Judgment P.P. Naolekar, J.-Respondent No. 1, herein, IVJIs. 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 112.1998 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 112.1998 of the Tribunal, the respondent Company filed two writ petitions bearing S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No. 668 1/98 and 6682/98 challenging the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur on 112.1998 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 waich 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 211.1994 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 High Court of Himachal Pradesh vide its order dated 211.1994 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 30th September, 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 Bank’s 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 invited the Managing Director of the respondent Company for ‘discussion on the matter and coerced him to enhance the amount to Rs. 412 lacs. On the very next day the Managing Director of the respondent company was asked to submit a fresh letter of consent for payment of Rs. 417 lacs towards the final compromise amount. 4. 412 lacs. On the very next day the Managing Director of the respondent company was asked to submit a fresh letter of consent for payment of Rs. 417 lacs towards the final compromise amount. 4. Again on 16.1998 the Managing Director of the respondent Company was called by the General Manager (Recovery Cell) of the respondent Bank in New Delhi and he was coerced to settle the dispute for a sum of Rs. 430 lacs. The Managing Director of the respondent Company again finally agreed to it to buy peace. Then the appellant Bank made on offer to settle the dispute for a sum of Rs. 475 lacs. This amount was agreed to between the parties on the offer having been given by the appellant Bank and being accepted by The respondent Company. There was a final settlement between the parlies. Though not required, still the compromise was duly discussed and agreed to in The meeting of the Managing Committee of the appellant Bank held on l4thllSth of September, 1997. The respondent Company accepted the offer of the appellant Bank for payment of Rs. 475 lacs and the respondent Bank accorded its consent. The compromise was entered into between the parlies on me following terms of setllement: .(a) Rs. 430 lacs shall be paid as down payment within 45 days from the date of communication of consent, .(b) Balance amount of Rs. 45 lacs shall be paid in six monthly installments and post dated cheques shall be issued for each installment. The acceptance of the appellant Bank is recorded in the meeting held on l4thIl5th of September, 1998 which was signed by the General Manager, General Manager and Chief (CAD), (Members of the Committee), Chief (PAD), Executive Director and the Management Committee. 5. The appellant Bank entered appearance and filed its reply to the writ petitions wherein the appellant Bank raised certain preliminary objections as to the maintainability of the writ petitions. As per the appellant Bank, an appeal is provided under Sec. 20 of the Act of 1993 against the order of the Tribunal; the writ petitions have been filed to delay the proceedings before the Tribunal and that the respondent Company is filing frivolous application in the proceedings pending before the Tribunal with malafide intentions to delay the proceedings. It is alleged by the appellant Bank that no compromise was arrived at between it and the respondent Company. It is alleged by the appellant Bank that no compromise was arrived at between it and the respondent Company. It is denied that in the meeting of the Managing Committee of the appellant Bank the offer of the respondent Company was accepted and it was recorded in the minutes of the meeting. In fact the offer of the respondent Company for Rs. 475 lacs in both suits was considered but it was rejected by the appellant Bank, The appellant Bank has never made any offer. These were the respondent Company’s offers which were considered by the appellant Bank from time to time but they being wholly inadequate were not acceptable to the appellant Bank and, therefore, the appellant Bank declined to accept the same. In the Meeting of the Management Committee held on 10.1998 the offer made by the respondent Company of Rs. 4.75 crore was declined. As per The policy of the appellant Bank the matter of compromise involving losses/writing off of Rs. 10 lacs or more are to be considered by the Management Committee under Clause 13 of the nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970 (hereinafter shall be referred to as “the Scheme of 1970’. Hence, there was no compromise arrived at between the parties. It is denied that the compromise was accepted in the meeting of the Management Committee held on l4th Il5th of September, 1997. 6. The learned Single Judge after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties decided both the writ petitions by a common order dated 20.8.1999 allowing the same. Aggrieved by the said order passed in the writ petitions the appellant Bank has preferred these two appeals. We are extensively reproducing and referring to various paragraphs of the order of the learned Single Judge as the Counsel for the respondent Company has assailed the maintainability of these special appeals on the ground that the order of the learned Single Judge passed on 20.8.1999 represents an exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and in that view of the matter the Special Appeals filed under Ordinance 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 are not maintainable. This is recorded by the learned Single Judge in its order dated 20.8. This is recorded by the learned Single Judge in its order dated 20.8. 