JUDGMENT - A.M. KHANWILKAR, J. :---Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent. Respondents waive notice. 2. All these writ petitions can be disposed of together by a common order. The State Co-operative Appellate Tribunal has disposed of all the appeals by a common order which is impugned in these petitions. The grievance made in the present writ petitions would be answered by persuing the impugned order itself. It is, therefore, apposite to reproduce the entire order that has been passed by the Appellate Court while disposing of the appeals. "ORAL JUDGMENT:--- Mr. R.S. Shende, the Deputy Chief Officer of the appellant Bank who is unidentified by Mr. Khurjekar is present in person. Mr. S.B. Khurjekar Advocate for the respondents is present. By consent, the Appeals are taken on today's board. The record and proceedings of the lower Court and the Appellate Court of Pune Bench are produced before this Court. These Appeals are filled by the Bank against the awards passed by the lower Court in dispute bearing Nos. 288 of 1993, 317 of 1993, 418 of 1993, 476 of 1993 and 501 of 1993, which were allowed against the respondents. But the lower Court did not grant the demanded rate of interest to the Appellant Bank. The lower Court directed the respondents to pay amount along with interest @ 6% from the date of the awards. The Bank felt aggrieved by this order filed the Appeals seeking the contractual rate of interest even for the period after the awards. During these days the respondents paid substantial amount to the bank pursuant to the awards. The respondents are not giving a proposal to settle the disputes to the Bank by which they would pay certain amount towards the unpaid principal in certain instalments etc. This proposal is filed before this Court which is marked at Exhibit R-1. The respondents even offered payment of 10% interest in case of their failure to abide by schedule of repayment they are offering. The Bank's Representative stated that this offer is quite reasonable and the bank should accept it because if it is not accepted the bank would find it very difficult to recover unpaid amount from the respondents. He said that the respondent companies do not have assets from which the unpaid amount could be recovered. The Bank's Representative stated that this offer is quite reasonable and the bank should accept it because if it is not accepted the bank would find it very difficult to recover unpaid amount from the respondents. He said that the respondent companies do not have assets from which the unpaid amount could be recovered. In other words, the Representative of the Bank is accepting the proposal and seeking just and equitable order from the Court on the Appeals. If the Bank accepts the proposal then there is no reason why the Appeals should continue. The Appeals are disposed of in terms of the proposal, Ex-R-1.. Sd/- A.V. Nirgude. President" 3. On plain reading of the said order there can be no two opinions that the manner of disposal of the appeals leaves much to be desired. Such approach is questionable one, for more than one reason. The Court in the zest for disposal of the matters ought not to decide the matter unjustly or irrationally. The facts that can be culled out from the impugned order are that the matters were not on board but were taken on board upon mentioning obviously at the instance of the respondents. Moreover, the Advocate for the petitioner bank was not present in the Court at the relevant time and only the representative of the petitioner Bank Mr. R.S. Shende, the Deputy Chief Officer was present, who was identified by the Counsel appearing for the respondents. What transpired before the lower Court is not the issue before me, but the grievance made in the present writ petitions is that the Appellate Court has not addressed itself to the merits of the contentions in the appeal, but it proceeded on the assumption that the proposal given by the respondents would be acceptable to the bank. This is evident from the observation made by the Appellate Court that "if the Bank accepts the proposal then there is no reason why the Appeals should continue." The Appellate Court has therefore assumed that the respondents proposal would be acted upon by the petitioner bank and therefore disposed of the appeals in terms of the proposal. The best course for the Appellate Court would have been to await the response of the Bank and its decision by the competent authority and only thereafter proceed to dispose of the appeals in terms of the proposal. The best course for the Appellate Court would have been to await the response of the Bank and its decision by the competent authority and only thereafter proceed to dispose of the appeals in terms of the proposal. But this is not what has happened in the present matters. In any case, without going into the approach adopted by the Appellate Court, I would think it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remand the matters to the Appellate Court for reconsideration in accordance with law. 4. The petitioners have specifically averred in the writ petition in para 7 that Mr. Shende, the Deputy Chief Officer had no authority to accept the proposal on behalf of the Bank and that he had appeared for the first time in the place of Mr. Salvekar who was handling the matters on behalf of the Bank . Naturally, therefore, Shri Shende cannot be expected to be completely briefed of the nicety of the proposal which was given before the Court on that day. Under the circumstances, reaction of Mr. Shende before the Appellate Court that the proposal, if accepted, would augment recovery of the long standing amount which would obviously be in the interest of the bank was very natural. That, however, does not mean that Mr. Shende conceded to the proposal or can be said to have accepted the proposal on behalf of the Bank. To my mind even the Appellate Court has not proceeded on such assumption, for the Appellate Court clearly records that if the bank accepts the said proposal then there is no reason why the appeal should continue to remain on record. In the circumstances, it is not possible to sustain the impugned order passed by the Appellate Court; and it would be in the fitness of things that the matters are sent back to the Appellate Court for re-examination having regard to the high stakes involved in these matters as the amount involved is undisputedly to the extent of Rs. 2.79 crores. 5. Mr. Jagtap appearing for the respondents in all these matters has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court reported in A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 1249 (State of Maharashtra v. R.S. Nayak)1, to contend that a statement of fact recorded by the subordinate Court in its order cannot be subject matter of any appeal before the Superior Court. 5. Mr. Jagtap appearing for the respondents in all these matters has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court reported in A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 1249 (State of Maharashtra v. R.S. Nayak)1, to contend that a statement of fact recorded by the subordinate Court in its order cannot be subject matter of any appeal before the Superior Court. The said proposition cannot be doubted, but that is not the point in issue in the present writ petition. I have already indicated the reasons that have weighed with me for reversing the impugned order passed by the Appellate Court. The said decision therefore has no application to the facts of the present case. 6. At this stage Mr. Jagtap has placed on record a chart indicating the principal amount and the amount due and payable including the amount already paid by each of the respondents. Correctness of the said chart is disputed by the Counsel for the petitioner. However, it is not necessary to go into this aspect and it is made clear that the said chart is merely taken on record without prejudice to the contentions available to the petitioner bank. 7. Mr. Jagtap also points out that substantial amount has already been deposited by the respondents in terms of proposal submitted by them before the Appellate Court. According to the Counsel for the petitioner, the amount that has been deposited is not in accordance with the schedule that was given by the respondents and that the respondents are still in arrears. All these aspects of the matter will have to be gone into by the Appellate Court while passing the final order. The Appellate Court shall take into account the amount deposited by the respondents and then pass appropriate order. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, all these writ petitions succeed. Impugned orders are set aside and the matters are remanded to the file of the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court shall decide the appeals expeditiously and preferably within 3 months from the receipt of writ of this Court. Rule made absolute in the above terms with no order as to costs. Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Sheristedar of the Court. Writ petitions succeed. -----