JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to allow the above Writ Appeal as against the order dated 18.03.2021 passed in W.P.No.18681 of 2020 on the file of this Court. Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to allow the above Writ Appeal as against the order dated 18.03.2021 passed in W.P.No.18683 of 2020 on the file of this Court. Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to allow the above Writ Appeal as against the order dated 18.03.2021 passed in W.P.No.4277 of 2016 on the file of this Court. Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to allow the Writ Appeal by setting aside the order passed in W.P.No.18681 of 2020, dismiss the writ petition. Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to allow the Writ Appeal by setting aside the order passed in W.P.No.4722 of 2016 dated 18.03.2021 and allow the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition. Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to allow the Writ Appeal by setting aside the order passed in W.P.No.18683 of 2020 dated 18.03.2021 and dismiss the writ petition.) Common Judgment Sunder Mohan 1. There are six Writ Appeals before us. Challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.4722 of 2016 and 18681 and 18683 of 2020, the Union Territory of Pondicherry have filed W.A.Nos.1376, 1377 and 1380 of 2022 and Pondicherry Non-Banking Investors, Protection Association for PNL Nithi Limited have filed W.A.Nos.842, 844 and 847 of 2022 2. The brief facts necessary to appreciate the issues involved in the above Writ Appeals are as follows: (a) The 3rd Respondent PNL Nidhi Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as “Nidhi”) (For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in W.A. No. 844 of 2022, as most of the parties are respondents in the said appeal) collected huge deposits and defaulted in returning the deposits on maturity. On the complaint of one of the depositors, an FIR in Crime No. 31 of 2004 was registered against the Nidhi and its Directors under various Penal Provisions including Section 3 of the Puducherry Protection of Interests of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as “Pondicherry Act”). On the complaint of one of the depositors, an FIR in Crime No. 31 of 2004 was registered against the Nidhi and its Directors under various Penal Provisions including Section 3 of the Puducherry Protection of Interests of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as “Pondicherry Act”). Pursuant to the registration of FIR, the competent authority, under the Pondicherry Act, attached several properties belonging to the Company and its Directors in 2006. (b) The attached properties could not be sold in view of encumbrances and consequently payments could not be made to the Depositors. In those circumstances, a Memorandum of Understanding (hereinafter referred to as "MOU") dated 15.04.2013 was entered into between the Appellant namely, the Pondicherry Non Banking Investors Protection Association of PNL Nidhi Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Pondicherry Depositors”), the Nidhi represented by its promoters P.Kannan and Baskaran, the fourth and fifth Respondents and the Cuddalore Branch Depositors Welfare Association. As per the MOU, the Nidhi agreed to pay 75% of the deposit amount as one time settlement to all the Depositors numbering 3888 (3610 from Pondicherry and 278 from Cuddalore District) which came to Rs.36 Crores within a period of two months from getting orders from the appropriate Court for sale of the attached properties. (c)Since the payments were not made to the Depositors, the Pondicherry Association filed W.P. No. 11857 of 2013 for Writ of Mandamus directing the Union Territory of Pondicherry, the Nidhi and its promoters to give effect to the MOU entered into between the Pondicherry Association and the third Respondent and settle the amounts due to the Depositors. This Court, by the order dated 20.06.2014, allowed the Writ Petition and directed that all the Depositors shall be paid 75% of the principal amount outstanding as on 31.08.2004 in full and final settlement of their claims. The Learned Single Judge also directed the promoters to make payment of Rs. 36 Crores to the Depositors and after making such payment they are entitled to get the attachment raised in respect of the property mentioned therein. The Learned Judge also appointed a retired Judge of this Court, the Hon'ble Mr.Justice K.P.SivaSubramanian as Administrator to receive and disburse the payment to the Depositors. 36 Crores to the Depositors and after making such payment they are entitled to get the attachment raised in respect of the property mentioned therein. The Learned Judge also appointed a retired Judge of this Court, the Hon'ble Mr.Justice K.P.SivaSubramanian as Administrator to receive and disburse the payment to the Depositors. In the said order in paragraph 24, the Learned Single Judge observed that the MOU entered into between by the parties dated 15.04.2013 shall form part and parcel of that order. (d)Even thereafter, payments were not made to the Depositors. Hence, they filed W.P. No. 4722 of 2016 praying for a mandamus to the Respondents to assist the Hon'ble Mr.Justice K.P.SivaSubramanian, in disbursing the deposits to the Depositors as per the MOU in the light of the order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 11857 of 2013. (e)Meanwhile, it came to public knowledge that one Rajalakshmi, wife of S. Natarajan, an erstwhile Director of the Nidhi and the Companies in which she held shares, was likely to receive Rs. 100 Crores being the value of 18.98% of shares held by them in a Company by name M/s. SV Global Mills Ltd. Some of the Depositors, on coming to know of the said fact, filed Crl.O.P.No. 19356 of 2018 before this Court, praying for a direction to the