P.K. Misra, J.

I have gone through the judgment so meticulously prepared by my learned Brother Kannan, J and I agree with the same. However, I would like to supplement (not supplant) by observing as follows :-

There is no dispute about the right of the Bank to recover the amount borrowed from such Bank along with interest as per the transaction. There is also no dispute that the Bank has right to sell the property concerned, namely, the Theatre complex. The Company and its shareholders, who have been impleaded as interveners, unanimously agree that one time settlement with the Bank is beneficial for the Company and its shareholders. However, either individually or collectively they are not in a position to arrange for the huge fund required to complete the one time settlement. In other words, even though all of them are impugning the transactions with fourth and fifth defendants by the second defendant, they have unanimously submitted that one time settlement should not be allowed to fall-through. They are also not in a position to repay the amount received from fourth and fifth defendants. Senior Counsel appearing for the Bank has unequivocally stated that if the Bank is