1999:-“These two writ petitions have been filed under article 226/227 of the Constitution of India against the common order dated 112.1998, arising out of the applications filed under Order 23 Rule 3 read with Sec. 151 of the CPC 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. To the query 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. Mehla, learned Advocate General for Rajasthan appearing on behalf ot the respondent Bank had submitted on 2 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 power under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India under the provisions of Section 18 of the Debt Recovery Act. The resolutionlcompromise/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 14th September, 1998. It reads to be a document of Managing Committee. It shall be proper to reproduce certain aspects as under:-” Therefore paragraphs of the document dated 14th of September, 1998 have been reproduced in the order and then the learned Single Judge has recorded thus:“Oljection 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 Exhibit-P--editious recovery of the amount. As per the circular it has 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 10 lacs would be decided by the Managing Committee. As per the circular it has 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 10 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 tor writing off of dues/waiver of legal proceedings/compromise shall be considered by the respective authorities. 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 19.1998. The Managing Committee had also signed it on 19.1998, 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 Directory which is a factual position and is not denied in view of the record of proceedings. 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. 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. The signature contained at the bottom of the document were of Chief (PAD), Chief (CAD), bearing the date of 15th of September, 1998, General Manager (CADO) dated 15th Sept. 1998 and General Manager (PAD) dated 17th Sept., 1998. The document dated 14th of September, 1998 was the proposal of compromise recommended by the Bank. The signature contained at the bottom of the document were of Chief (PAD), Chief (CAD), bearing the date of 15th of September, 1998, General Manager (CADO) dated 15th Sept. 1998 and General Manager (PAD) dated 17th Sept., 1998. The said proposal was submitted to the Executive Director of the Bank and to the Chairman cum Managing Director of the Bank. 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. Circular No. 3/97 dated 12th September, 1997, provides the competence of authority to Exhibit-P-edite 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 Officer, 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. 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. 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 fact that the Chairman has appended his signature under seal of Managing Committee. 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 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. 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 pro-posal by either one of the officials, would by itself be individually competent to constitute a contract between the parlies. In this case the recommendations of the Committee were accepted by all three bodies acting individually under lay and would be competent enough to constitute a valid and binding contract. 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 18th September, 1998. 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. 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. 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 10th October, 1998, is of no significance.” 7. After discussing the case on merits and arriving at the findings, the learned Single Judge has held that from the documents it is clear that the appellant Bank’s offer of enhancement of the settlement upto Rs. 475 lacs was accepted by the respondent Company, there is hardly and necessity to ask the Tribunal to adjudicate on the settlement any more and in such circumstances with the above sale observations the Tribunal was directed to pass the appropriate order in accordance with law under Order 23 Rule 3 of the CPC The parties were directed to appear before the Tribunal on 30.8.1999 for further proceedings. Thus, the learned Single Judge has given direction to the Tribunal to record the settlement of Rs. 475 lacs and to pass a decree in terms thereof 8. The real question requires adjudication in these special appeals is as to whether the document dated 14th September, 1998 is a document of compromise arrived at between the parties. Before we deal with the document dated 14th September, 1998 we shall refer to certain Circulars of the appellant Bank. Under Clause 18 of the Circular issued by the appellant Bank dated 12th September, 1997 declaring its policy on compromise/negotiated settlements, the powers are delegated to various authorities to enter info a compromise, write off of bad debt/loss/waiver of legal action, which reads as under:“18. DECISION LEVELS In the meeting held on 26.4.1997 the Board has approved powers for compromise, write off of bad debt/loss/waiver of legal action of various Officers as under:“18. DECISION LEVELS In the meeting held on 26.4.1997 the Board has approved powers for compromise, write off of bad d legal action of various Officers as under: R Sr.RM ZM& GM M IA DGM (at GM at (in Zon Zonal Zones e Office Head &H ) edby 0) GM) (Rupees in lacs) (i) Writing off of bad debts/losses, entering into 2.00 4.00 compromise/Negotiated Settlements/Remission etc. where loss to the 1. 