JUDGMENT : 1. This petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the J&K Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997 for reference of the disputes mentioned therein to an independent arbitrator. 2. Respondents have filed their objections, in which a stand is taken that the petitioner is estopped from claiming reference of the disputes to an arbitrator in view of the fact that he had voluntarily issued a ‘no demand certificate’ dated 16th September, 2012 and has also received an amount of Rs.4,37,286/- as per the final bill after deduction of Rs.1,01,153/- on account of labour cess. 3. Counsel for the petitioner urged that the signatures of the petitioner on the final bill as also on the ‘no demand certificate’ was obtained under coercion as no payment is ordinarily made unless the contractor signs the blank final bill forms. 4. It was further urged that the final bill is prepared on the printed format of which ‘no demand certificate’ is a part and parcel. 5. It was stated that the petitioner was made to sign the ‘no demand certificate’, as is borne out from the final bill, on 16th September, 2012 whereas, the actual date of receipt of the final payment was October, 2012. 6. It was further stated that the petitioner had continued raising his demands and requests before 16th September, 2012 and that the claim of the petitioner to claim damages could not be rejected by refusing to refer the matter to arbitration. Reliance was placed upon Chairman and MD, NTPC Ltd. V. Reshmi Constructions, Builders and Contractors : (2004) 2 SCC 663 , R.L.Kalathia & Co. v. State of Gujarat : 2011 (2) SCC 400 , Gayatri Project Ltd. v. Sai Krishna Construction : 2014 (13) SCC 638 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Boghara Polyfab Pvt. Ltd. : 2009 (1) SCC 267 . 7. In Damodar Valley Corpn. v. K. K. Kar : (1974) 1 SCC 141 , the Apex Court held: “6. It appears to us that the question whether there has been a full and final settlement of a claim under the contract is itself a dispute arising „upon? or „in relation to? or „in connection with? the contract. These words are wide enough to cover the dispute sought to be referred.” 8. In P. K. Ramaiah and Co. It appears to us that the question whether there has been a full and final settlement of a claim under the contract is itself a dispute arising „upon? or „in relation to? or „in connection with? the contract. These words are wide enough to cover the dispute sought to be referred.” 8. In P. K. Ramaiah and Co. v. Chairman & MD : 1994 Suppl (3) SCC 126, after receiving the amount unconditionally which was acknowledged by a separate receipt in writing, reference to arbitration was sought. In that fact situation, the Apex Court in paragraph 8, held as under: “Thus there is accord and satisfaction by final settlement of the claims. The subsequent allegation of coercion is an afterthought and a device to get over the settlement of the dispute, acceptance of the payment and receipt voluntarily given.” 9. In Chairman and MD, NTPC Ltd. v. Reshmi Constructions, Builders & Contractors (supra), the Apex Court held: “25. Yet again in Nathani Steels Ltd. (supra) the disputes and differences were amicably settled by and between the parties and in that view of the matter it was held that unless and until the statement is set aside, the arbitration clause cannot be invoked. Such is not the position here. 27. Even when rights and obligations of the parties are worked out the contract does not come to an end inter alia for the purpose of determination of the disputes arising thereunder, and, thus, the arbitration agreement can be invoked. Although it may not be strictly in place but we cannot shut our eyes to the ground reality that in the cases where a contractor has made huge investment, he cannot afford not to take from the employer the amount under the bills, for various reasons which may include discharge of his liability towards the banks, financial institutions and other persons. In such a situation, the public sector undertakings would have an upper hand. They would not ordinarily release the money unless a 'No Demand Certificate' is signed. Each case, therefore, is required to be considered on its own facts.” 10. The Apex Court recognized the age old maxim ‘necessitas non habet legem’ meaning necessity knows no law and held that sometimes the necessity makes a person to succumb to the pressure of the other party to the bargain who is in a stronger position. 11. In National Insurance Co. The Apex Court recognized the age old maxim ‘necessitas non habet legem’ meaning necessity knows no law and held that sometimes the necessity makes a person to succumb to the pressure of the other party to the bargain who is in a stronger position. 11. