Honble VERMA, J.–These two writ petitions have been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India against the common order dated 15.12.1998, arising out of the applications filed under Order 23 Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal on the applications filed by the petitioner in the suits pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. It was stated therein, that two suits were filed before the High Court at Shimla for recovery of an amount of Rs. 741.19 lacs and 194.38 lacs respectively. (2). The litigation between the parties had even gone up to the Supreme Court as well when the Bank had tried to stop the running of accounts of the petitioner. The Supreme Court had allowed the L.C. and B.D. facilities to the petitioner against 100% margin so that the business of the petitioner company may not suffer. It is stated that the petitioner was employing about 500 employees and their very employment had been jeopardized. Vide orders of Hon. Supreme Court the petitioner is depositing Rs. 75,000/-p.m. in the bank regularly and the petitioner has deposited about Rs. 50/60 lacs in the non-lien account being maintained by the bank. The suits filed by the bank in the year 1992 in the aforesaid account had been transferred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal at Jaipur. (3). The petitioner submitted in the application that as per circular issued by the R.B.I. dated 28th of October 1992 and 28th of July 1995, purported to have been issued under Section 35A of the Banking Regulations Act, which were binding on the banks, the bank had to exercise the discretion for affecting compromise. It was stated that on the representation of the Banking institutions and following the doctrine of legitimate expectation that the Bank in the present case had agreed to get the loan matter settled by way of compromise and in pursuance of the above directions, number of meetings and discussions are said to be held between the officers of bank and the petitioner. It is the allegation that initially an offer of Rs. 277.53 lacs was made in October 1995 to liquidate all the alleged outstandings. The bank had asked the petitioner to attend the zonal office at Chandigarh and after discussion, the petitioner was asked to enhance the amount as per the suggestion of the bank to Rs. 367 lacs. It is the allegation that initially an offer of Rs. 277.53 lacs was made in October 1995 to liquidate all the alleged outstandings. The bank had asked the petitioner to attend the zonal office at Chandigarh and after discussion, the petitioner was asked to enhance the amount as per the suggestion of the bank to Rs. 367 lacs. It is stated that the petitioner had agreed. The petitioner was again called by the zonal office. He was asked to enhance the amount to Rs. 375 lacs. The petitioner had agreed to such suggestion as well. It is the case of the petitioner that the bank had been forcing the petitioner to get the matter settled by way of enhancement of amount from 375 lacs to 400 lacs. The matter is said to have been sent for approval. The petitioner was again invited by the Executive Director of the Bank and again after discussion, the petitioner was asked to put the proposal of 412 lacs and for the reason that the petitioner was suffering very heavily, the petitioner again had no option but to agree. The Managing Committee of the bank again forced the petitioner to put the proposal of 430 lacs for final settlement in June 1998 but after number of discussions ultimately it is stated by the petitioner that the bank had offered for a final proposal of Rs. 475 lacs which amount was an agreed amount after holding discussions between the parties and it is stated that the petitioner was asked to agree to 475 lacs, to settle the dispute in to-to to which proposal the petitioner had agreed. (4). It is stated that the matter had gone for approval to the Managing Committee which was competent to approve such proposal of compromise and the proposal was accepted in the meeting dated 14/15 September 1998. The petitioner accepted the offer and gave his consent. Certain other conditions in regard to schedule of payment were also mentioned in the proposal in the meeting held on 14/15th September 1998. (5). The petitioner accepted the offer and gave his consent. Certain other conditions in regard to schedule of payment were also mentioned in the proposal in the meeting held on 14/15th September 1998. (5). The petitioner moved the Debt Recovery Tribunal to call for the original record in both the cases and after going through the record of the bank, to give a finding that the matter stood finally settled between the parties at 475 lacs and in the alternative it was further prayed that