JUDGMENT -D.R. DHANUKA J.:---This is a petition under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The petition is numbered as a suit. The petition deserves to be dismissed in exercise of judicial discretion of Court having regard of unfair, unjust and inequitable conduct of the petitioner as would be obvious from the facts set out in later part of this order. Section 20(4) of the Arbitration Act entitles the Court to refuse relief to the applicant for any "sufficient cause" even if all other conditions prescribed under the said section are satisfied and even if the application made to the Court is technically maintainable. The relevant facts are summarised hereinafter. 2. The petitioner carries on business as a Building Contractor and Developer in the name and style of United Precase Products as its sole proprietor. The respondent is a public sector Corporation constituted to organise and carry out `development work in Maharashtra. Some time in the year 1981, a contract was awarded by the respondent to the petitioner for construction of NL-4 Type Houses at Sector-3 in Nerul Phase-I. The aforesaid construction work (i.e. the Contract work) was duly completed by the plaintiff some time in the year 1985. Clause 49 of the General Conditions of Contract forming part of the "suit contract" provided that as soon as work was completed, the contractor must serve a notice of completion of contract work on the Engineer of the respondent. The petitioner served such notice of completion on the Engineer of the respondent on 20th February, 1985. On 17th June, 1985, the petitioner submitted his final bill to the respondent. The said final bill was for about Rs. 3,57,000/-. Measurements were duly taken and recorded in the Measurement Book of the respondent at pages 14 to 19, Book No. 562. The petitioner accepted the measurements of work done as correct and signed on the measurement sheets forming part of measurement book unconditionally the without any protest. According to the respondent, the contract work was of the value of Rs. 28,07,033.45 p. and prior to preparation of final bill by the petitioner the respondent had already paid a sum of Rs. 27,80,560.91 p. to the petitioner. The respondent required the petitioner to issue No Demand Certificate before the amount due and payable by the respondent to the petitioner was released. The respondent follow such procedure to avoid disputes after payment. 28,07,033.45 p. and prior to preparation of final bill by the petitioner the respondent had already paid a sum of Rs. 27,80,560.91 p. to the petitioner. The respondent required the petitioner to issue No Demand Certificate before the amount due and payable by the respondent to the petitioner was released. The respondent follow such procedure to avoid disputes after payment. Correspondence was exchanged between the parties. Ultimately on 23rd April, 1987 the petitioner issued No Demand Certificate on stamp paper of Rs. 5/-, in favour of the respondent duly attested by two witnesses. The said No Demand Certificate reads as under : "NO DEMAND CERTIFICATE Name of Work : Construction of NL-4 (G+2) type Buildings at Nerul Node, New Bombay. Contract Agreement No. : 6/CIDCO/DE(NB)/81-82 Agency : M/s. United Precast Products. 203, Beena Apartments Senapati Bapat Marg, PUNE-411 016. I, R.A. DESHMUKH, on behalf of M/s. UNITED PRECAST PRODUCTS hereby acknowledge to have received payment in full from City Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited, for all the works executed or for all articles supplied and services rendered by us in connection with the contract indicated above and certify that we have no further claims, whatsoever, against the corporation in connection with or arising out of the said contract, which remain unadjusted. Dated, the 23rd day of April, 1987. for UNITED PRECAST PRODUCTS Sd/- R.A. DESHMUKH Proprietor." The respondent took several steps on the footing that the petitioner was agreeable to accept the said amount of Rs. 33,249/- in full and final settlement of his claim. The respondent released the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner and refunded the amount of security deposit to the petitioner on 2-7-1989. The respondent also paid balance of the amount of Rs. 33,249/- to the petitioner on 9-7-1987 in full and final settlement of the claim of the petitioner relying on No Demand Certificate issued by the petitioner on 23-4-1987. The petitioner accepted the said amount unconditionally and without any protest. 3. After receiving the said amount of Rs. 33,249/- and the amount of security deposit and release of the bank guarantee as aforesaid, the petitioner thought of raising some sort of disputes eventhough petitioner had clearly stated in No Demand Certificate dated 23-4-1987 (Exhibit No. 1 to the affidavit in reply) that the petitioner had no claim whatsoever in connection with the contract No. 6/CIDCO/DE(NB)/81-82. 33,249/- and the amount of security deposit and release of the bank guarantee as aforesaid, the petitioner thought of raising some sort of disputes eventhough petitioner had clearly stated in No Demand Certificate dated 23-4-1987 (Exhibit No. 1 to the affidavit in reply) that the petitioner had no claim whatsoever in connection with the contract No. 6/CIDCO/DE(NB)/81-82. The petitioner is an experienced businessman executing contracts involving lacs of rupees. The petitioner addressed a letter to the Managing Director of the respondent on 16-9-1987 seeking his intervention in the matter as contemplated under Condition No. 58 of General Conditions of Contract. Even in this letter, it was not alleged by the petitioner that the petitioner had issued the said No Demand Certificate as a result of coercion or duress practised on the petitioner. The Managing Director of the respondent refused to intervene. On 13-10-1987, the petitioner addressed a letter to the Chief Engineer (CIDCO) calling upon him to enter upon the reference as Sole Proprietor as contemplated under Clause 83 of General Conditions of Contract. The respondent informed the petitioner that the claims made by the petitioner were not arbitrable. After the accounts were duly settled between the parties, the petitioner adopted the proceedings. The above referred conduct of the petitioner is liable to be characterised as unfair and inequitable conduct. It is the duty of the courts to encourage honesty and discourage dishonesty. 