6.00 Bank per borrower/debtor does not exceed. 00 2.00 4.00 6.0 1. 000 .(ii) Waiver of legal action (Ceased beyond Rs. where loss to the 1. 6.00 Bank per borrower/debtor does not exceed. 00 2.00 4.00 6.0 1. 000 .(ii) Waiver of legal action (Ceased beyond Rs. 10.00 lakh would go to Management Committee) The cases beyond Rs. 10.00 lacs would be settled by the Management Committee. Under Clause 20 all proposals for write off of dues/waiver of legal proceedings/compromise shall be considered authorities, duly recommended by the Committees to be constituted at various levels as provided in Committee for recommendation is considered of following:(i)General Manager (PAD) .(ii) General Manager (Credit-Incharge of Zone concerned) (iii) Dy. General Manager/Asstt. General Manager/Chief-Credit/Credit (policy)/IRO (iv) Dy. General Manager/AGMIChief-PAD The Committee constituted under Schedule ‘A’ has to consider the proposal for write off of dues/waiver of legal actionlappeal and for compromise/negotiate settlement and then recommend it to Authority to take decision on that. In the present case the decision is in regard to amount involving more than 10 lacs rupees and the Authority to approve the recommendation made by the Committee would be Management Committee under Clause 18. 9. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 9 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (5 of 1970) the Central Government, after consullalion with the Reserve Bank, has framed a Scheme called ‘The Nationalized Banks (Management & Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970. Clause 13 of the Scheme of 1970 provides for the Management Committee of the Board which shall consist of the followings: (A The Chairman, .(B) The Managing Director, .(C) The Executive Director. .(D) The Directors referred to in Cls. (b), (e) and (g) of Sub-Section (3) of Sec. 9 of the Act; .(E) One Director nominated by the Board from amongst the directors referred to in Clause (d) of Sub-Section .(3) of Sec. 9 of the Act; .(F) OneDirector nominated by the Board from amongst the Directors referred to in Cls. (e), (f), (h) and (i) of Sub-Section (3) of Sec. 9 of the Act. Provided that the Directors nominated by the Board shall hold office for not more than six months at a time. Under Sub-clause (5) of Clause 13 of the Scheme of 1970 the quorum for a meeting of the Management Committee is provided of four members. (e), (f), (h) and (i) of Sub-Section (3) of Sec. 9 of the Act. Provided that the Directors nominated by the Board shall hold office for not more than six months at a time. Under Sub-clause (5) of Clause 13 of the Scheme of 1970 the quorum for a meeting of the Management Committee is provided of four members. Under Sub-clause (6) it is provided that the minutes of a meeting of the Management Committee are required to be laid before the Board as soon as possible after the meeting. 10. Theminutes of the Meeting dated 14th September, 1998 of the Recommendatory Committee (where company’s proposal was discussed) records in the last paragraph as under:“Keeping in view the above, we may accept company’s compromise ‘offer of Rs.475,00,000 in lump-sum against total recoverable dues of Rs. 18,24,701.08 as on 30.6.1998. 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 plus future interest from 7.98. Submitted for approval please.” The minutes are signed by Members of Committee, namely, General Manager on 19.1998; General Manager & Chief (CAD) on 19.1998; Chief (PAD) on 19.98, Executive Director on 19.1998 and signature of Chairman, Management Committee under the seal “Management Committee” on 19.1998. The aforesaid paragraph clearly mentions that the Committee has sent its recommendations for approval. 11. The learned Single Judge has held that the document dated 19.1998 has been signed by the General Manager, Chief (CAD) (Members of the Committee) and Chief (PAD. They signed it on various dates. It was signed by the Executive Director on 17th of September, 1998. The aforesaid Authority signed in token of accepting the aforesaid proposal of 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 appellant Bank and the respondent Company whereby the entire claim of the appellant Bank was adjusted for a sum of Rs. 475 lacs. Therefore, the decision taken by the Managing Committee on 10th of October, 1998 is of no significance. It is thus clear that there was a complete compromise between the appellant Bank and the respondent Company whereby the entire claim of the appellant Bank was adjusted for a sum of Rs. 475 lacs. Therefore, the decision taken by the Managing Committee on 10th of October, 1998 is of no significance. According to the learned Single Judge the document dated 14th of September, 1998 has been signed for and on behalf of the Management Committee on 18th of Sept., 1998 by the Chairman. It is submitted by the Counsel for the respondent Bank that the Management Committee held its meeting some time between the period 19.1998 to 19.1998 and approved the compromise proposal on 18th September, 1998. The compromise proposal bears the signature of the Chairman of the Managing Committee under the seal of Management Committee both being dated 18th September, 1998. The Bank has only produced the minutes of the meeting held on 9.1998 of the Management Committee wherein the next meeting was fixed on Wednesday the 30th September, 1998 but no minutes have been produced of the meeting dated 30th September, 1998. Similarly, no minutes have been produced of the meeting held of the Management Committee on 18th September, 1998. Thus the best evidence has not been produced by the respondent Bank wherein the Management Committee has approved the recommendation made by the Recommendatory Committee. 