the matter be got settled under the circular issued by the R.B.I. at the rate mentioned in the circular i.e. 10% p.a. (6). Reply was filed to the said application. The fact of filing of the suit at Shimla in March 1992 was admitted. It was also admitted that the Hon. Supreme Court had directed the bank to allow L.C. and B.C. against the 100% margin. The instructions issued by the R.B.I. were denied for want of knowledge by saying that each case is to be looked on its own merit. (7). In regard to the so called compromise of 475 lacs it was stated in the reply that it was the petitioner who had approached the bank for one time settlement and no compromise deed had been written. It was however, admitted that the meetings were held with the Managing Director of the petitioner Company at different levels for the purposes of setling the dispute. It is further mentioned in the reply that the Managing Committee of the bank was only competent authority to either accept or reject the offer. However, it was admitted that the case of the petitioner was discussed in the meeting dated 14/15th September 1998 but the Managing Committee of the bank had rejected one time settlement and the applicant was asked to raise his offer. (8). On the above said statement of the parties and after hearing the learned counsel for the bank and the petitioner and after mentioning the various negotiations and proposals, the Debt Recovery Tribunal had observed that under Order 23 rule 3 C.P.C. where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that a suit had been adjusted wholly or partly by any agreement or compromise in writing and signed by the parties, the court shall order such agreement/compromise to be recorded and pass a decree in accordance therewith. It is mentioned by the Tribunal that there was no such letter by the bank to prove that the bank had accepted any of the proposal of the petitioner company and thus no compromise in writing had taken place. Relevant concluding para of the impugned order dated 15.12.1998 is reproduced as under:- ``The remaining Annexures are proposals of compromise submitted on behalf of the defendant No.1 Company, but there is no such letter from the plaintiff bank to prove that the plaintiff bank accepted any proposal of the defendant company. Thus, it is clear that no such compromise in writing has taken place in view of the provisions of Order 23 rule 3 CPC. Thus both the above applications are hereby dismissed. Now, the case is fixed for filing affidavits of the defendants on 26.2.1999. This order has been pronounced in open court today 15.12.1998. (9). Aggrieved against the said order the petitioner had filed the present writ petition with prayers (a) to declare that the dispute between the petitioner and the bank with regard to the debts had been settled and the Tribunal was bound to dispose of the dispute in both the suits in terms of the settlement; (b) or in the alternative to issue an order for accepting the principal with 10% simple interest as is accepted by Bank of Baroda in view of the instructions issued by the R.B.I. (c) or in alternative to direct the Tribunal to make an inquiry in accordance with Rule 23(3) C.P.C. and record the settlement and pass an order in accordance therewith. (10). Notice was issued on the said writ petition and it was desired by both the parties that as the matter is pending for evidence before the Tribunal, the matter be decided expeditiously at the admission stage itself. (11). To the querry put by the court whether this matter can be decided finally under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India by the Single Bench, Mr. S.M. Mehta, learned Advocate General for Rajasthan appearing on behalf of the respondent Bank had submitted on 21.9.1999 that the matter can be decided and finally disposed of by the learned Single Bench in the circumstances of the case for having supervisory powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India under the provisions of Section 18 of the Debt Recovery Act. (12). Mr. (12). Mr. Paras Kuhad, counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that a compromise at Rs. 475 lacs had taken place between the parties after prolonged discussions and thus the jurisdiction of continuing of the suit before the Tribunal in trying the suit was unjustified. A request was made that the proceedings of the Managing Committee who was to decide and approve the compromise be ordered to be produced as the Bank had not produced the proceedings of settlement which settlement was agreed to by the petitioner. Photo copies of the proceedings dated 15th/16th September 1998 had been produced on the record. (13). Before going into the matter in this regard, it shall be appropriate to