Accord and satisfaction disputes fall within the arbitral tribunal’s domain under Section 11.

The petitioner sought appointment of a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in disputes arising from a Letter of Acceptance dated 8 January 2026 for construction work at Shivaji College, University of Delhi.

RITES objected that the petitioner had not followed Clause 25 of the General Conditions of Contract, which required it first to seek a written decision from the Engineer-in-Chief and then, if necessary, appeal to the specified Appellate Authority.

The petitioner had approached both authorities but received no response.

RITES also contended that the dues had been settled in full and that there was accord and satisfaction.

Whether the petitioner complied with Clause 25’s pre-arbitral procedure before invoking arbitration.

Whether the alleged accord and satisfaction justified refusing a reference to arbitration at the Section 11(6) stage.

Clause 25 of the contract required the contractor to seek a written decision from the Engineer-in-Chief and, if dissatisfied or if no decision was given within one month, to appeal to the designated Appellate Authority before invoking arbitration.

Under Sections 11(6) and 11(6-A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the referral court’s inquiry is confined to a prima facie examination of the existence of the arbitration agreement; contested issues concerning discharge of the contract or accord and satisfaction are for the arbitral tribunal under Section 16.

The Court relied principally on SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1754, which held that a dispute concerning full and final settlement does not extinguish the arbitration agreement and is ordinarily for the tribunal to decide.

It also relied on Arabian Exports Pvt. Ltd. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2025) 10 SCC 388, reaffirming that accord-and-satisfaction objections fall within the tribunal’s domain.

The Court rejected the procedural objection because the petitioner had first approached the Engineer-in-Chief and, after receiving no response, the competent Appellate Authority; it invoked arbitration only thereafter, as contemplated by Clause 25.

As to accord and satisfaction, the objection concerned whether the petitioner’s claims had been settled, not whether an arbitration agreement existed.

Applying Krish Spinning and Arabian Exports, the Court held that this mixed question of law and fact should be left to the arbitrator rather than determined in the Section 11 proceedings.

The arbitrator was directed to make the disclosure required by Section 12.

The Court expressed no view on the merits, left all rights and contentions open, and permitted RITES to raise its accord-and-satisfaction objection before the arbitrator and to file a counterclaim, if any.