JUDGMENT 1. THIS is a request under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for the constitution of an arbitral tribunal for referring the disputes between the parties covered by the arbitration agreement contained in the insurance policy. 2. THE existence of the arbitration agreement is not doubted. That the disputes raised would be covered by the arbitration agreement is also not in question. The respondent says that there is no live claim to go to arbitration since the petitioner fully and finally discharged the respondent by a writing issued sometime in or about May-June, 2006. 3. THE circumstances giving rise to the present situation may be briefly noticed. Following a fire at a market where the petitioner had a shop, a claim was lodged. There is no dispute that prior to May, 2006, the petitioner received an interim payment of Rs. 75 lakh. THE insurance company issued an undated writing which the petitioner received on May 26, 2006 that informed the petitioner that the petitioner was required to return the voucher that was sent along with the undated letter for the petitioner to be entitled to receive the cheque in respect of the settlement of the claim. THE undated letter indicated the quantum at which the claim had been settled and it is evident that the extent of the loss that had been claimed by the petitioner . did not match the settlement figure (including the interim payment) arrived at by the insurance company. In addition, the undated letter enclosed reports received from a company by the name of Prevention Association of India Limited and the TAG report. 4. IT is submitted unequivocally at the hearing that the voucher that was appended to the undated letter had been filled up in most parts by and/or on behalf of the insurance company. The voucher recorded the quantum of payment and went on to record that such payment was in respect of "Full and Final settlement of Fire claim..." What has been quoted is part of what had been filled up by hand in the voucher and it is the admitted position that such handwritten portion was made by and/or on behalf of the insurance company. 5. SHORTLY after receipt of the voucher duly signed on behalf of the petitioner, a cheque for a sum of Rs. 5. SHORTLY after receipt of the voucher duly signed on behalf of the petitioner, a cheque for a sum of Rs. 41,28,032/- dated June 16, 2006 was made over by the insurance company to the petitioner. 6. BY a letter of June 22, 2006, issued within days of receipt of the cheque, the petitioner protested the quantum at which the claim had been settled and indicated that it had received such payment under strong protest and without prejudice to its right to claim the additional amount. The petitioner sought an explanation from the insurance company as to why the amount claimed had been so drastically reduced. There does not appear to have been any contemporaneous reply issued by the insurance company to the petitioner. For a period of more than two years thereafter, the petitioner remained silent. By a letter of January 5, 2009, the receipt whereof is not in issue, the petitioner asserted that the petitioner had a legitimate claim against the insurance company and after furnishing the particulars in support of its claim, the petitioner invoked the arbitration agreement contained in the insurance policy. To such letter of January 5,2009, the insurance company did not respond. 7. IN the petition, it has been averred that the petitioner was in dire financial stress and in acute need of funds and was left with no alternative but to sign and return the loss voucher to enable the petitioner to receive the meagre amount that had been offered by the insurance company. The petitioner claims at paragraph 5 that the voucher was signed under pressure and coercion and that the insurance company was in a position to dominate the will of the petitioner. 8. THE insurance company contends that the basis for settling the claim at a lower amount had been indicated in its undated letter which the petitioner admittedly received on May 26, 2006. THE insurance company says that if the petitioner had reason to object to the basis of the insurance company's settlement, the petitioner ought to have done the same immediately and. once the petitioner had unequivocally signed the voucher without expressing any reservation in such regard, the petitioner was precluded from making any further claim. A recent judgment of the Supreme Court reported at (2009)1 SCC 267 [National Insurance Company Limited v. Boghara Polyfab (P) Ltd.] is apposite in the context. once the petitioner had unequivocally signed the voucher without expressing any reservation in such regard, the petitioner was precluded from making any further claim. A recent judgment of the Supreme Court reported at (2009)1 SCC 267 [National Insurance Company Limited v. Boghara Polyfab (P) Ltd.] is apposite in the context. The Supreme Court considered several previous instances where a defence of accord and satisfaction raised to an application for the appointment of an arbitrator had been considered by the Supreme Court. After referring to a number of previous judgments of the Court on the matter/the Supreme Court set out five illustrations, which were said to be not exhaustive, at paragraph 52 of the report. The third of the illustrations, covers a situation where a person may make a claim and the other contracting party, either orally or in writing, may indicate to the first party that unless a discharge of the balance claim was given, even the amount admitted as payable would not be made over. It appears that such illustration is apt in the present context and this matter is covered thereby. 9. THE undated letter that the petitioner received on May 26, 2006 was accompanied by the voucher which was filled up in most parts on behalf the insurance company. If the petitioner had not returned the voucher duly signed, the petitioner would not have received the payment. It is evident from the undated letter that the claim had been made several years back and it took a long time for it to reach the stage that it did by May, 2006. It is also evident that when the voucher was executed by the petitioner acknowledging receipt of payment, there was, in fact, no payment by the insurance company to the petitioner. It is the admitted position that the cheque dated June 16, 2006 was issued after the insurance company had received the duly signed voucher from the petitioner. 10. THE conduct of the insurance company in demanding that the petitioner sign the voucher that was in most parts filled up on behalf of the insurance company amounted to the insurance company coercing the petitioner into executing such document for the petitioner to be entitled to receive the payment that the insurance company offered. 10. THE conduct of the insurance company in demanding that the petitioner sign the voucher that was in most parts filled up on behalf of the insurance company amounted to the insurance company coercing the petitioner into executing such document for the petitioner to be entitled to receive the payment that the insurance company offered. Of course, this is a prima facie view that is to be restricted for the purpose of the present proceedings and should not have a bearing on the matter in any further proceedings. The Boghara Polyfab judgment is instructive in that it says that the Chief Justice or his delegate may form an opinion upon receipt of a request under Section 11 as to whether a certification as to accord and satisfaction had completely discharged the respondent or as to whether the accord and satisfaction that is set up by way of defence by the respondent was disputed and had to be looked into. Since it, prima facie, appears in this case that there was an element of coercion or pressure exerted by the Insurance company on the petitioner in obtaining the voucher prior to releasing the payment and since it further appears that the letter of protest of June 22, 2006 was issued by the petitioner within days of receipt of the cheque dated June 16, 2006, there is a live dispute which can go to arbitration. It is also of significance that the Chief Justice or his delegate does not require to conclusively adjudicate upon the merits of a matter in proceedings under Section 11 of the Act. If the assertison of a fact by a party and the denial thereof by another has the makings of a bona fide dispute, the dispute must, in accordance with the arbitration agreement, be adjudicated upon by the agreed forum in preference to the Chief Justice or his delegate before whom only the request to go to reference is brought. 11. A.P. No. 310 of 2009 has now to be placed before the Hon'ble Delegate of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for constituting an arbitral tribunal to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties covered by the arbitration clause contained in the insurance company. 12. THERE will be no order as to costs. Urgent certified photocopies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.