Jagdish Dhandra ( 1 ) PETITION under Section 20 Arbitration Act, 1940 being Suit No. 1837-A/84 was filed by the petitioner Mr. Arvind Kumar against the Union of India, respondent, through the Director General of Supplies and Disposals, for appointment of an arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes and differences which had arisen between the parties. That petition was accepted and consequently the respondent vide letter dated 15th July, 1985 appointed Smt. R. Lakshmanan, Additional Legal Advisor, Ministry of law, as an arbitrator. She accepted the reference on 8th August, 1985 but resigned as an arbitrator on 9th September, 1985. Thereafter no arbitrator was appointed by the respondent. The petitioner vide notice dated 2nd July, 1986 called upon the respondent to appoint another arbitrator in view of resignation of Smt. R. Lakshmanan. The respondent failed to appoint the second arbitrator. ( 2 ) THEREAFTER the petitioner has put up this petition (being I. A. No. 1048/ 87) under Sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 20 of Arbitrator Act, 1940, praying for the appointment of arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes and differences between the parties. ( 3 ) IN reply, the respondent. Union of India has asserted that the petitioner vide his letter dated 1st April, 1987 had withdrawn his claim for interest and that the disputes and differences stood resolved between the parties for which reason there was no warrant for the appointment of any arbitrator. ( 4 ) IN the rejoinder the petitioner while admitting the letter dated 1st April, 1987 as having been written by him to the respondent, asserted that this letter had been taken from him under coercion by the respondent, who had threatened that otherwise no, payment would be made to him. ( 5 ) THE letter dated 1st April, 1987 written by the petitioner to the respondent reads as follows. "since you have given necessary instructions for payment of our dues, to the Pay and Accounts Officer, we are withdrawing our claim for the interest. The dispute may be treated as resolved and settled against this contract. This is to confirm that offer given against tender was signed by me on behalf of the firm as a proprietor. SD/- For Arvind Kumar and Co. The dispute may be treated as resolved and settled against this contract. This is to confirm that offer given against tender was signed by me on behalf of the firm as a proprietor. SD/- For Arvind Kumar and Co. ( 6 ) A perusal of this letter goes to show that in view of the fact that the respondent had given necessary instructions to its Pay and Accounts Officer for the payment of dues of the petitioner, the petitioner in return withdrew his claim regarding interest and thus it was stated in this letter that the disputes between the parties stood resolved and settled as far as this contract was concerned. When now it is asserted that this letter was procured from the petitioner under threat and coercion that otherwise no dues would be paid to him, the dispute has again arisen between the parties whether this letter operates as full and final settlement of the claim of the petitioner or not and whether this letter had been written by the petitioner under threat and coercion as alleged by him. This obviously is a dispute which has to be settled by the Arbitrator as per the arbitration agreement between the parties. Damoder Vally v. K. K. Kar1, is an authority which covers this matter and according to this authority the question whether there had been a full and final settlement of the claim under the contract was a dispute arising between the parties upon or in relation to or in connection with the contract. ( 7 ) IT is pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner that in main petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. the petitioner s claim was to-wards damages, interest and costs. According to the authority cited above, a claim for damages was a dispute or difference which arose between the parties and was upon or in relation to or in connection with the contract, and the reference to the Arbitrator by the respondent was not barred. the petitioner s claim was to-wards damages, interest and costs. According to the authority cited above, a claim for damages was a dispute or difference which arose between the parties and was upon or in relation to or in connection with the contract, and the reference to the Arbitrator by the respondent was not barred. The facts of that authority were that the tenderer entered into a contract with the Damodar Vally Corporation to supply coal but as it failed to do so in accordance with the terms of contract, the D. V. Corporation unilaterally repudiated the contract and ultimately paid to the tenderer for the supply of coal ; and it was the case of D. V. Corporation that those payments, including the return of the deposit amount, finally settled the claims of the tenderer. After receiving those payments, the tenderer claimed fram D. V. Corpn. damages for repudiation of the contract When D. V. Corporation did not agree, the tenderer served a notice of his intention to refer the matter to the arbitration under the arbitration clause contained in the contract. The Court held as follows. "held that the question whether there had been a full and final settlement of a claim under the contract was itself a dispute arising upon or "in relation to or in connection with the contract. A claim for damages was a dispute or difference which arose between the respondent and the appellant and was upon or in relation to or in connection with the contract, and the reference to the arbitrator by the respondent was not barred. " ( 8 ) IN view of the aforesaid discussion this petition is accepted and the respondent is directed to appoint an arbitrator in accordance with the arbitration agreement within two months from today and the disputes and differences between the parties as referred to in the main petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 be referred to him for decision. There shall be no order as to costs.