Superintendent of Police to ensure that a sum of Rs.100 Crores to be paid by M/s. SV Global Mills Ltd. to Mrs. Rajalakshmi and others, be deposited to the credit of the criminal case pending against the Nidhi and its Directors. The said petition was dismissed by this Court. Aggrieved, over the same the 6th respondent/Superintendent of Police filed SLP (Criminal) Diary No. 5000 of 2019 before the Hon’ble Apex Court. The Hon’ble Apex Court, by an order dated 25.02.2019, directed M/s. SV Global Mills Ltd. to deposit a sum of Rs.100 Crores lying with them before the Registry of the Supreme Court. (f) The Pondicherry Government issued a notification in G.O. M.S. No. 10 dated 19.08.2019, attaching Rs. 100 Crores deposited in the Registry of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in exercise of its powers under Section 4 of the Pondicherry Act. The Hon’ble Apex Court by an order dated 27.08.2019 stayed the notification issued by the Pondicherry Government. (f) The Pondicherry Government issued a notification in G.O. M.S. No. 10 dated 19.08.2019, attaching Rs. 100 Crores deposited in the Registry of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in exercise of its powers under Section 4 of the Pondicherry Act. The Hon’ble Apex Court by an order dated 27.08.2019 stayed the notification issued by the Pondicherry Government. On 04.11.2020, the Hon’ble Apex Court was pleased to pass the following order:- "We have heard learned counsel appearing for all sides including the Government and the Union Territory of Puducherry for some time. We may only reiterate that by our earlier order, Rs.100 crores has been deposited with the Registry of this Court. Further, the notification dated 19.08.2019 under the Puducherry Protection of Interests of Depositors in Financial Establishment Act, 2004, has been stayed by us. We are of the view that Rs.100 crores lying in deposit in this Court will continue to lie in this Court for a period of eight weeks for which the stay order of the notification dated 19.08.2019 will continue. After that date, if there is no challenge to the aforesaid notification, the said Rs.100 crores will be handed over to the Union Territory of Puducherry. We may only state that if a challenge to the notification is, however, made within the said period of eight weeks, it will be open to all parties to raise all questions of law before the Court before which the challenge is made. It will be open to the Court to pass interim orders qua the Rs.100 crores deposited in the Registry of this Court. The matter stands disposed of accordingly. All the pending applications are also disposed of." (g)Thereafter, the said Rajalakshmi and the other Companies challenged the Pondicherry notification in W.P. No. 18681 of 2019 and one S.Natarajan, husband of Rajalakshmi challenged the said notification in W.P.No. 18683 of 2019. 3. The Learned Single Judge of this Court took up W.P. No. 4722 of 2016 filed by the Pondicherry Association and the two Writ Petitions in W.P. Nos. 18681 of 2019 and 18683 of 2019 and passed a common order dated 18.03.2021. The Learned Single Judge observed that inspite of attachment orders passed by the Pondicherry Government, the Depositors could not be settled as the properties were subjected to litigations and encumbrances. 18681 of 2019 and 18683 of 2019 and passed a common order dated 18.03.2021. The Learned Single Judge observed that inspite of attachment orders passed by the Pondicherry Government, the Depositors could not be settled as the properties were subjected to litigations and encumbrances. The learned Single Judge also found that the suggestion made by the erstwhile counsel of the Pondicherry Association Mr.R.Subramaniam that since Rs. 100 Crores was available, the entire sum must be repaid to the Depositors, not viable since there was a dispute with regard to the validity of the attachment of properties of S.Natarajan for the dues payable by the Company. The Learned Single Judge further observed that it is likely to take another decade for the designated Court to ultimately decide on the validity of the attachment. The Learned Single Judge found that the property belonging to a Company called New Horizon Sugar Ltd., in which the promotors of the Nidhi, the fourth and fifth respondents herein, could be sold subject to settlement of dues to the Pondicherry Government. He also observed that the Pondicherry Government was not willing to take over the property and settle all the dues. All efforts made to sell the property did not yield the desired results. Hence, the Learned Single Judge accepted the offer made by S.Natarajan to purchase the property for Rs. 36 Crores and he was agreeable for paying the sale consideration from and out of the money available with the Registry of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Learned Single Judge found this to be a very good option as issues relating to all the parties in dispute can be solved at one stroke. In the said order, the Learned Single Judge observed as follows: ''18.Therefore adopting a resolution package will be beneficial to all concerned. All the parties are of the unanimous opinion that early settlement of money to the depositors will solve the problems quickly. The depositors and the debtor Company have agreed for disbursement of 75% of the deposits as full and final settlement. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Writ Petitioners in W.P.No.18683 of 2020 and W.P.No.18681 of 2020 has agreed for the idea of bringing the proverbial eighteenth camel in Mediation process to arrive at workable settlement. The depositors and the debtor Company have agreed for disbursement of 75% of the deposits as full and final settlement. