MUKUL MUDGAL, J.

( 1 ) THIS Letters Patent Appeal challenges the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 18. 4. 2006 which granted the following reliefs to the appellant:a. Although recourse to clause 5 of the contract dated 26. 4. 2000 by the respondent No. 3 to terminate the services of the petitioner might be arbitrary, the said decision by respondent No. 3 cannot be considered to be malicious or motivated on the basis of material on record. b. In addition to the sum of Rs. 76,334/- given to the petitioner by the respondent No. 3 a further sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- shall be paid by the respondent no. 3 to the petitioner. c. The third respondent shall also consider and pass an appropriate order with respect to the housing loan granted to the petitioner with an appropriate condition of repayment through equated monthly instalments on the condition of the petitioner offering immovable properties as a security.

( 2 ) THE brief facts of this case are as follows:a. On 3. 7. 2000 the appellant joined the service of Tata Home finance Limited as Regional Manager (North ). In April 2001 the appellant was confirmed in service. b. On 7. 9. 2003 Tata Home Finance Limited was taken over by t