C. K. Mahajan ( 1 ) THE petitioner entered into a contract dated 9th May, 1994 with the respondent for the work of construction of residential quarters at New tehri Township for a sum of Rs. 1,24,51,444. 96. The formal agreement was executed on 19th May, 1994. The work was completed in July, 1997. It is alleged that the respondent committed certain breaches of contract and not paid the dues of the petitioner in terms of the contract. Thus disputes arose between the parties. In terms of Clause 5. 45 of the General Conditions, the disputes and claims are to be resolved through arbitration. It is alleged that the petitioner raised their disputes and the respondent could not resolved the same amicably. The respondent finalised the bill without considering the claims/disputes. It is stated that the petitioner invoked the arbitration clause on 27th January, 1998 but the respondent failed to appoint an arbitrator. ( 2 ) COUNSEL for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment reported as m/s. K. L. Khanna and Sons v. U. O. I. and Am. , (AA No. 216/97 decided on 24. 4. 2000), Nitin Construction Co. v. National Agricultural Marketing Federation of india Ltd. , 81 (1999) Delhi Law Times 475= 1999 (51) DRJ 73 , and contended that in view of the law laid down in the said judgments following the judgment of the supreme Court reported as Union of India v. L. K. Ahuja, AIR 1988 SC 1172 , the disputes as raised in the petition be referred to an Arbitrator. ( 3 ) COUNSEL for the respondent opposed the petition and contended that the petition is not maintainable as the entire claim of the petitioner has fully satisfied hence nothing survives under the contract. He contended that there are no disputes which remain to be settled between the parties. He placed reliance on the judgment reported as Rajdhani Dal Mill v. M. M. T. C. Ltd. , 94 Delhi Law Times 964=2002 (1) recent Arbitration Judgments 155 (Del ). ( 4 ) I have heard Counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. ( 5 ) ATTENTION is drawn to a receipt dated 18th December, 1997 whereby the petitioner received the amount in full and final settlement of its claims. The said receipt issued by the petitioner reads as under: "received cheque/draft No. 152197 (021019)dated 17. 12. ( 4 ) I have heard Counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. ( 5 ) ATTENTION is drawn to a receipt dated 18th December, 1997 whereby the petitioner received the amount in full and final settlement of its claims. The said receipt issued by the petitioner reads as under: "received cheque/draft No. 152197 (021019)dated 17. 12. 1997 for a sum of Rs. 4,98,953. 62 (Rupees four lacs ninty eight thousand nine hundred fifty three/ 62) on account of my/our final bill in respect of work executed by me/us for construction of staff Qts at N. T. T. as in full and final settlement of all the claims in respect of this project. No amount in respect of the work executed by me is due from the bank. Sd/- for Prime Engineers and Consultants" ( 6 ) A perusal of the above receipt shows that the petitioner received the amount in full and final settlement of its claims. The petitioner neither reserved any right while issuing the aforesaid receipt nor accepted the payment under protest. It is thus clear that the matter has been mutually settled between the parties. The correctness of the aforesaid receipt is not disputed by the petitioner. However, Counsel for the petitioner contended that the said receipt was taken under duress, coercion and under influence. There is no force in the contention of the petitioner. ( 7 ) WHILE referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Konkan railway Corpn. Ltd. and Ors. v. Mehul Construction Co. , VI (2000) Supreme Laws today 321=iv (2000) Civil Law Times 45 (SC)= (2000) 7 SCC 201 , Counsel for the respondent contended that while dealing with the petition under Section 11 of the arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 the Court is not supposed to decide the contentious issue, the proceedings being of administrative nature. ( 8 ) THE Supreme Court in the case reported as Nimet Resources Inc. and Anr, v. Essar Steels Ltd. , IV (2000) Civil Law Times 262 (SC)=vii (2000) Supreme Laws today 166=2000 (3) Arb. L. R. 342 (SC), held that the question as to the existence or validity of arbitration agreement shall be left open to be decided by the Arbitrator itself and such questions cannot be gone into under Section 11. and Anr, v. Essar Steels Ltd. , IV (2000) Civil Law Times 262 (SC)=vii (2000) Supreme Laws today 166=2000 (3) Arb. L. R. 342 (SC), held that the question as to the existence or validity of arbitration agreement shall be left open to be decided by the Arbitrator itself and such questions cannot be gone into under Section 11. As the claim of the petitioner is settled in full and final as would appear from reading of the receipt, there remains no disputes/claims muchless so the arbitration agreement. ( 9 ) IN the case reported as Nathani Steels Ltd. v. Associated Construction, 1995 supp. (3) SCC 324, where the matter had been mutually settled between the parties, it was held that once the parties have arrived at a settlement in respect of any dispute and difference arising out of a contract and that dispute and difference is amicably settled by way of final settlement, by and between the parties, unless that 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 to proceed to invoke the arbitration clause. If this is permitted the sanctity of contract, the settlement also being a contract, would be wholly lost and it would be open to one party to take the benefit under the settlement and then to question the same on the ground of mistake without having the settlement set aside. In that case the matter had been fully settled between the parties and the settlement was reduced into writing. Later on the respondent tried to wriggle out of the settlement on the ground that the same was arrived at under some mistake. Supreme Court deprecated such practice and held that there was no arbitrable dispute which could be referred to the arbitrator. ( 10 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, I am of the opinion that the parties have fully and finally settled the matter and there is no arbitrable dispute which can be referred to the Arbitrator. There is thus no merit in the petition.