Honble NAOLEKAR, J.–Respondent No. 1, herein, M/s. Purewal & Associates Limited (hereinafter shall be referred to as `the respondent Company) moved applications before the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Order 23 Rule 3 read with Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for recording the compromise/settlement arrived at between the parties and passing of the Decree in terms thereof. Appellant-Punjab National Bank (hereinafter shall be referred to as `the appellant Bank) contested the said applications by filing reply. By order dated 15.12.1998 the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal has rejected he applications of the respondent Company filed under Order 23 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code holding that the compromise cannot be recorded as it was not in writing signed by the parties. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 15.12.1998 of the Tribunal, the respondent Company filed two writ petitions bearing S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No. 6681/98 and 6682/98 challenging the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur on 15.12.1998 refusing to record the alleged compromise entered into between the respondent Company and the appellant Bank.

(2). It is alleged by the respondent Company in the writ petitions that the respondent Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 is carrying on the business of watch components and watch movement making at Solan District. In order to finance the project of the respondent Company, a Bridge Loan of Rs. 120 lacs was taken from the appellant Bank by the respondent Company. As the respondent company failed to pay the entire loan amount and the interest thereon the appellant Bank, the appellant Bank filed two civil suits in the High Court of Himachal Pradesh against the respondent Company bearing C.S. No. 53.1992 and 54/1992. Civil Suit No. 53/1992 was for Rs. 194.38 lacs and Civil Suit No. 54/1992 was for Rs. 741.91 lacs. During the pendency of the Civil Suits. Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (Central Act No. 51 of 1993) was enacted under which Debt Recovery Tribunal for the States of Himachal Pradesh, Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan and U.T. of Chandigarh was established at Jaipur. The High Court of Himachal Pradesh vide its order dated 25.11.1994 transferred both the civil suits to the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur where they were registered as O.A. No. 391/1996 and O.A. No. 500/1996.

(3). The respondent Company approached the appellant Bank to settle the dispute pending in both the suits and vide its letter of October, 1995 voluntarily offered a sum of Rs. 277.53 lacs to the appellant Bank to liquidate all the alleged outstanding against the respondent Company. In September, 1997 the appellant Bank asked the respondent Company to attend its zonal office at Chandigarh and as per the respondent Company the appellant Bank demanded a sum of Rs. 367 lacs for settling the dispute. The respondent Company accepted the offer and agreed to pay the amount so demanded and accordingly submitted a letter for payment of final amount of Rs. 367 lacs. Again the representative of the respondent Company was called by the Zonal Office of the appellant Bank and suggested that the settlement can take place at Rs. 375 lacs. In order to buy peace, the respondent Company consented to the said figure and submitted its acceptance letter dated 30.09.1997. The appellant Bank again called the respondent Company at its Zonal Office in the month of November, 1997 and a proposal was given to enhance the figure of Rs. 375 lacs to a total sum of Rs. 400 lacs. The respondent Company again accepted the proposal of the appellant Bank and gave its consent. Later on the respondent Company was informed by the respondent Banks Zonal Office, Chandigarh that the proposal of Rs. 400 lacs was finally recommended for approval of the Head Office at Delhi in December, 1998, thus, a compromise has been arrived at between the parties but still on 25th of May, 1998 the Executive Director of the appellant Bank i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document