12. The finding of the learned Single Judge cannot be held to be held to be correct that the Managing Committee was represented by the Chairman by putting his signature on 18th of September, 1998. The Chairman alone has no authority to approve the recommendation made by the Recommendatory Committee and it has to be approved by the Management Committee. Under Clause 13 the Management Committee consists of number of Members and the compromise proposal can be approved in a meeting held of the Management Committee attended by four Members which is the quorum provided under Sub-clause (5) of Clause 13 of the Scheme of 1970. The record produced before us clearly indicates that there was no meeting held on 18th of September, 1998 of the Management Committee. The meeting held on 30th of September, 1998 was attended by only two Members-Mr. Rashid Jalani and Mr. R.S. Avasthi and, thus, adjourned for lack of the quorum. Ultimately the Managing Committee held the meeting on 10th of October, 1998 disapproving the compromise proposal. The meeting held on 30th of September, 1998 was attended by only two Members-Mr. Rashid Jalani and Mr. R.S. Avasthi and, thus, adjourned for lack of the quorum. Ultimately the Managing Committee held the meeting on 10th of October, 1998 disapproving the compromise proposal. The appellant Bank has produced before us the attendance Register of the Meetings of Management Committee showing attendance of the Members of the Management Committee in the meetings held on different dates. The Register shows that meeting No. 14/98 of the Management Committee was held on 16.1998; No. 15/98 meeting of the Management Committee was held on 26.1998; No. 16/98 meeting of the Management Committee was held on 7.1998; No. 21/98 meeting of the Management Committee was held on 9.1998; No. 22/98 meeting of the Management Committee was held on 30.9.1998, which was adjourned; adjourned meeting No. 22/98 of the Management Committee was held on 10.1998; No. 23/98 meeting of the Management Committee was held on 210.1998. 13. It is alleged by the appellant Bank that no meeting of the Management Committee was held on 19.1998 or in between the period from 19.1998 to 19.1998 which is proved fromthe record produced of the minutes of Management Committee’s meetings and the attendance Register of meetings of the Management Committee. On 10.1998 the Management Committee has taken decision which is recorded at Item No. 29 of the Minutes which reads as under:“Item 29 Purewal and Associates Ltd., Branch-Jagjitnagar: Waive-ment of -Rs. 13,49,82,70 1.08 + interest w.e.f 7.1998 (debit to Revenue Rs. 2,69,97,833.17) against total outstanding of Rs. 18,24,82,701.08 as on 30.6.1998 (Balance Rs. 7,46,32,045.25 + interest etc. Rs. 10,78,50,655.83. Compromise amount being Rs. 4.75 Cr.-General Manager (KNP) note dated 15 .9. 1998. Management Committee discussed the proposal in detail and felt that the sacrifice amount on the part of the Bank particularly by way of debiting to Bank’s revenue is quite large. It desired the matter be renegotiated so as to ensure that either there is no debit to Bank’s revenue or it is kept to the minimum. In case the party is not agreeable to increase the compromise amount, suit filed in Debt Recovery Tribunal may be pursued.” The aforesaid facts clearly revealed that on 14th September, 1998 the Committee has recommended the compromise proposal for approval to the Management Committee. In case the party is not agreeable to increase the compromise amount, suit filed in Debt Recovery Tribunal may be pursued.” The aforesaid facts clearly revealed that on 14th September, 1998 the Committee has recommended the compromise proposal for approval to the Management Committee. The Management Committee took up the matter on 10.1998 and has not approved the proposal of compromise being for 4.75 crore. No meeting of the Management Committee was held on 19.1998 or or 19.1998. In the absence of any meeting by the Management Committee which is the Authority to approve the compromise beyond the amount of Rs. 10.00 lacs, no compromise can be said to have been legally arrived at between the parties. No meeting of the Management Committee was held between 19.1998 to 19.1998 to hold that recommendation of compromise was approved by the Management Committee and in token thereof the Chairman of the Management Committee appended his signature for and on behalf of Management Committee approving recommendations made by Recommendatory Committee. The learned Single Judge has erred in holding that the parlies have entered into a compromise on the basis of the document dated 19.1998. 14. Learned Counsel for the respondent Company Shri Paras Kuhad has then argued that the powers exercised by the learned Single Judge in deciding the matler against the Debts Recovery Tribunal were under Article 227 of The Constitution of India and no intra- Court appeal is provided under Ordinance 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 (hereinafter shall be referred to as ‘the Ordinance of 1949’) against the Judgment of Single Judge as a consequence thereof Division Bench can not adjudicate upon Judgment delivered by Single Bench nor it can reverse the same. On the other hand learned Counsel for the appellant Bank Shri G.L. Sanghi has submitted before us that the jurisdiction of the Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is akin to the jurisdiction, what this Court has under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. The Court can only decided jurisdictionat issue in exercise of the po