PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. ( 1 ) RESPONDENT has not disputed that the insurance policy, vide the Clause 12, contains an arbitration clause as per which disputes have to be referred to a sole arbitrator jointly agreed to between the parties failing which each party to nominate his/its arbitrator and the arbitrators, in turn to appoint an umpire. ( 2 ) THE clause is so worded inasmuch as Arbitration Act, 1940 was in force when policy was issued. ( 3 ) ONLY dispute raised is, whether while accepting the cheque from the respondent, petitioner received payment as full and final settlement. ( 4 ) PETITIONER had taken a fire policy from the respondent. On 12. 07. 2003, a fire took place. Claim lodged was in sum of Rs. 71,33,992/- on account of loss suffered due to fire. Respondent appointed a surveyor and as per his report respondent assessed the loss at Rs. 24,37,486/ -. This amount was tendered vide the cheque dated 03. 11. 2004 Petitioner was made to execute a pre-receipt in which it was recorded that the amount assessed by the surveyor was accepted in full and final settlement of the claim. ( 5 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, respondent offered payment after 15 months of the fire and required it to execute a pre-receipt before tendering the cheque. Having suffered a heavy loss, petitioner was compelled to execute a pre-receipt acknowledging that payment was being received in full and final settlement of the claim. ( 6 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, on 18. 11. 2004 letter was written repudiating acceptance of the sum tendered in full and final satisfaction of the claim. ( 7 ) AS per judgment of the Supreme Court reported as JT 2005 (9) SC 219 M/s s. B. and Co. Vs. M/s Patel Engineering Ltd. and Anr. , it has been held that a live and a subsisting claim alone can be referred to arbitration and where it is pleaded that there is accord and satisfaction, issue would have to be decided under Section 11 (6 ). Reason being that where there is accord and satisfaction and a party has received an amount from the opposite party in full and final satisfaction of the claim, no arbitrable dispute would exist. Reason being that where there is accord and satisfaction and a party has received an amount from the opposite party in full and final satisfaction of the claim, no arbitrable dispute would exist. ( 8 ) BUT, whether a party has received an amount in full and final satisfaction of the claim and whether it was under duress would itself be a dispute, capable of being referred to arbitration. ( 9 ) THE first and foremost judgment on the point is the decision of the supreme Court reported as AIR 1988 SC 1172 , UOI Vs. L. K. Ahuja. It is a judgment by a two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court. The issue arose in the context of limitation for invoking arbitration clause if final payment was received by a party recording satisfaction of a claim. ( 10 ) ISSUE came up for consideration again before the Supreme Court in the report published as 1994 (supply) 3 SCC 126 M/s B. K. Ramaiah and Co. Vs. Chairman and Managing Director, NTPC. ( 11 ) CONTRACTOR had made an endorsement while accepting payment that same was in full and final settlement of the dispute. ( 12 ) ON facts, their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that there was accord and satisfaction and, therefore, held that referenced of dispute to arbitration was bad in law. Decision in L. K. Ahuja's case was explained with the following observations:-"in L. K. Ahuja and Company case, this court while laying the general law held that if the bill was prepared by the department, the claim gets weakened. That was not a case of accord and satisfaction but one of pleading power of limitation without prior rejection of the claim. Therefore, the ratio therein is of little assistance. " ( 13 ) IN the report published as 1995 (supply) 3 SCC 324 Nathani Steels Ltd. Vs. Associated Constructions, issue was revisited. The decision is by a Three judge Bench of the Supreme Court. ( 14 ) THEIR Lordships held that evidence on record showed that after dispute arose between the parties, they had negotiations in which even architect participated. Settlement dated 28. 12. 90 was executed. It was, therefore, held that no arbitrable dispute subsisted. Matter reached the Apex Court once again. In the decision reported as 2000 (8) SCC 1 UOI Vs. ( 14 ) THEIR Lordships held that evidence on record showed that after dispute arose between the parties, they had negotiations in which even architect participated. Settlement dated 28. 12. 90 was executed. It was, therefore, held that no arbitrable dispute subsisted. Matter reached the Apex Court once again. In the decision reported as 2000 (8) SCC 1 UOI Vs. Popular Builders, a decision by a Three Judge Bench, it was held that in view of the facts that the contractor had received payment under final bill without dimer, no subsisting dispute existed which could be referred to arbitration. ( 15 ) FOR a yet another time, Supreme Court dealt with the same issue in the decision reported as (2000) till SCC 178 Jayesh Engineering Works Vs. New India assurance Company. It was held that whether the contract had been fully worked out and whether the payments have been made in full and final settlement are questions to be considered by the arbitrator when there is a dispute regarding the same. ( 16 ) FROM the various decisions afore noted, it is obvious that if there is a considered endeavour made by the parties to settle the dispute and the dispute is settled between the parties resulting in an accord and satisfaction of the dispute, no dispute would subsist thereafter and as a result, there would be no existing arbitrable dispute capable of being referred to arbitration. But, where there is no evidence that parties negotiated and thereafter reached an accord and satisfaction, issue would be wide upon and would require reference of the dispute to the arbitrator who would then decide whether amount received was in full and final satisfaction of the claims. ( 17 ) ON facts, I cannot ignore that for 15 months, claim of the petitioner was not satisfied. After 15 months, a pre-receipt was obtained on which petitioner was made to write that it was accepting the amount offered in full and final satisfaction of the claim. Only thereafter, cheque was tendered. Further, immediately after receiving the cheque, petitioner questioned the correctness of the amount tendered. ( 18 ) I allow the petition. I appoint Justice R. C. Chopra (Retd.), R/o B-14, east of Kailash, New Delhi (Mobile No. 9818097777) as the sole arbitrator to decide the disputes and differences between the parties pertaining to fire policy bearing No. 040280/11/02/01078. Further, immediately after receiving the cheque, petitioner questioned the correctness of the amount tendered. ( 18 ) I allow the petition. I appoint Justice R. C. Chopra (Retd.), R/o B-14, east of Kailash, New Delhi (Mobile No. 9818097777) as the sole arbitrator to decide the disputes and differences between the parties pertaining to fire policy bearing No. 040280/11/02/01078. ( 19 ) LEARNED arbitrator would fix his fee in consultation with the parties. Registry would send a copy of this order to the learned arbitrator within 2 weeks from today. No costs.