ORDER : 1. The short point which arises for consideration in this petition is whether sole Arbitrator has to be appointed despite two e-mails dated 08.04.2021 namely one from the respondent addressed to the petitioner and in reply petitioner accepting the claim made by it and had restricted its claim to Rs. 5,37,24,725/- 2. Petitioner raised a claim in respect of the insurance policy obtained from the respondent under two heads namely material damage loss and Business Interruption Loss of Rs.106,42,56,638/- and 39,90,55,000/- respectively. During the consideration of the claim certain amounts were paid namely ad-hoc payments between 31.07.2017 to 19.09.2017 and in all a sum of Rs. 24,98,70,432/- was paid. After negotiations, survey reports, discussions and deliberations, settlement agreement was executed for material damage claim for Rs. 68,39,13,309/- and thus giving deductions to the amount already paid, a balance of Rs. 43,36,89,396/- was paid to the petitioner by the respondent. It is thereafter petitioner pursued its grievance for payment of business interruption loss or loss of profit and in this regard, petitioner forwarded an e-mail on 26.08.2020 to the respondent and raised a grievance for undue delay and settlement of loss of profit i.e. business interruption loss. In fact, petitioner also forwarded a communication to the Surveyor requesting to consider the claim for increased cost of working and showing concern for exorbitant delay in settlement of business interruption loss and contending that it resulted in further loss of Rs. 2 crores. It was followed by further e-mail dated 04.03.2021 by the petitioner to the Surveyor appointed by respondent. It is thereafter there was exchange of mail between the petitioner and the respondent on 08.04.2021. Under the e-mail forwarded by the respondent at 6:52 p.m. on 08.04.2021, attention of petitioner was sought for to the discussion with Mr. Praveen Pathak (CTO) and it has been specifically stated in the said e-mail by the respondent to the petitioner as under : - “As you have now consented the surveyors assessment of Rs. 5,37,24,725/- which they have already shared with you. We are processing the claim.” 3. The aforesaid mail was replied to immediately on the same day at 8:54 p.m, by the petitioner addressed to the respondent agreeing or accepting and stating as “OK”. In other words, petitioner accepted the claim amount to be settled for Rs. 5,37,24,725/-. 5,37,24,725/- which they have already shared with you. We are processing the claim.” 3. The aforesaid mail was replied to immediately on the same day at 8:54 p.m, by the petitioner addressed to the respondent agreeing or accepting and stating as “OK”. In other words, petitioner accepted the claim amount to be settled for Rs. 5,37,24,725/-. It is this consent which has been given by the petitioner which the respondent had relied upon to stave off the demand of petitioner for appointment of an Arbitrator on the ground that there is voluntary consent and there was no duress at that point of time and hence the petitioner cannot turn around now and contend that said consent was given was on account of any compulsion, duress, threat or coercion. Whereas, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently contended that said e-mail which was replied to by giving consent of the petitioner was with the fond hope of receiving the said amount as otherwise petitioner would not have even received the amount that was paid namely 5.37 crores, and immediately after receiving the said amount, petitioner has forwarded a notice on 08.06.2021 invoking arbitration clause and narrating the circumstances under which said discharge voucher came to be forwarded by petitioner. In the interregnum i.e. after the exchange of e-mails by the petitioner and respondent on 08.04.2021, and before forwarding the letter invoking arbitration clause on 08.06.2021, it is an undisputed fact that on 15.04.2021, respondent had forwarded discharge voucher to the petitioner for its execution and re-transmission and accordingly it was executed and re-transmitted to by the petitioner to the respondent which culminated in payment of Rs. 5,36,91,803/- on 16.04.2021 by releasing the amount in favour of petitioner to its bank account by the respondent. In other words, on receipt of discharge voucher, the respondent had forwarded has paid the amount to the petitioner. It would be apt and appropriate to extract the exact wordings or expression used in the discharge voucher which is the bone of the contention in this petition, it reads : - “We hereby confirm our consent for receiving a sum of Rs. 5,37,24,725/- (Rupees Five Crores Thirty Seven Lakhs Twenty Four Thousand Seven Hundred and Twenty Five Only) from Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co. Limited towards full & final settlement of the captioned claim before deduction of premium for reinstatement of sum insured. 