JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. By way of instant application filed under Sub-section (2)(b) of S. 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter, 'Act’), prayer has been made on behalf of applicants/ respondents for disposing of the objections having been filed by the non-applicant/petitioner on account of subsequent developments, as having become infructuous. 2. Facts as emerge from the record are that the non-applicant/petitioner entered into a contract with the applicants-respondents for execution of work relating to “Construction of Kandhar-Beral (non-connected Panchayat) road under PMGSY with the assistance of the World Bank) Package No. HP-11-22. A formal contract was executed between the parties on standard form adopted by respondents. After execution of aforesaid agreement, work in question came to be awarded to non-applicant/petitioner, who executed the work on the spot, however, since there was some dispute with regard to payments due towards the non-applicant/petitioner, matter came to be referred to the Adjudicator in terms of Clauses 24 and 25.2 of the Contract. Adjudicator gave his decision on 29.1.2010, in favour of the non-applicant/petitioner, but the applicants/respondents being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, invoked arbitration clause. 3. Since the applicant-Department failed to invoke arbitration clause within the prescribed period of 28 days, non-applicant/petitioner approached this court, praying therein for execution of decision of the Adjudicator, however, this court ordered on 18.7.2010, that the matter is required to be decided by an Arbitrator on the following points: 1. Whether reference made for arbitration is within the parameters of Clause 25.2. 2. If not, then in such event, all proceedings are void ab initio.” 4. This court further directed that without entering into controversy of limitation at this stage, it will be the duty of the Arbitrator to adjudicate on the question of jurisdiction not by mere expression of opinion but on the settled law. 5. Accordingly, the matter came to be referred to the arbitration of arbitral tribunal comprising of three persons namely Shri Satish Sagar, Retired Chief Engineer, HP PWD, as Presiding Arbitrator and Shri B.S. Parmar and Shri Megh Singh Chauhan, both retired Superintending Engineers of HPPWD, as the arbitrator nominees of the parties. 6. Both the parties filed their claims/counter claims before the learned arbitral tribunal, but the tribunal refused to consider all the claims of the petitioner and restricted to two claims i.e. Claims No.1 and 2. 6. Both the parties filed their claims/counter claims before the learned arbitral tribunal, but the tribunal refused to consider all the claims of the petitioner and restricted to two claims i.e. Claims No.1 and 2. Aforesaid tribunal made award dated 29.4.2015, which is under challenge in the instant proceedings filed under S.34 of the Act. For adjudicating remaining disputes/ claims of the non-applicant/petitioner, another arbitral tribunal comprising of Shri Naresh K. Markanda as Presiding Arbitrator and Shri B.S. Parmar and Shri Y.R. Sharma as nominee arbitrators of contractor and Department, respectively, came to be constituted. In the second arbitration, contractor raised claim amounting to Rs.12,28,80,234/-. As per material available on record, learned arbitral tribunal referred to hereinabove adjudicated two claims only and during the pendency of the proceedings before the second arbitral tribunal, both the parties agreed to refer the matter to the Departmental Litigation Monitoring Committee for amicable settlement. First meeting of amicable settlement committee was held on 20.11.2015 in the chamber of Engineer-in-Chief, HPPWD, Shimla, wherein, petitioner-contractor gave an undertaking to the applicants/ respondents for joint measurement of work and he also made a statement that in case settlement is arrived on joint measurement, he shall withdraw all the claims pending before this court and learned arbitral tribunal. (Annexure R-1, annexed to the application). Aforesaid plea of the contractor was accepted by the amicable settlement committee, whereafter, it was sent to the Government and the Government, after convening meeting of the Departmental Litigation Monitoring Committee conveyed its sanction, copy of minutes of meeting and approval of the Government are annexed as Annexure R-2 and Annexure R-3 to the application at hand. Applicants have averred in the application that since as per offer of the non-applicant, Annexure R-1 and approval of the Government, Annexure R-3, full and final payment stands released to the non-applicant, objection petition under S.34 filed by him deserves to be disposed of as having become infructuous. Applicants have further averred that the full and final payment of Rs.75,64,242/-, after deducting 5% statutory deductions i.e. sales tax, income tax and labour cess, as per concurrence of the competent authority at the government level and also as per own offer and undertaking of the non236 applicant/petitioner, stands remitted to the bank account of the non-applicant/petitioner, as such petition has been rendered infructuous. 