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Boghara Polyfab Pvt. Ltd., (supra) the issue arose as to whether after giving a full and final discharge voucher to the insurer, can the insured claim that the dispute be referred to arbitration. In paragraph 19, it was stated thus: “……………..When we refer to a discharge of contract by an agreement signed by both parties or by execution of a full and final discharge voucher/receipt by one of the parties, we refer to an agreement or discharge voucher which is validly and voluntarily executed. If the party who has executed the discharge agreement or discharge voucher, alleges that the execution of such discharge agreement or voucher was on account of fraud/coercion/undue influence practiced by the other party and is able to establish the same, then obviously the discharge of the contract by such agreement/voucher is rendered void and cannot be acted upon. Consequently, any dispute raised by such party would be arbitrable.” 12. In R. L. Kalathia & Co. v. State of Gujarat (supra), the following principles were crystallized: “(i) Merely because the contractor has issued "No Due Certificate", if there is acceptable claim, the court cannot reject the same on the ground of issuance of "No Due Certificate". (ii) Inasmuch as it is common that unless a discharge certificate is given in advance by the contractor, payment of bills are generally delayed, hence such a clause in the contract would not be an absolute bar to a contractor raising claims which are genuine at a later date even after submission of such "No-claim Certificate". (iii) Even after execution of full and final discharge voucher/receipt by one of the parties, if the said party able to establish that he is entitled to further amount for which he is having adequate materials, is not barred from claiming such amount merely because of acceptance of the final bill by mentioning "without prejudice" or by issuing `No Due Certificate'.” 13. In Gayatri Project Ltd. v. Sai Krishna Construction (supra), where while answering a similar question, the Apex Court in paragraph 16 observed thus: “16. In Gayatri Project Ltd. v. Sai Krishna Construction (supra), where while answering a similar question, the Apex Court in paragraph 16 observed thus: “16. In our opinion, since there is no acceptance of the full and final settlement by the Respondent which has been relied upon by the appellant, the issue clearly had to be left to the Arbitrator to be adjudicated.” 14. Following the ratio of the aforementioned judgments, the petitioner in his petition has clearly stated that the final bill prepared by the department was a blank document and no amount was mentioned in the same. It was stated that the petitioner was assured that final bill will be prepared while taking into consideration the work done as well as the losses suffered by the petitioner particularly on account of escalation of the price of the material and idling of the labour, plant and machinery. It was in those circumstances, that the petitioner claims that the final bill was signed by him, which contained no amounts whatsoever. 15. It needs also to be noticed that after the allotment of work in favour of the petitioner vide acceptance letter dated 7th March, 2009, the petitioner claims to have mobilized his men and machinery and started execution of work and while the work was in progress, the same came to be suspended vide communication dated 14th August, 2009 on account of non-finalisation of and acquisition case of the land holders in the area. The work remained suspended up to 1st September, 2011 i.e., more than two years at the first instance and thereafter again on 20th April, 2012, when finally the disputes with regard to land acquisition was sorted out and site handed over to the petitioner for execution of work yet again. The factum of suspension of the work on account of the factors mentioned above is not disputed by the official respondents. The fact that letters were written time and again to the respondents requesting them to compensate the petitioner for losses on account of such suspension has also not been denied. The claims raised in the present petition are primarily emanating from the aforementioned factors. 16. Considering the ratio of the judgments aforementioned, in my opinion, since the petitioner disputes the factum of full and final settlement with the respondents, the issue requires to be left to the arbitrator to adjudicate upon the same. 17. The claims raised in the present petition are primarily emanating from the aforementioned factors. 16. Considering the ratio of the judgments aforementioned, in my opinion, since the petitioner disputes the factum of full and final settlement with the respondents, the issue requires to be left to the arbitrator to adjudicate upon the same. 17. In view of the above, this petition is allowed. The disputes as mentioned in the petition are referred for adjudication to Sh. A.S. Wazir, Chief Engineer (Retd), who is appointed as an arbitrator, who shall enter upon the reference and adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties within the prescribed statutory period. The parties shall be at liberty to file detailed claims and counter claims before the learned arbitrator. The arbitrator shall render his award within the prescribed statutory period. He shall be entitled to fix his own fee. Registrar Judicial shall intimate the learned arbitrator accordingly.