refer to certain documents which have been attached and produced before me by the Bank. Total amount of Rs. 9,35,57,291 was claimed in two suits including the interest (Rs. 7,46,32,044 in one suit and Rs. 1,89,25,247 in the other suit). Against the term loan of Rs. 120 lacs, the petitioner had already returned Rs. 83.64 lacs and against the working capital sanctioned limit of disbursement of 132.44 lacs the petitioner Company is said to have returned 60.34 lacs out of 252.44 lacs, the petitioner is said to have paid back 144.04 lacs. According to the petitioner if the interest is calculated as per the R.B.I. instructions, the total amount returnable on 31st December 1998, including the interest on both the counts would be Rs. 314 lacs approximately. As is now argued and brought in the written statement in the suit, the petitioner had taken number of objections and also had pointed out certain incidents showing as to how the bank had tried to get the establishment of the petitioner closed and instead of being a helping hand, was always an obstacle. The petitioner had also been craving action against the bank officers. However, in the present case if the petitioner is aggrieved against any omissions of the bank, he can resort to any other remedy available to him for damages or for adjustment as may be advised. This Court while examining the case in regard to the issue involved, is only confined to the application under Order 23 Rule 3 made by the petitioner and orders passed thereon. (14). This Court while examining the case in regard to the issue involved, is only confined to the application under Order 23 Rule 3 made by the petitioner and orders passed thereon. (14). From the facts as admitted, it is now rather admitted that there was discussion about the compromise and settlement and according to the petitioner it had culminated into 475 lacs, settlement. (15). The resolution/compromise proposal dated 14th of September 1998, (photo copy of the same has been produced on record by the P.N.B.) it is numbered COMP/PAD/58/98 dated 14.09.1998. It reads to be a document of Managing Committee. It shall be proper to reproduce certain aspects as under:- Punjab National Bank COMP/PAD/58/98 September 14, 1998 MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE COMPROMISE/PROPOSAL RECOMMENDED FOR ACCEPTANCE OF OTS OFFER OF RS. 475.00,000.00 AGAINST TOTAL RECOVERABLE DUES OF Rs. 18,24,82,701.08 as ON 30.6.98 Balance O/S : 7,46,32,045.25 RI from 2.1.85 in Bridge Loan & from 2.7.91 in CC/TL up to 15.3.92 as per applicable rates on compounded basis : 1,89,25,247.92 Suit filed amt. : 9,35,57,293.17 12.11 Since the working of the company did not improve, a joint meeting of financial institutions and the party was convened on 31.7.90 to discuss the financial affairs. Companys representative was advised to submit proposal for running of the company/revival of the unit. The company neither submitted the proposal nor it could search out any alternate management who could be interested in taking over the unit. POSITION OF THE REFERENCE TO BIFR 12.12-The case of the company was referred to BIFR under sick Industries Companies Act but was turned down by them on the plea that watch industry does not come under the purview of BIFR 1990-91. 12.14-On 16.3.92, two recovery suits were filed by the Bank before the Honble High Court at Shimla for recovery of Rs. 741.19 lacs and Rs. 194.38 lacs respectively. An FDR amounting to Rs. 1.10 lac available with the Branch as collateral security, was appropriated in the loan account on 10.7.92. 12.15-The party filed a counter suit against the Bank for the stay on the above cases of recovery, contending that the plaint of the Bank was defective and the unit became sick due to Banks fault. This case of the party was dismissed by the Honble Court. 12.15-The party filed a counter suit against the Bank for the stay on the above cases of recovery, contending that the plaint of the Bank was defective and the unit became sick due to Banks fault. This case of the party was dismissed by the Honble Court. Against these orders, the Company filed special leave petition (SLP) before the Honble Supreme Court on 9.3.92, the Honble Supreme Court directed the Bank to open current account of the company and allow LC and BG facilities against 100% margin to keep their business going. Honble Supreme Court also directed company to pay Rs. 75,000/-per month to the Bank. 12.16-The company has been regularly paying this amount to the Bank and upto February Rs. 54.75 lacs has been deposited in this account. 