In Brief
An insurance company refused to arbitrate a claim for additional indemnity after the insured company, under financial duress from business loss and creditor pressure, signed a discharge voucher accepting partial payment of Rs. 1.88 crore against a total claim of Rs. 5.71 crore. The High Court dismissed the insured's applications to appoint an arbitrator, treating the signed voucher as binding 'accord and satisfaction'. The Supreme Court held that the question of whether the voucher was signed under economic duress, and whether arbitration remains available, must be decided by the arbitrator, not the court at the appointment stage. The judgment reinforces that courts should not minutely examine defenses like duress at the threshold but allow the arbitral tribunal to rule on its own jurisdiction under the doctrine of Kompetenz-Kompetenz.</summary_100> </invoke>
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.