ORDER 1. LEAVE GRANTED. THE APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED FROM THE ORDER OF THE DIVISION BENCH OF THE HIGH COURT BY WHICH THE APPELLANT WAS ALLOWED TO RECOVER ONLY A SUM OF RUPEES ONE LAKH AS AGAINST THE CLAIM OF RS 1,33,904 TOGETHER WITH INTEREST CALCULATED THEREON AT THE AGREED RATE FROM THE RESPONDENTS. 2. IT IS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANTS THAT LOANS OF A TOTAL SUM OF RS 2.61 F LAKHS WERE GIVEN TO THE RESPONDENTS WHICH WERE TO BE REPAID, WITH INTEREST @ 14.5% P.A. ABOUT ELEVEN YEARS AFTER THE LOANS WERE DISBURSED, WHEN A DEMAND WAS RAISED BY THE APPELLANTS FOR REPAYMENT OF THE AMOUNT, THE RESPONDENTS FILED A WRIT PETITION BEFORE THE HIGH COURT. THE HIGH COURT DISPOSED OF THE WRIT PETITION BY ALLOWING THE RESPONDENTS TO MAKE A REPRESENTATION TO THE APPELLANTS. THE APPELLANTS CONSIDERED THE REPRESENTATION AND AGAIN RAISED A DEMAND AND INITIATED ACTION UNDER SECTIONS 29 AND 30 OF THE STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1951 AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS. 3. A SECOND WRIT PETITION WAS FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS SEEKING A MANDAMUS TO QUASH THE ORDER ISSUED FOR TAKING OVER THE POSSESSION OF THE RESPONDENTS ASSETS AND FOR A DETERMINATION OF THE ACTUAL AMOUNT PAYABLE BY THE RESPONDENTS TO THE APPELLANTS. THIS WRIT PETITION WAS DISPOSED OF ON 4-5-1998 BY A LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE. THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE NOTED THE LAW AS DECLARED BY THIS COURT THAT PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTIONS 29 AND 30 AND THE STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS ACT HAVE ALREADY BEEN COMMENCED AND UNLESS AND UNTIL THERE IS SOME ILLEGALITY, IRREGULARITY OR UNREASONABLENESS, THE COURT SHOULD NOT INTERFERE IN THE MATTER. DESPITE THE AFORESAID, THE COURT DISPOSED OF THE WRIT PETITION REDUCING THE DEMAND OF THE APPELLANTS FROM RS 1,39,000 TOGETHER WITH INTEREST THEREON TO RS 1,00,000 IN FULL AND FINAL SETTLEMENT OF THE APPELLANTS CLAIM AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE, THE APPELLANTS PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE DIVISION BENCH. THE DIVISION BENCH OF THE HIGH COURT DID NOT INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT THAT THE RESPONDENTS WERE DIRECTED TO PAY INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 12% PER ANNUM FROM 4-5-1998. THE PAYMENT WAS DIRECTED TO BE MADE WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE APPELLATE COURTS ORDER. THE DIVISION BENCH OF THE HIGH COURT DID NOT INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT THAT THE RESPONDENTS WERE DIRECTED TO PAY INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 12% PER ANNUM FROM 4-5-1998. THE PAYMENT WAS DIRECTED TO BE MADE WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE APPELLATE COURTS ORDER. IT WAS MADE CLEAR THAT IF THE PAYMENT WAS NOT MADE IN TERMS OF THE APPELLATE COURTS ORDER, THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS 1,33,904 TOGETHER WITH INTEREST @ 14% PER ANNUM FROM THE DATE OF THE JUDGMENT WOULD BE PAYABLE BY THE RESPONDENTS TO THE APPELLANTS. 4. NO ACCEPTABLE REASONS HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY THE HIGH COURT FOR INTERFERING WITH THE CLAIM AS MADE BY THE APPELLANTS. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS SETTLING THEIR CLAIM, IT WAS NOT OPEN TO THE HIGH COURT TO HAVE REDUCED THE AMOUNT AS DEMANDED BY THE APPELLANTS, EXCEPT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE APPEAL IS, ACCORDINGLY, ALLOWED. THE DECISIONS OF THE DIVISION BENCH AND THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE ARE SET ASIDE. 5. IT IS STATED BY LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS THAT PURSUANT TO THE ORDERS OF THE HIGH COURT THE RESPONDENTS HAVE, IN FACT, PAID RS 1,52,000 TO THE APPELLANTS. IT IS CLEAR, THEREFORE, THAT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE APPELLANTS CANNOT PROCEED WITH ORIGINAL NOTICE UNDER SECTION 29 OF THE STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS ACT. THEREFORE, DESPITE THE DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT BEING SET ASIDE, WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT IT WILL NOT BE OPEN TO THE APPELLANTS TO PROCEED ON THE BASIS OF THAT NOTICE. HOWEVER, IT WILL BE OPEN TO THE APPELLANTS TO TAKE SUCH STEPS AS THEY ARE ENTITLED TO IN LAW TO RECOVER THE BALANCE AMOUNT, IF ANY, FROM THE RESPONDENTS.