12.20-Company approached the Bank for compromise and initially gave the offer of Rs. 400.00 lacs in full and final settlement of dues. The offer was got hiked to Rs. 430 lacs. Management Committee in its meeting on 12.6.98 considered the proposal for acceptance of OTS offer of Rs. 430.00 lacs + future interest at the rate of 14.28% per annum simple w.e.f. 1.1.98 against total recoverable dues of 17,55,47,397.20 as on 31.12.97. Management committee desired that the offer being very law the suit pending in Debt Recovery Tribunal be followed up (copy of MC resolution No.15 dated 12.6.98 along with Head Office note is annexed). 12.21-Companys MD further negotiated the offer with Zonal Manager and made visits to Head Office also. After protracted discussion with Shri Purewal, MD of the company during the meetings at Head Office on 18.8.98 and 3.9.98, be finally agreed for lumpsum payment of Rs. 475.00 lacs. p. 15.3-Further it is uncertain-Whether the Bank will be able to fetch more through sale of securities than what is being offered by the party by way of compromise. It is also important that the plant and machinery is more than 20 years old and the valuer has reported that it is totally out-dated. Even if the total residual amount of Rs. 133.15 lacs in capital revaluation reserves is deducted out of the return down value of fixed assets as on 31.3.97 at Rs. 318.46 lacs, the net depreciated value, net of valuation reserves as on 31.3.97 works out to Rs. 185.31 lacs as under:- (Rs. Even if the total residual amount of Rs. 133.15 lacs in capital revaluation reserves is deducted out of the return down value of fixed assets as on 31.3.97 at Rs. 318.46 lacs, the net depreciated value, net of valuation reserves as on 31.3.97 works out to Rs. 185.31 lacs as under:- (Rs. in lakh) O/s inRevaluation Reserve 31.3.977 Net BlockAssets 31.3.1997 Net ofRevaluationReserve31.31997 Land Building P & M other 33.16 58.13 24.97 30.45 51.06 20.61 69.54 190.64 121.12 15.9.-Funds required for settlement will be arranged partly from the dealers, amount kept in current no lien account (Rs. 54.75 lacs upto February, 98) and a part from the share holders/directors of the Company. Balance amount will be arranged by way of loans from friends and relatives. 16. TERMS AND CONDITIONS: 16.1-Rs. 430.00 lacs shall be paid as down payment within 45 days from the date of conveying approval of compromise proposal. The amount kept in `no lien account will be immediately accounted towards down payment of the above amount. 16.2 Balance compromise amount of Rs. 45 lacs will be paid in six equal instalments for which post dated cheques of Rs. 7.50 lacs each will be given; last cheque should be realized before 33.3.99 positively. 16.3 Consent terms with default clause shall be executed by the Company to the effect that in case of default in payment approved OTS amount as per the terms of the sanctioned, the compromise shall be deemed as failed and all the reliefs/concessions shall stand withdrawn. The Bank shall file the consent terms with the court for execution for the purpose of recovery full dues. 17. HEAD OFFICE COMMENTS: 17.1 This is a case of Sick Industry, satisfying the parameters as per SICA (1985) though the company was not considered for rehabilitation by BIFR due to non eligibility on technical criterion. 17.5 The offer has been got increased by Rs. 45 lacs from Rs. 430.00 lacs to 475.00 lacs which fully covers the interest at the rate of 14.28% per annum simple w.e.f. 1.1.98 on the previous OTS offer of Rs. 430 lacs. Earlier the interest was proposed by Zonal Officer suo-moto and the same was recommended by Head Office but the party was not agreeing to it and possibility of default was there. 430.00 lacs to 475.00 lacs which fully covers the interest at the rate of 14.28% per annum simple w.e.f. 1.1.98 on the previous OTS offer of Rs. 430 lacs. Earlier the interest was proposed by Zonal Officer suo-moto and the same was recommended by Head Office but the party was not agreeing to it and possibility of default was there. 17.7-The party has expressed its inability to further increase the offer stating his difficulties in arranging even these funds to be brought from his overseas friends and relatives. The time of 45 days for down payment of Rs. 430.00 lacs has been sought for arranging funds and also the statutory permissions. 