4. Mr. Gupte, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, has invited attention of the Court to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of (Union of India v. M/s. L.K. Ahuja and Co.)1, A.I.R. 1988 Supreme Court 1172. It was held by the Supreme Court in this case that the application for reference under section 20 of the Arbitration Act was maintainable under the said section even though the contractor may have issued "No claim declaration". Having regard to the ratio of this judgment, I hold that the application made by the petitioner is maintainable. In my opinion, this finding of the Court by itself is not enough to make the petition absolute. 5. The next question which arises for consideration of the Court is as to whether there is "sufficient cause" for denying relief to the petitioner as contemplated under section 20(4) of the Arbitration Act, 1940. In my opinion, this finding of the Court by itself is not enough to make the petition absolute. 5. The next question which arises for consideration of the Court is as to whether there is "sufficient cause" for denying relief to the petitioner as contemplated under section 20(4) of the Arbitration Act, 1940. In (Abdul Kadir Shamsuddin Bubere v. Madhav Prabhakar Oak)2, A.I.R. 1962 Supreme Court 406, it was observed by the Honourable Supreme Court as under: "It is therefore open to a Court under this sub-section, where sufficient cause is shown not to order the agreement to be filed and not to make a reference to the arbitrator. The words of this sub-section leave a wide discretion in the Court to consider whether an order for filing the agreement should be made and a reference made accordingly. It is neither necessary nor desirable to lay down in general terms what would be sufficient cause which would entitle a Court to refuse to order the agreement to be filed and thus refuse to make an order of reference. The Court will have to decide on the facts of each case whether sufficient cause has been made out for not ordering the agreement to be filed and not making the order of reference." It is well settled that the conduct of the petitioner is always relevant for the purpose of deciding the question as to whether there is "sufficient cause" for denying the relief claimed in application under section 20 of the Act. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the discretion should be exercised in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent as the respondent had made issue of `No Demand Certificate as a precondition before release of amount of security deposit and payment of admitted amounts due and payable by the respondent to the petitioner. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that No Demand Certificate (Exhibit-1 to the affidavit-in-reply) should be construed to mean a committment merely to the effect that the petitioner would not make any claim in addition to the claim set one in the final bill dated 17th June, 1985. It is not possible to accept either of these submissions. It is not possible to accept either of these submissions. In the said No Demand Certificate it is clearly stated that the petitioner has no further claim whatsoever against the respondent in connection with or arising out of the said contract which remains unadjusted. The language of No Demand Certificate dated 23-4-1987 militates against the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is an experienced and educated businessman. There is nothing wrong with the practice followed by the respondent to the effect that the accounts be settled first and the amounts be released after the contractor issues No Demand Certificate. In my opinion there is "sufficient cause" to deny relief to the petitioner eventhough technically the arbitration clause may survive and in an appropriate case the cause may be justified in making an order of reference even where dispute pertains to issue of accord and satisfaction. Having regard to totality of facts emerging from the record as summarised above, I refuse to grant relief to the petitioner in exercise of my discretion under section 20(4) of the Act and having regard to my finding that the conduct of the petitioner is unfair, unjust and inequitable as obvious from facts of this case. No one can be allowed to approbate and reprobate or blow hot and cold at same time. If the petitioner is guilty of conduct which is opposed to justice, equity and good conscience, the petitioner would be disentitled from obtaining relief under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. Such conduct of the petitioner would be covered by the expression "sufficient cause" within the meaning of section 20(4) of the Arbitration Act. Having regard to the facts of this case, I hold that the conduct of the petitioner in relation to subject matter of this petition is opposed to justice, equity and good conscience and the petitioner is disentitled to obtain any relief from this Court in this petition. I have not denied relief to the petitioner on the ground that the arbitration clause does not survive or that the application is not maintainable but on the ground that the respondent has been able to satisfy the Court that having regard to the facts of the case, there is "sufficient cause" for denying relief to the petitioner even if all the other conditions prescribed under the said section are satisfied. 7. 7. In the result, the petition fails. Petition is accordingly dismissed with costs. Petition dismissed.