Facts & Background:

• The Appellant, Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL), issued a tender for civil, structural, and underground piping works for the Paradip Refinery Project. The respondent, NCC Limited (NCCL), emerged as the successful bidder.
• The contract stipulated a commencement date of 03.03.2010 and a completion date of 02.10.2011, but the project was delayed and completed on 28.12.2015, with ensuing correspondence between NCCL, IOCL, and the Engineer-in-Charge regarding the extension of time and settlement of the final bill.
• NCCL contested the application of the 4% price adjustment and the assignment of delay responsibility, alleging coercion in withdrawing notified claims. IOCL maintained that the final bill did not contain notified claims.
• On 01.07.2017, NCCL invoked the arbitration clause. On 12.07.2017, IOCL referred the matter regarding arbitrability to the General Manager. On 10.11.2017, the General Manager determined no dispute existed for arbitration, as NCCL had withdrawn its notified claims.
• NCCL filed a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, before the Delhi High Court to appoint a sole arbitrator. By order dated 08.02.2019, the Court granted the petition and appointed an arbitrator.
• IOCL challenged the Delhi High Court’s order appointing a sole arbitrator in Civil Appeal No. 341/2022, while similar disputes arising from four other contracts were also subject to Arbitration Petitions, wherein the General Manager declared NCCL’s claims were not notified.
• The High Court, in the respective cases, appointed sole arbitrators and referred the matter to arbitration.
• Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court, the present appeal was raised before the court and the Civil Appeal Nos. 342/2022 to 345/2022 addressed common questions of law and facts. Hence, this court consolidated the appeals with the present appeals to decide the matter via common judgment.
  

Main Issue:

• Whether, in view of the acceptance of Rs. 4,53,04,021/- by the respondent, which the petitioner released on the offer/letter made by the respondent, there is an instance of ‘accord and satisfaction’ is a good and reasonably arguable case? (Paragraph 13)