17.9-The dues have been blocked in the account for two decades with no remuneration. The amount of Rs. 475.00 lacs now recovered will be deployed profitably. Keeping in view the above we may accept Companys compromise offer of Rs. 475.00 lacs in lump sum against total recoverable dues of Rs. 18,24,82,701.08 as on 30.6.98. Sacrifice of Rs. 13,49,82,701.08 as a result of compromise will be appropriated by debit to revenue of Rs. 2,69,97,833.17 waiver of legal/other charges of Rs. 15,43,498.00 (including Law charges of Rs. 85,135.00 yet to be paid) and waiver of recorded/pendentalite interest of Rs. 10,64,41,369.91 as on 30.6.98 + future interest from 1.7.98. (The photo stat copy of the compromise/proposal dated 14.09.1998 be considered as part of this order as Annexure A.) (16). Objection has been taken by the bank that even though the above said proposal reproduced and attached `Annexure A was made but it was the Managing Committee which was the ultimate authority to approve the same. Instructions dated 12th September 1997 by the head of this institution had been placed on the record for the expeditions recovery of the amount. As per the circular it had been mentioned that one time settlement can be made even by waving interest and even some other part of the principal. In Para 8, about the competency of the authority, it is mentioned that the cases beyond 19 lacs would be decided by the Managing Committee. In Para 20 of the said circular, it is mentioned that the formation of committees as per the guidelines for all purposes even for writing off of dues/waiver of legal proceedings/compromise shall be considered by the respective authorities. In Para 20 of the said circular, it is mentioned that the formation of committees as per the guidelines for all purposes even for writing off of dues/waiver of legal proceedings/compromise shall be considered by the respective authorities. Schedule `A has been attached with such instructions in regard to authorities who are competent to take the decision. For the purposes of the present case it is reproduced as under:- GUIDELINES FOR FORMATION OF COMMITTEES FOR APPROVAL OF COMPROMISE PROPOSALS/WRITING OFF OF BAD DEBTS/LOSS/ WAIVER OF LEGAL ACTION/APPEAL ETC. As provided in letter dated 12.9.1997. All proposals for write off of dues/wavier of legal action/appeal and for compromise/negotiated settlement shall be considered by the respective authorities duly recommended by the Committee to be constituted at various levels as under: DECISION LEVEL HEAD OFFICE CONSTITUTION OF COMMITTEE (a) Management Committee/Chairman & Mg.Director/ (i) General Manager (PAD) (ii) General Manager (Credit-Incharge of Zone concerned). (iii) Dy. General Manager/Asstt. General Manager/Chief-Credit/Credit (Policy)/IRD (iv) Dy. Gen. Manager/AGM/ Chief-PAD (17). At the time of arguments it is not disputed by the parties that the proposal by the Committee was made and was sent for approval to the Executive Director/Chairman cum M.D. The Executive Director had signed the proposal on 17.9.1998. The Managing Committee had also signed it on 18.9.1998, meaning thereby that the proposal sent by the Committee had been duly approved by the Managing Committee/Executive Director, which was the only requirement as per instructions i.e. the proposal submitted by the Committee was accepted by the Managing Committee/the Executive Director which is a factual position and is not denied in view of the record of proceedings. (18). In the issue which arises in the present cases it reveals that in the circumstances the Bank was seized of the financial position, the asset, the liabilities the sickness of the company, the value of the machinery the Bank constituted the committee, which went through all these aspects and proposed proposal for consideration of the Managing Committee. The Managing Committee, and the Executive Director had approved the proposal. The proposal was agreed to by the petitioner company. In the circumstances, in my opinion the petitioner was justified to say that a compromise between the parties had taken place. (19). The Managing Committee, and the Executive Director had approved the proposal. The proposal was agreed to by the petitioner company. In the circumstances, in my opinion the petitioner was justified to say that a compromise between the parties had taken place. (19). In the circumstances the Bank should have produced the so called proposal in original instead of denying the existence of such proposal or the Tribunal should have directed the Bank to produce the complete record to find out the truth about the existence of the compromise. In any case the application could not have been dismissed in the summary manner by the Tribunal. (20). An objection was also taken by the Bank that an appeal is provided under Section 20 of the Act against the order passed by the D.R.T. by the appellate Tribunal and, therefore, the petitioner should have filed an appeal at Bombay against the impugned order. Section 21 provides that in case any appeal is preferred, such appeal shall not be entertained unless 75% of the amount of debt as due from him as determined by the Tribunal under Section 19 is deposited. (21). Section 19 provides procedure for recovery of the amount on the application filed to the D.R.T. by the Bank. The