,69,554.00 the claim to arbitration is

sustainable or not are clearly within the domain of the arbitral

tribunal.

42. That being the position, the impugned order of the

High Court dated 02.12.2011 is set aside.

43. Having regard to the long lapse of time we are of the

view that it would be appropriate for this Court to appoint a

retired Judge of the Bombay High Court as the sole arbitrator.

Accordingly, we appoint Justice (Retd.) Suresh Chandrakant

Gupte (Mobile No.- 9821010104) as the sole arbitrator. Parties

to report to the sole arbitrator by 15.05.2025.

44. Appeals are accordingly allowed. However, there

shall be no order as to costs.

………………………………J. [ABHAY S. OKA]

.……………………………J. [UJJAL BHUYAN] NEW DELHI;

MAY 06, 2025.

28