7. 7. Non-applicant/petitioner, while refuting the aforesaid claim put forth by the respondents has stated in his reply to the application that the dispute pending before the arbitral Tribunal comprising of Mr. Naresh K. Markanda, Senior Advocate and Mr. B.S. Parmar and Mr. Y.R. Sharma, was referred for amicable settlement to the amicable settlement committee constituted by the respondents and at no point of time, petitioner had ever agreed for amicable settlement of the claims, which stood already adjudicated by the learned arbitral tribunal comprising of Shri Satish Sagar, Shri B.S. Parmar and Shri B.S. Chauhan, which is otherwise subject matter of the present petition. In support of aforesaid contention, non-applicant/petitioner also placed on record, certain letters/communications, to demonstrate that it was clarified to the Executive Engineer, who had called upon the petitioner to submit affidavit that he is settling the matter in the amicable settlement committee only with regard to the disputes relating to arbitration pending before the arbitral tribunal comprising of Mr. Naresh K. Markanda, Mr. B.S. Parmar and Mr. Y.R. Sharma. 8. Mr. Ashok Sharma, learned Advocate General, while inviting attention of this court to Annexures R-1, R-2, R-3 and R-4 annexed with the application at hand, vehemently argued that since all the disputes inter se parties stand settled amicably and a sum of Rs. 75,64,242/- has been paid in terms of the settlement arrived inter se parties, present arbitration petition filed under S.34 has been rendered infructuous and same deserves to be disposed of accordingly. While referring to communication dated 20.11.2015 (Annexure R-1 of the application), Mr. Sharma, learned Advocate General contended that the non-applicant himself agreed that in case of settlement inter se parties, he would withdraw all the claims submitted before the High Court and the learned arbitral tribunal and applicants, acting upon such assurance, convened a meeting for amicable settlement on 15.10.2016, whereby it was agreed that a sum of Rs. 79,62,052/- would be paid to the non-applicant against demand of Rs. 80,00,000/- made by him, as full and final settlement. 79,62,052/- would be paid to the non-applicant against demand of Rs. 80,00,000/- made by him, as full and final settlement. He further contended that the amount as agreed inter se parties came to be remitted into the bank account of the non-applicant through RTGS on 24.1.2017 (Annexure R-4 of application) and as such, at this stage, non-applicant can not be allowed to backtrack from his commitment given to the Department that in the event of amicable settlement, he would withdraw all the cases including arbitration case pending before this court. While referring to the communication dated 1.8.2016 (Annexure R-1, Page 95) annexed with the supplementary affidavit dated 7.6.2017, learned Advocate General contended that the non-applicant furnished undertaking to the Executive Engineer, HPPWD, Arki that the non-applicant would close the case on the whole, if amount of Rs. 80.00 Lakh is paid within next thirty days. While referring to Annexure A (page 120) annexed with the affidavit dated 16.7.2018 filed in terms of order dated 6.7.2018, Mr. Sharma, learned Advocate General contended that the first meeting of the Committee was held on 16.10.2015, in the chamber of the Engineer-in-Chief, HPPWD, Shimla-2, in which, non-applicant also participated and agreed for joint measurement for the work in question. He contended that bare perusal of the minutes of the meeting referred to above clearly suggests that the contractor agreed that if settlement is arrived at with the joint measurement, both the parties shall withdraw their respective claims submitted before the arbitral tribunal and this court. Lastly, Mr. Sharma, contended that since despite repeated requests, non-applicant failed to furnish the affidavit/undertaking on an affidavit attested by Magistrate first class, to the extent that he shall withdraw all pending cases before this court and the arbitral tribunal or any other case against the work in question, applicants were left with no option but to remit the amount into the bank account of the non-applicant and accordingly, in the meeting held on 4.1.2017, Committee decided that the amount settled during the meeting of the amicable settlement committee be paid to the contractor and application may be filed through the Superintending Engineer in this court with the request to finally dispose of the objection petition filed by the contractor. Mr. Mr. Sharma, learned Advocate General argued that since entire process for amicable settlement inter se parties had started pursuant to the undertaking given by the contractor, he cannot be allowed to take a U-turn at this juncture, especially when he has received a sum of Rs. 75,64,242/- in terms of the settlement. He contended that the non-applicant is now estopped from taking the plea that he had only settled the matter qua one part of dispute which was pending before the arbitral tribunal headed by Mr. Naresh Markanda. He contended that the non-applicant is bound by the doctrine of promissory estoppel because entire exercise towards amicable settlement was carried out on the assurance given by the non-applicant that in the event of joint measurement, he would withdraw all the cases pending before this court and arbitral tribunal. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in T.N. Magnesite Ltd. v. S. Manickam, (2010) 4 SCC 421 and Cauvery Coffee Traders v. Hornor Resources (International) Co. Ltd., (2011) 10 SCC 420 . 9. Mr. J.S. Bhogal, learned Senior Advocate duly assisted by Mr. Parmod Negi, Advocate appearing for the non-applicant/petitioner, while refuting the aforesaid submissions having been made by the learned Advocate General strenuously argued that the application having been filed by the applicant is wholly misconceived and not maintainable in the facts and circumstances of the case, as such, same may be dismissed. Mr. Bhogal, learned Senior Advocate, while referring to the documents available on record, contended that though at the initial stage, non-applicant had agreed for joint measurement of the work in question and had agreed that in case, he is satisfied with the joint measurement, he would withdraw all the claims submitted before the High Court and arbitral tribunal but since there was no agreement between the parties, non-applicant refused to give undertaking. While referring to the minutes of meeting held on 16.10.2015, wherein non-applicant was also present, Mr. Bhogal, learned Senior Advocate contended that on 16.10.2015, non-applicant stated in the meeting that he has issue with the Department only with regard to measurement portion of earth work and accordingly, joint measurement of the cutting work was decided to be taken within fifteen days in the presence of the non-applicant and Executive Engineer, Arki Division. Bhogal, learned Senior Advocate contended that on 16.10.2015, non-applicant stated in the meeting that he has issue with the Department only with regard to measurement portion of earth work and accordingly, joint measurement of the cutting work was decided to be taken within fifteen days in the presence of the non-applicant and Executive Engineer, Arki Division. Non-applicant, in the aforesaid meeting, had agreed that if some settlement is arrived inter se parties with regard to joint measurement, both the parties would withdraw their respective claims submitted before the arbitral tribunal and this court, but, no final settlement inter se parties could be arrived as such, non-applicant thereafter did not participate in the meeting dated 15.10.2016 held under the Chairmanship of the Additional Chief Secretary (PW) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, wherein the Department, unilaterally, decided to pay a sum of Rs. 80.00 Lakh as full and final settlement to the non-applicant qua all his claims pending before this court as well as arbitral tribunal. Lastly, Mr. Bhogal, learned Senior Advocate contended that bare perusal of the minutes of 8th meeting held on 15.10.2016, clearly suggests that in the said meeting, it was proposed that a sum of Rs. 80.00 Lakh would be paid to the claimant-contractor as full and final payment, subject to the condition that he would make an undertaking on an affidavit duly attested by Magistrate first class to the extent that all the claims pertaining to this work against the agreement in dispute are fully and finally settled and nothing is due from the Executive Engineer, Arki and he shall withdraw all pending cases from this court, arbitration tribunal or any other statutory authorities against this work and besides this he shall also undertake that in future against this work in case any labour/worker payment, damage claim by private owners/complaint are received by the Executive Engineer Arki, the contractor shall be bound to make payments of all such claims. Mr. Mr. Bhogal, learned Senior Advocate, contended that since aforesaid settlement allegedly arrived inter se parties was not acceptable to the non-applicant, he despite repeated communications sent by the Executive Engineer, HPPWD, Arki, refused to furnish the undertaking in the shape of affidavit duly attested by the Magistrate, first class stating therein that he would be withdrawing all pending cases from this court and arbitral tribunal, but despite that the Department, unilaterally, of its own, remitted a sum of Rs. 75,64,642 on 24.1.2017, to compel the non-applicant to withdraw cases pending adjudication before arbitral tribunal including the present petition. Lastly, Mr. Bhogal, learned Senior Advocate contended that the judgments relied upon by the learned Advocate General, are not applicable in the present case because, at no point in time, promise, if any, was ever made by the non-applicant to withdraw the cases filed by him. Assurance, if any, was conditional and non-applicant had repeatedly informed the Department that he would be withdrawing cases in case, he is satisfied with the joint measurement, but at no point in time, he recorded his satisfaction, but the Department unilaterally, solely with a view to pressurize the non-applicant to withdraw the cases, amicably settled the matter for Rs. 80.00 Lakh and thereafter, without there being any affidavit having been filed by the claimant, applicants deposited the aforesaid sum into the bank account of the non-applicant. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. 11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this court finds that initially, vide communication dated 20.11.2015, Mr. Jaswant Rai Verma, non-applicant had shown his willingness for joint measurement of earth work and had agreed that in case some settlement is arrived inter se parties, he would withdraw all the claims submitted before this court and the arbitral tribunal. Pursuant to aforesaid undertaking given by the non-applicant, a Committee came to be constituted under the Chairmanship of the Engineer-in-Chief, HPPWD, Shimla, which, in its meeting held on 16.10.2015, resolved to conduct joint measurement of the cutting work within a period of fifteen days, in the presence of the claimant/contractor and Executive Engineer, Arki. Pursuant to aforesaid undertaking given by the non-applicant, a Committee came to be constituted under the Chairmanship of the Engineer-in-Chief, HPPWD, Shimla, which, in its meeting held on 16.10.2015, resolved to conduct joint measurement of the cutting work within a period of fifteen days, in the presence of the claimant/contractor and Executive Engineer, Arki. Perusal of minutes of such meeting (available at page 120 of the paper-book) reveals that the non-applicant was present in the meeting and he had given an undertaking that in case, some settlement is arrived at after the joint measurement, both the parties shall withdraw claims pending before this court and the arbitral tribunal. Documents available on record further reveal that subsequently, vide communication dated 1.8.2016, (page 149 of the paper-book), non-applicant informed the Executive Engineer, HPPWD Division Arki, that he is ready to close the case on the whole if a sum of Rs. 80.00 Lakh, is paid within next thirty days including statutory deduction at the rate of 5%. Perusal of aforesaid communication suggests that pursuant to the meeting held on 16.10.2015, some joint measurement was conducted and amicable settled was arrived inter se parties, but there is no document adduced on record by either of the parties qua joint measurement conducted on the spot in terms of decision taken in the meeting held on 16.10.2015. Another communication dated 12.9.2016 (page-150 of the paper-book) further reveals that pursuant to joint measurement, meetings continued to be held inter se department and the claimant contractor, but on one count or the other, amount agreed inter se parties could not be released. Communication dated 12.9.2016 referred to herein above, suggests that the amount offered by the non-applicant i.e. Rs. 80.00 Lakh was not agreeable to the Department and it was insisting upon the non-applicant to negotiate further, who vide this communication expressed his inability to do further negotiations. 12. Subsequently, matter came to be placed before the amicable settlement committee of the Department constituted under Litigation Monitoring, meeting whereof came to be convened on 15.10.2016 (Annexure R-2, page 76), wherein the Committee, having taken note of the various claims of the non-applicant, decided that a sum of Rs. 79,62,052/- be paid against Rs. 80.00 Lakh, demanded by the contractor (non-applicant), as full and final settlement. 79,62,052/- be paid against Rs. 80.00 Lakh, demanded by the contractor (non-applicant), as full and final settlement. However, the Committee while taking aforesaid decision unanimously decided that the amicably settled proposal would be subject to specific condition that the contractor shall make an undertaking on an affidavit, duly attested by a Magistrate, first class to the extent that all the claims pertaining to the work against agreement in dispute are fully and finally settled and nothing is due from the Executive Engineer, Arki and he shall withdraw all pending cases from this court and the arbitral tribunal or any other statutory authority against this work. Committee also resolved that the non-applicant would also undertake that in case, in future, any labour /worker payment damage claims by private owners/complaints are received by the Executive Engineer, Arki against this work, the contractor (non-applicant) would be bound to make payment of such claims. 13. Minutes of such meeting nowhere suggest that the non-applicant was present in such meeting and as such, there appears to be force in the argument of Mr. J.S. Bhogal, learned Senior Advocate that the decision in the meeting dated 15.10.2016, to pay Rs. 79,62,052/- was taken by the Department unilaterally in the absence of the non-applicant. Though there is no document adduced on record by the applicants that pursuant to the meeting held on 15.10.2016, communication, if any was sent by the Department, calling upon the non-applicant to furnish undertaking on the affidavit duly attested by magistrate first class, that in view of the amicable settlement inter se parties, he would be withdrawing all the cases pending before this court and arbitral tribunal, but, the documents placed on record by the non-applicant