application in the present case means a suit. The suit filed by the Bank in the High Court was transferred as an application before the Tribunal. The appeal is provided only if the Tribunal determines the amount and on deposit of 75% of the amount so determined, the appeal is entertainable. (22). In the present case no amount has been determined by the Tribunal as such on the miscellaneous application arising in the suit, if any such order is passed, the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the petition under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India under Section 18 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Inst. Act. 1993 which reads as under:- ``18. Bar of jurisdiction.-On and from the appointed day, no court or other authority shall have, or be entitled to exercise, any jurisdiction, powers or authority (except the Supreme Court, and a High Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution) in relation to the matters specified in Section 17. Act. 1993 which reads as under:- ``18. Bar of jurisdiction.-On and from the appointed day, no court or other authority shall have, or be entitled to exercise, any jurisdiction, powers or authority (except the Supreme Court, and a High Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution) in relation to the matters specified in Section 17. For example if the Tribunal refuses to summon the record from the parties, which record may be relevant for determining the rights between the parties or the issues arising between the parties, or if any application is decided for calling the witnesses for the purposes of cross-examination to prove or disprove a document or a fact or if any of the party is proceeded exparte, or the application is decided for setting-aside the exparte proceedings, in all such cases, on the miscellaneous applications arising in the suit, the High Court is competent to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India and no objection in this regard is entertainable. From the above statement of facts the following position emerges:- (1) That the parties were not at issue on the point that series of dialogues were held between the petitioner and the Bank from time to time for arriving at a settlement in respect of Banks claim against the petitioner. (2) It is not disputed that the Bank had examined the matter at different levels and the Bank in principle, was agreeable in arriving at a settlement subject to the agreement on the issue of the amount to be paid; (3) It is a common case that the final proposal for compromise was prepared on 14th of September 1998 by the Committee consisting of two General Managers, Chief (CAD) and Chief (PAD). The compromise proposal recommended by the said Committee is contained under Annexure F annexed to the written submissions filed by the Bank before the Honble Court. (4) The uncontroverted facts emerged that the proposal recommended for acceptance by the Zonal Office of the bank (Para 14 and 15 of the proposal dated 14.09.1998) was examined in detail by the Head Office. It is clear from Para 17.5 of the said proposal which is mentioned as under:- ``17.5. The Offer has been got increased by Rs. 45.00 lakh from, Rs. 430.00 lakh to Rs. It is clear from Para 17.5 of the said proposal which is mentioned as under:- ``17.5. The Offer has been got increased by Rs. 45.00 lakh from, Rs. 430.00 lakh to Rs. 475.00 lakh which fully covers the interest @ 14.28% p.a. simple w.e.f. 1.1.1998 on the previous OTS offer of Rs. 430.00 lakh. Earlier the interest was proposed by Zonal Office suo moto and the same was recommended by Head Office but the party was not agreeing to it and possibility of default was there. The comments were also obtained from Zonal office from para 12.21 as under:- Companys MD further negotiated the offer with Zonal Manager and made visits to Head Office also. After protracted discussion with Shri Purewal, MD of the company during the meetings at Head Officer on 18.8.1998 and 3.9.1998. he finally agreed for lump-sum payment of Rs. 475.00 Lakh. (23). From the proceedings it is clear that the proposal was discussed at the Head Office on 18th of August and 3rd of September, 1998 and the petitioner had agreed for a lump sum of Rs. 475.00 lakhs, which is apparent from para 17.5 that the offer was got increased by Rs. 45 lakhs from the proposed offer. (24). It is categorically stated that the offer which was ultimately accepted was not the offer of the petitioner but was a counter offer made by the Bank in as much as the petitioner had offered only 430 lakhs and the Bank had got it increased to 475 lakhs; thereby the offer, the basis of settlement, was the offer of the bank and accepted by the petitioner. (25). It is not disputed by the Bank in the written statement made by it that the proposal is to be proposed by the Committee as enumerated above which was a recommendatory committee, comprising of senior executives. The document dated 14th of September, 1998 was the proposal of compromise recommended by the Bank. (26). The signatures contained at the bottom of the document were of Chief (PAD), Chief (CAD), bearing the date of 15th of September, 1998, General Manager (CAD) dated 15th Sept., 1998 and General Manager (PAD) dated 17th Sept. 1998. (27). The said proposal was submitted to the Executive Director of the Bank and to the Chairman cum Managing Director of the Bank. (28). 