ORDER : This matter brings out the extreme recalcitrance and oppressive behaviour of an insurance company which attempted to coerce the insured to accept a part of the amount by insisting that the insured issue a discharge certificate for the insurance company to be able to subsequently resist any attempt by the insured to seek a larger amount by citing accord and satisfaction as a complete legal answer thereto. 2. Before the merits of the request under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 can be taken up, it is necessary to recall the order of dismissal of the petition for default. In view of the good grounds shown in GA No.110 of 2014, the order of dismissal passed on January 6, 2014 is recalled and AP No.593 of 2013 is restored to the file. GA No.110 of 2014 is allowed as above without any order as to costs. 3. Since the parties were put on notice that the request under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 would be taken up immediately upon the restoration application being allowed, the petition is taken up for hearing. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that after a fire apparently devastated the petitioner s manufacturing facility on January 18, 2012, the petitioner made a claim which was sought to the settled at about half the amount claimed and the petitioner was required to issue a discharge certificate before the amount was released to the petitioner. 5. The petitioner places a letter dated November 22, 2012, which refers to the insurance company s letter of November 14, 2012. The letter of November 14, 2012 issued by the insurance company alluded to the report submitted by the surveyor engaged by the insurance company. It recorded that though there were differences between the surveyor and the insured, a substantial part of the claim made by the insured was not acceptable. The letter signed off by asserting in its final sentence as follows: Kindly send us your signed & stamped discharge voucher at the earliest enabling us to release payment. 6. That would imply that there was a form of a discharge voucher, presumably prepared by the insurance company, and that the insured had to execute the discharge voucher even to receive the lesser amount at which the claim was settled by the insurance company. 7. 6. That would imply that there was a form of a discharge voucher, presumably prepared by the insurance company, and that the insured had to execute the discharge voucher even to receive the lesser amount at which the claim was settled by the insurance company. 7. In the letter of November 22, 2012, the insured protested the decision of the insurance company to settle the claim at a lesser amount. However, the insured had this to say in the second paragraph of such letter: In the light of the above we strongly feel there is no option left with you. Since we need long outstanding money urgently as already informed to you several time, we are attaching herewith a duly signed and stamped discharge voucher. 8. The discharge voucher dated November 22, 2012 that was appended to the letter in the form as supplied by the insurance company, as a stand-alone document, appears to give a clean discharge to the insurance company. 9. The insurance company was not satisfied with the discharge certificate. It could not be, since notwithstanding the clean discharge apparent from the form of the document, such discharge certificate came along with a letter of protest of the same date. The unequivocal discharge as evident from the certificate lost its sheen as such in the light of the protest in the accompanying letter. 10. Accordingly, the insurance company wrote back on November 30, 2012, inter alia, that, hope we could satisfy your doubts and you would give us clean discharge in order to release an amount of Rs.40,58,864/- as full and final settlement of the claim. 11. It is not in dispute that a sum of Rs.20 lakh had been paid by the insurance company earlier; thus, the offer to make the balance payment of Rs.40,58,864/- implied that the claim for over Rs.1.20 crore was to be settled at about Rs.60 lakh. 12. What cannot be missed from the last paragraph of the insurance company s letter of November 30, 2012 is the use of the word clean to emphasise on the quality of the discharge and the veiled threat in the relevant sentence that in the absence of a clean discharge, the insurance company may not be in a position to make payment of the balance amount at which the claim was settled. The insurance company s original letter of November 14, 2012 did not refer to any clean discharge, and, such aspect of the matter had to be emphasised since the signed & stamped discharge that had been furnished by the insured under cover of the letter dated November 22, 2012 was not reckoned to be a clean discharge. 13. The insurance company has made a mountain out of mole hill in labouring on the perceived poor conduct of the petitioner in suppressing both the letters of November 14, 2012 and November 30, 2012 in the petition. It is suggested that by reason of suppression of at least the document of November 30, 2012 and the subsequent discharge voucher executed by the insured on December 4, 2012, the insured has disentitled itself from pursuing the claim or seeking any order on the present request. Such argument has to be urged to be rejected. 14. Suppression is scarcely of relevance at the final hearing of a matter, particularly, when the respondents had been afforded an opportunity to file an affidavit and disclose documents along with it. The charge of suppression against a petitioner, in the sense that certain documents or facts had not been mentioned or had been concealed, is relevant at the stage when the respondent has no affidavit in support of its case. Suppression of material facts amounts to gross misconduct and may lead to a petition being dismissed without anything else being looked into if an order is obtained thus. But urging suppression as a ground at the final hearing of a petition, upon affidavits being exchanged, is ridiculous. In any event, even if any material had been suppressed by the petitioner, at the final hearing such material would have been disclosed by the respondent; and, the advantage, if any that the petitioner may have sought to gain by suppressing any material would no longer be relevant at such stage. 