suggest that on 19.12.2016, Executive Engineer, Arki, had asked the non-applicant to file undertaking in terms of decision taken in the meeting of Litigation Monitoring held on 15.10.2016 but non-applicant, vide communications dated 26.11.2016, 8.12.2016 and 30.12.2016 (available at pp. 110-112 of the paper-book) informed the Executive Engineer that the Amicable Settlement Committee was formed as per office order issued from the office of the Chief Engineer (SZ), HP PWD, Shimla vide order No. PW-CTR-29-29-637/2007-12431-37 dated 4.11.2015 with respect to the arbitration (under the Presiding Arbitrator, Shri Naresh Markanda) between the non-applicant and the Executive Engineer, Arki and therefore, amicable settlement was initiated /negotiated with respect to the pending arbitration matter only and as such he would furnish the undertaking accordingly. Vide aforesaid communications, non-applicant also stated that action of the Department in compelling the non-applicant to file affidavit, undertaking therein to withdraw arbitration cases pending before the arbitral tribunal as well as this court, is not justified. Record reveals that vide communication dated 8.12.2016, non-applicant requested the Department to convey its decision at the earliest, failing which he would be free to proceed with the arbitration proceedings. 14. Having carefully perused aforesaid communications placed on record by the non-applicant, this court finds considerable force in the argument of Mr. Bhogal, learned Senior Advocate that though at one point of time, non-applicant had agreed for joint measurement of the work and had assured that in the event of his being satisfied with the joint measurement, he would withdraw all the cases but since the non-applicant was not satisfied with the joint measurement, he chose not to remain present in further proceedings, wherein, Department unilaterally decided to pay a sum of Rs. 79,62,052/- against Rs. 80.00 Lakh. 15. Leaving everything aside, this court finds that even if for the sake of arguments, it is presumed that the Amicable Settlement Committee of the Department proceeded for amicable settlement, pursuant to assurance given by the non-applicant and then in its meeting held on 15.10.2016, decided to pay a sum of Rs. 79,62,052/- against a sum of Rs. 80.00 Lakh. 15. Leaving everything aside, this court finds that even if for the sake of arguments, it is presumed that the Amicable Settlement Committee of the Department proceeded for amicable settlement, pursuant to assurance given by the non-applicant and then in its meeting held on 15.10.2016, decided to pay a sum of Rs. 79,62,052/- against a sum of Rs. 80.00 lakh demanded by the non-applicant as full and final settlement, amount could not be remitted /released till the time, undertaking in the form of affidavit, duly attested by magistrate, was not filed by the non-applicant, specifically stating therein that he (non-applicant) would withdraw all the cases pending before this court as well as arbitral tribunal, but, interestingly, in the case at hand, applicants without obtaining the affidavit, which was condition precedent for amicable settlement, unilaterally deposited the amount in the bank account of the non-applicant, who, in turn, has now taken a somersault that he had never agreed for amicable settlement qua the work which is subject matter of the present proceedings. 16. In the present proceedings, this court need not go into the question, whether the non-applicant had agreed for amicable settlement, in both the matters, one pending adjudication before this court in the instant proceedings and the other pending adjudication before the arbitral tribunal headed by Mr. Naresh Markanda, especially in view of the fact that the Departmental Litigation Monitoring Committee, while amicably settling the matter for Rs. 79,62,052/- against total claim of Rs. 80.00 Lakh demanded by the non-applicant, had made amicable settlement subject to the condition that the contractor (non-applicant) shall give an undertaking on an affidavit duly attested by Magistrate, first class, to the extent that all claims pertaining to this work against the agreement in dispute are fully and finally settled and nothing is due from the Executive Engineer, Arki, and he shall withdraw all cases pending before the arbitral tribunal and this court or any other statutory authority against this work. Said undertaking, which was a condition precedent for amicable settlement never came to be executed/filed by the non-applicant, rather, he immediately after having received communication from Executive Engineer, Arki in this regard, intimated him that since he has entered into compromise with regard to work which is pending adjudication before the arbitral tribunal headed by Mr. Naresh Markanda, he shall file undertaking only to that effect. Naresh Markanda, he shall file undertaking only to that effect. Three communications dated 26.11.2016, 8.12.2016 and 30.12.2016, (Pp. 110-112 of paper-book) which have been already taken note herein above, clearly suggest that the non-applicant repeatedly expressed his disagreement for the settlement and refused to furnish undertaking