1998. (27). The said proposal was submitted to the Executive Director of the Bank and to the Chairman cum Managing Director of the Bank. (28). As per the circular No.3/97, as reproduced above the decision was to be taken by the three Authorities set out under Appendix A2 and any one of the aforesaid Authorities were by itself, competent to accept or reject the compromise recommended by the Recommendatory Committee. (29). Circular No.3/1997 dated 12.09.1997, provides the competence of authority to expedite the proposal, to take the final decision. This proposal was sent to the Executive Director and the Executive Director had accepted the said compromise on 17th of September, 1998. When the proposal had been properly processed at the level of Zonal Office, at the level of Head Office and finalized at all the three levels, the recommendations were settled at 475 lacs which was the offer made at the behest of the Head Office, put up and recommended by the Committee and accepted by the petitioner. (30). The document dated 14th Sept. 1998 also brings out the fact that after the proposal made by the Recommendatory Committee and after having acceptance of Executive Director, the matter was placed further before the Chairman-cum Managing Director for his acceptance and that the Chairman cum Managing Director also appended his signature to the said proposal on 18th Sept., 1998, obviously by way of acceptance of the proposal recommended for acceptance. (31). The document dated 14th Sept., 1998 in fact states in terms that the acceptance of the proposal by the Chairman on 18th Sept., 1998 was not in his capacity as Chairman cum Managing Director alone but the said acceptance was on behalf of the Managing Committee. This is evident from the Managing Committee. This is evident from the fact that the Chairman has appended his signature under seal of Managing Committee. It is thus stated that the document dated 14th Sept., 1998, brings out that the Managing Committee itself accepted the proposal recommended by the Recommendatory Committee on 18th Sept., 1998 and that the acceptance on behalf of the Managing Committee was recorded under the signature of the Chairman dated 18th Sept., 1998. (32). It is thus stated that the document dated 14th Sept., 1998, brings out that the Managing Committee itself accepted the proposal recommended by the Recommendatory Committee on 18th Sept., 1998 and that the acceptance on behalf of the Managing Committee was recorded under the signature of the Chairman dated 18th Sept., 1998. (32). In view of the fact that the Executive Director as also the Chairman Cum Managing Director were both individually empowered to act on their own as the final decision makers, the acceptance of the proposal by either one of the officials, would by itself be individually competent to constitute a contract between the parties. In this case the recommendations of the Committee were accepted by all three bodies acting individually under law and would be competent enough to constitute a valid and binding contract. (33). The exception made by the Bank that the proposal not accepted by the Managing Committee on 18th of September 1998, is factually incorrect and misleading. This argument is also devoid of the merit for the reason that under the relevant circular, the competency to decide the matter, finally decided not only by the Managing Committee but also to the Executive Director and Chairman cum Managing Director. In the present case the proposal was accepted by the Executive Director and the Chairman cum Managing Director ultimately on 18.09.1998. (34). The provisions of Order 23 Rule 3 of C.P.C. are based on justice, equity and good conscious. The mandate of the said provisions is to pass a decree in accordance with the terms if the agreement or compromise is out side the Court it is the duty of the Court to decide the suit in accordance therewith. The petitioner had prayed in the application that the claim of the Bank stood settled during the pendency of the suit for Rs. 475 lacs and in terms of settlement a