5,37,24,725/- (Rupees Five Crores Thirty Seven Lakhs Twenty Four Thousand Seven Hundred and Twenty Five Only) from Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co. Limited towards full & final settlement of the captioned claim before deduction of premium for reinstatement of sum insured. We are also agreeable to consider the banks payment advice as proof of payment.” (emphasis supplied) 4. A plain reading of the above words or expression found in the discharge voucher would clearly indicate that it was in full and final settlement of the claim captioned claim which relatable to the business interruption loss or loss of profit. Thus, it would emerge from the above exchange of correspondence, it resulted in petitioner executing a discharge voucher in full and final satisfaction of its claim under the head Business Interruption Loss. Thus, all claims of the petitioner had got converged into the discharge voucher and there remained nothing further to be paid by the respondent to the petitioner. However, the factual scenario would have been otherwise, in the event of petitioner executing the final voucher or discharge voucher without prejudice to its rights. The issue of duress is a song sung by the petitioner intermittently and I say so for the simple reason that initially the claim of petitioner was under two heads namely towards material damage and towards business interruption loss. Insofar as material damage loss is concerned, as already noticed hereinabove, it had resulted in exchange of various correspondence or mails between the parties and during the process of consideration of claim of petitioner, respondent had made ad-hoc payment to the tune of Rs. 24,98,70,432/- and on receipt of the surveyor’s report, as well as on mutual discussion, a settlement agreement was entered into between parties on 05.08.2019 for Rs. 68,39,13,309/- against the assessment of loss made by the surveyor to the tune of Rs. 73,22,20,938/-. Undisputedly, the total amount settled under the agreement dated 05.08.2019 has been received by the petitioner. Even after receipt of said amount, petitioner started forwarding mail contending that property loss, material damage was settled after long delay which resulted in acute financial difficulties faced by petitioner and contending that assessment made by the Surveyor was improper or not in accordance with the actual loss sustained by petitioner. Even after receipt of said amount, petitioner started forwarding mail contending that property loss, material damage was settled after long delay which resulted in acute financial difficulties faced by petitioner and contending that assessment made by the Surveyor was improper or not in accordance with the actual loss sustained by petitioner. Hence, the irresistible conclusion which will have to be drawn is petitioner who executes a discharge voucher or enters into a full and final settlement agreement has been singing the said tune repeatedly which cannot be countenanced. Even after execution of the settlement agreement and receipt of the amount, claim regarding business interruption loss which was kept, alive and kicking, was infused with a fresh claim by forwarding e-mails as well as communications on 26.08.2020, 24.12.2020, 04.03.2021, 08.06.2021. In the interregnum, the discharge voucher came to be executed by the petitioner on 15.04.2021, which was in furtherance of the e-mails exchanged between the parties on 08.04.2021 and on receipt of amount on 16.04.2021, the petitioner did not raise its little finger. However after two months, a fresh claim was made reiterating its earlier claim made on 17.12.2018, which was reiterated on 26.08.2020. It is in this background, it has to be necessarily held that petitioner who has contended that discharge voucher had come into existence under the circumstances of compulsion or duress is nothing but a myth or a story which has been woven by petitioner to wriggle out of the discharge voucher which had been executed by it in full and final settlement of its all claim. Even on prima facie view, this Court will have to necessarily draw said irresistible conclusion, inasmuch as petitioner who claims to have been wronged by the respondent at the first instance when the material damage loss was assessed by the petitioner and knew at the time of executing settlement agreement on 05.08.2019, could not be construed as having committed the same mistake for the second time with its eyes wide open while executing discharge voucher in full and final settlement. In other words, when petitioner fully knew, according to it, that settlement agreement was entered into on account of compulsion, if it were to be so, there was no occasion for the petitioner to have executed the discharge voucher stating or admitting thereunder that in full and final settlement, same has been issued. In other words, when petitioner fully knew, according to it, that settlement agreement was entered into on account of compulsion, if it were to be so, there was no occasion for the petitioner to have executed the discharge voucher stating or admitting thereunder that in full and final settlement, same has been issued. Having executed the same, without any demur or expressing its reservation for execution of the same, the plea now raised by the petitioner that it was executed under compulsion, lacks bona fides or credibility of such statement being accepted. 5. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that petitioner having entered into an agreement of settlement on 05.08.2019 for material damage and having received the entire amount of Rs. 68,39,13,309/- and executed the discharge voucher on 15.04.2021 and received a sum of Rs. 5,36,91,803/- on 16.04.2021, it would be too late in the day to resile from these two documents to contend that it was executed under compulsion, duress or on account of need or necessity or financial constraints. Said contention is without merit and liable to be rejected and accordingly, it stands rejected. For the reasons afore-stated, I proceed to pass following : ORDER : (i) Petition is dismissed with cost of Rs. 10,000/-. (ii) Registry is directed to transfer Rs. 10,000/- from the cost already deposited by the petitioner to the account of the respondent on an affidavit being filed disclosing the name of bank, branch, account number, IFSC Code number. The balance amount of Rs. 90,000/- is ordered to be refunded to the petitioner by transferring the said amount to the account of the petitioner by RTGS on petitioner furnishing the details of its bank.