in terms of the decision taken in the meeting held on 15.10.2016, but, astonishingly, Department despite knowing fully well that the amicable settlement arrived in the meeting held on 15.10.2016, is not agreeable to the nonapplicant, of its own, without waiting for the non-applicant to file such undertaking, in terms of the amicable settlement, decided to remit a sum of Rs. 79,62,052/- in the account of the non-applicant, for the reasons best known to the Department. Meeting of the Committee came to be held on 4.1.2017, under the chairmanship of the Engineer-in-Chief, HPPWD (Page-151 of the paper-book), who, despite knowing fully well that the non-applicant has taken a U-turn, terming the settlement arrived at only qua case pending before arbitral tribunal, decided to remit the amount into the bank account of the non-applicant and moved extant application before this court for disposal of the present petition. Subsequently, on 24.1.2017, by way of RTGS, aforesaid sum came to be remitted into the bank account of non-applicant. 17. Having noticed aforesaid glaring discrepancy and hot haste shown by the Department in remitting amount into the bank account of non-applicant, this court directed the Engineer-in-Chief, HPPWD, on 6.7.2018, to file a supplementary affidavit specifically indicating therein why and under what circumstances, payment was remitted into bank account of non-applicant without obtaining his affidavit as per agreed terms. Explanation rendered on record pursuant to aforesaid direction passed by this court, is totally unacceptable. In the affidavit, it has been stated that delay in settlement making payment was delaying the financial closure of the PMGSY Project and it was becoming difficult for the State Government to get other projects sanctioned under PMGSY without closure of the old projects, as such, a meeting of the DLC was convened on 4.1.2017 in which the members of the Committee unanimously decided that non-release of payment may burden the public exchequer with multiplier of interest and can cause delay in getting other projects sanctioned from the Union Government. 18. 18. I am afraid that aforesaid explanation rendered on record can be accepted, rather, this court having noticed the hot haste shown by the Department in the matter that too after having received repeated communications from the non-applicant that he would not furnish affidavit in terms of settlement arrived in the meeting held on 15.10.2016, has no hesitation to conclude that the amount was released to the non-applicant under some extraneous considerations. Since the non-applicant did not file any undertaking in terms of amicable settlement arrived, if any, pursuant to meeting held on 15.10.2016, this court is not persuaded to agree with Mr. Ashok Sharma, learned Advocate General that the present petition filed by the non-applicant can be disposed of as having been rendered infructuous, because, there is nothing to suggest that the matter inter se parties was amicably resolved, rather, material available on record, specifically the facts placed on record by the contractor clearly reveal that he(non-applicant), while refusing to file undertaking in terms of the decision taken in the meeting dated 15.10.2016, disputed the claim of the department that he had undertaken to close both the cases i.e. one pending adjudication before this court and the other pending adjudication before the arbitral tribunal headed by Mr. Markanda. 19. Judgments having been relied upon by the learned Advocate General in support of his contention that the doctrine of estoppel is applicable in the present case against the non-applicant, are not applicable because, admittedly, the amount came to be deposited by the Department without waiting for undertaking to be furnished by the contractor (non-applicant) in terms of the alleged settlement dated 15.10.2016. Non-applicant before release of the amount repeatedly made it clear to the Department that he has not settled the matter qua both the disputes and as such, he would not file the undertaking. Non-applicant before release of the amount repeatedly made it clear to the Department that he has not settled the matter qua both the disputes and as such, he would not file the undertaking. Amicable settlement, if any, inter se parties could only be said to have been concluded /finalized, had the non-applicant filed undertaking on the affidavit duly executed by the magistrate, first class, stating therein that he would withdraw all the cases pending before this court and arbitral tribunal, but, in the case at hand, despite having received communications from the non-applicant that he would not furnish the undertaking, as per agreed terms, applicants proceeded to deposit the amount in the bank account of the non-applicant, of its own, as such, it can not be said that non-applicant is now estopped from pursuing the present matter, which definitely stood filed prior to filing of the instant application. 20. Consequently, in view of the detailed submissions made hereinabove, present application is dismissed. The non-applicant is directed to refund the amount of Rs. 74,65,652/- to the Department immediately.