decree be passed. The Bank had come up with the defence that there was no acceptance for the offer of compromise. The Bank had even gone to the extent of denying of the fact that the authorities of the Bank at any time offerred the compromise, even though it is so recorded in the minutes. The Bank had come up with the defence that there was no acceptance for the offer of compromise. The Bank had even gone to the extent of denying of the fact that the authorities of the Bank at any time offerred the compromise, even though it is so recorded in the minutes. The Bank had still denied the settlement but the document produced by the Bank (Annexure F) dated 14th September 1998 and attached as Annexure `A to this order is a testimony to the case set up by the petitioner and also proves that the pleas taken by the Bank were incorrect. (35). Para 12.20 of Annexure `A already referred to above states as under. ``Company approached the Bank or compromise and initially give the offer of Rs. 400 lacs in full and final settlement of dues. The offer was got hiked to Rs. 430 lacs., Management Committee in its meeting on 12.06.1998, considered the proposal for acceptance of OTS offer of Rs. 430 lacs+future interest @ 14.28% per annum simple with effect from 1st Jan. 1998, against the total recoverable dues of Rs. 17,55,47, 297.20 as on 31.12.1997, Managing Committee desired that the offer being very low the suit pending in the D.R.T. be followed. (36). Para 12.21 reads as under:- ``Companys Managing Director further negotiated the offer with Zonal Manager and made visits to Head Office also. After the protected discussion with Shri Purewal, Managing Director of the company during the meetings at Head Office on 18th August 1998 and 3rd Sept., 1998 was finally agreed for lumpsum payment of Rs. 475 lacs. (37). Para 17.5 further explains it as under:- ``The Offer has been got increased by Rs. 45 lacs from Rs. 430 lacs to Rs. 475 lacs which fully covers the interest @ 14.28% per annum simple with effect from 1.04.1998, on previous OTS offer of Rs. 430 lacs. (38). The document dated 14th Sept. 1998 has been signed by the General Manager, General Manager & Chief (CAD) (Members of Committee), Chief (PAD). They signed on various dates. It was signed by the Executive Director on 17th Sept., 1998. The aforesaid authority signed in token of accepting the aforesaid proposal of the Bank and ultimately it was approved and signed by the Managing Committee. 1998 has been signed by the General Manager, General Manager & Chief (CAD) (Members of Committee), Chief (PAD). They signed on various dates. It was signed by the Executive Director on 17th Sept., 1998. The aforesaid authority signed in token of accepting the aforesaid proposal of the Bank and ultimately it was approved and signed by the Managing Committee. On behalf of the Management Committee, it has been signed by the Chairman but not in the capacity of the Chairman but in the capacity of Managing Committee. It is thus clear that there was a complete compromise between the Bank and the petitioner company whereby the entire claim of the petitioner Bank was adjusted for a sum of Rs. 475 lacs. Therefore, the decision taken by the Managing Committee of the Board held on 10.10.1998, is of no significance. (39). Once a claim has been settled between the parties, the claim founded on the original loan stood extinguished. The claim based on loan document having extinguished, the petition for recovery, based on the loan document is clearly unsustainable. (40). The Bank had produced the record in this Court instead of before the Tribunal. Before the Tribunal it was only mere denial. It was the duty of the Bank to produce the complete record before the Tribunal and left the Tribunal to decide whether the document of settlement was complete in all respects or not? I would have directed the Tribunal to adjudicate on the documents so produced but for the reasons that with the consent of the parties, the documents were produced in this Court and from the admitted documents it is clear that the Banks offer of enhancement of the settlement upto 475 lacs was accepted by the petitioner, there is hardly any necessity to ask the Tribunal to adjudicate on the settlement any more and in such circumstances with the above said observations the Tribunal is directed to pass the appropriate order in accordance with law under Order 23 Rule 3 of the C.P.C. The Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 31.8.1999 for further proceedings. (41). The writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage with the consent of the parties. Note :-Attached Annexure -`A a document of Punjab National Bank dated with 14th September 1998 be deemed as part of this judgment.