15. The insurance company says that the case made out in the petition and as asserted by the petitioner is that the balance payment of the settled amount was made by the insurance company pursuant to the discharge certificate executed by the petitioner on November 22, 2012, which was appended to the letter of the same date. 15. The insurance company says that the case made out in the petition and as asserted by the petitioner is that the balance payment of the settled amount was made by the insurance company pursuant to the discharge certificate executed by the petitioner on November 22, 2012, which was appended to the letter of the same date. The insurance company says that as would be evident from the subsequent discharge certificate of December 4, 2012, such later discharge certificate was the effective document and such later certificate was not qualified by any protest in any accompanying letter. 16. The argument put forth on behalf of the insurance company merely proves the point. The insurance company did not accept the discharge certificate of November 22, 2012 since the accompanying letter detracted from the apparent unequivocal abandonment of any further claim of the insured as embodied in the discharge certificate. In obtaining the subsequent clean discharge the insurance company sought to secure for itself the scope to urge precisely the grounds which have now been taken at the hearing of this request under Section 11 of the Act. 17. Following the receipt of the balance payment subsequent to the clean discharge being issued by the petitioner on December 4, 2012 and the petitioner encashing the relevant cheque, the petitioner wrote a letter on December 24, 2012 protesting the insurance company s conduct and alleging that the petitioner had been coerced into issuing the discharge certificate notwithstanding its protest. A request was thereafter made on January13, 2013 detailing the circumstances in which the claim had been made, the settlement arrived at by the insurance company and the payment received thereunder. The letter also required the setting up of an arbitral tribunal to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties covered by the admitted arbitration agreement. 18. To the letters of December 24, 2012 and January 13, 2013, the insurance company s argument is that these were an afterthought; that they were made at a belated stage; and, they should not be countenanced in the light of the accord and satisfaction that is evident from the discharge certificate issued by the petitioner on December 4, 2012. 19. It does not appear that a protest of December 24, 2012 following the receipt of the payment subsequent to December 4, 2012 was made at a belated stage. 19. It does not appear that a protest of December 24, 2012 following the receipt of the payment subsequent to December 4, 2012 was made at a belated stage. Indeed, such protest was made as early as may have been possible in the circumstances. The petitioner did not stop at the protest the petitioner followed it up by making a request for arbitration within a reasonable time thereafter. 20. The petitioner would have been disentitled from seeking to raise any dispute in respect of the amount at which the claim was settled by reason of the principle of accord and satisfaction, if there was indeed any accord or satisfaction which could be discerned from the documents exchanged between the parties and their contemporaneous conduct. In the present case, the petitioner would not have been paid the final amount of Rs.40 lakh odd unless the petitioner had issued the discharge certificate. That is evident from the letter of November 14, 2012 issued by the insurance company; and the reference to clean discharge in the subsequent letter of November 30, 2012 upon the petitioner s temerity of appending the original discharge certificate with the letter of protest of November 22, 2012. The original discharge certificate appeared to the insurance company to be unclean and it sought a better discharge certificate that would entitle it to fashion the argument now made with greater freedom and authority. 21. The game is all too clear and has to be seen through. The conduct of the insurance company has been oppressive in seeking to deny the insured a right to raise a dispute and a right to assert the evidence in support of its claim for a larger amount. 22. Nothing in this order should be construed as a reflection on the merits of the claim, but should be restricted to the oppressive and the high-handed manner in which the insurance company dealt with the insured to stultify the possible claim. 23. There is no defence indicated by the insurance company to the present request for a claim to be carried to an arbitral reference. 24. Accordingly, Mr. 23. There is no defence indicated by the insurance company to the present request for a claim to be carried to an arbitral reference. 24. Accordingly, Mr. Utpal Bose, Advocate, is named as the insurance company s nominee to the arbitral tribunal since the insurance company has forfeited its right to nominate any person in view of its rejection of the petitioner s request in the petitioner s letter of January 13, 2013 by its letter of February 13, 2013. The petitioner will be entitled to indicate the petitioner s nominee within a week from date by writing a letter in such regard to advocate for the insurance company. The two nominees should thereafter decide on the third arbitrator in accordance with the arbitration agreement. It will be open to the parties to decide on the remuneration of the arbitrators and on the time that may be taken for the completion of the reference. 25. For the oppressive conduct of the insurance company and its irresponsible stand taken in course of the present proceedings, the insurance company will pay costs assessed at 6000 GM to the petitioner. 26. The insurance company seeks a stay of the operation of the order which, in the light of how its conduct has been perceived, is unhesitatingly declined. 27. Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities. Order accordingly.