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Writ Petitioners in W.P.No.18683 of 2020 and W.P.No.18681 of 2020 has agreed for the idea of bringing the proverbial eighteenth camel in Mediation process to arrive at workable settlement. He is agreeable for the proposal to settle the deposits from the money readily available and in lieu of the same, the said Natarajan or his nominee can purchase the property sought to be auctioned, for a sum of Rs.36 Crores, if encumbrance free title is conveyed. As discussed above, Government has submitted before the Hon'ble Supreme Court to give their right over the same provided the outstanding is cleared. According to the Public Prosecutor, the money due to Agricultural Department is around Rs.35,00,000/-. Likewise there may certain dues may be there to the Excise Department. Therefore, there is no hindrance in conveying an encumbrance free title to the said Natarajan or his nominee'' 4. The Learned Single Judge issued directions in view of the consensus arrived at between the parties. The first direction is as follows: ''20.In view of the above consensus arrived at by the parties, all the above Writ Petitions are ordered with the following directions:-'' (a) The Members of the petitioner in W.P.No.4722 of 2016 are entitled to the relief as prayed for and the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.11857 of 2013 dated 20.06.2014 and the terms and conditions of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 15.04.2013 shall be given effect to. Except for the slight modification, the above order shall continue to be in force'' Besides the above direction, the Learned Single Judge issued directions relating to appointment of a retired Judge of this Court as an Administrator and the manner in which the payments were to be made to the Depositors. 5. Aggrieved by this common order of the Learned Single Judge, the Pondicherry Depositors filed W.A.Nos. 842 of 2022, 844 of 2022 and 847 of. 6. Mr.V.Prakash, Learned Senior Counsel for the Pondicherry Depositors submitted that the Learned Single Judge erroneously proceeded on the basis that the parties arrived at a consensus and that the Pondicherry Depositors did not agree to receive 75% of the deposit in full and final settlement. 842 of 2022, 844 of 2022 and 847 of. 6. Mr.V.Prakash, Learned Senior Counsel for the Pondicherry Depositors submitted that the Learned Single Judge erroneously proceeded on the basis that the parties arrived at a consensus and that the Pondicherry Depositors did not agree to receive 75% of the deposit in full and final settlement. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the consent is no consent in the eye of law as the Learned Single Judge had obtained consent only from few of the Depositors, out of more than 3600 Depositors and that there was no resolution of the Association agreeing to receive a lesser amount. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that even assuming that the consent is held to be valid, the consent in as much as it agrees to receive a lesser amount is contrary to the statute as under Section 4 (2) of the Pondicherry Act, the entire deposit has to be returned to the Depositors and that it was violative of the mandatory provisions found in Chapter III-B more particularly Section 45QA of the Reserve Bank of India Act. The Learned Senior Counsel in support of his contention, relied upon a Judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Integrated Finance Company Limited vs. Reserve Bank of India and others reported in (2015) 13 SCC 772 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that it cannot be an agreement contrary to the statute and that the Reserve Bank of India Act prohibits settlement of deposits lesser than what was collected even if, the despositors had agreed for the same.Further, it is his case that the MOU dated 15.04.2013 is no longer valid in law and that the Pondicherry Depositors are not bound by the MOU since the payments were not paid as per the time limit fixed in either the MOU or in the order of this Court made in W.P. No. 11857 of 2013. The Learned Senior Counsel submitted that though the prayer in W.P. No. 4722 of 2019 was for implementation of MOU and the directions of this Court in W.P. No. 11857 of 2013, the appellant, through its present President one T.Dayal sent a letter to the Registry of this Court on 25.02.2021 stating that the relief sought for in W.P. No. 4722 of 2016 was not pressed, enclosing a letter written by him to Mr.Balavijayan, (their lawyer) dated 24.02.2021 requesting him not to press the Writ Petition. The Learned Senior Counsel also referred to some portions of the order of the Learned Single Judge relating to the alleged involvment of S.Natarajan in the diversion of funds as contrary to observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in an SLP challenging the order of this Court quashing the Final Report against him. The Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the concession made by a lawyer without authorisation is not binding on the parties. The Learned Senior Counsel also relied upon the following citations to buttress his submissions: (2015) 7 SCC 373 - Himalayan Cooperative Group Housing Society v. Balwan Singh, (2019) 10 SCC 674 – Director of Elementary Education, Odisha v. Pramod Kumar Sahoo and (2020) 13 SCC 188 - Om Prakash v. Suresh Kumar 7. The Union Territory of Puducherry filed W.A.Nos. 1376, 1377 & 1388 of 2022 challenging the common order. 8. Mr.V.Balamurugane, learned Government Pleader for Puducherry would submit that though he is not aggrieved by the final directions issued by the learned Single Judge, he is aggrieved by following observations of the Learned Single Judge, which is extracted as follows: ''(i) on payment of the above said amount, all claims between Government of pondicherry and M/s.New Horizon Sugar Mills Limited, will stand settled and the Suit in O.S.No. 135 of 2016 on the file of the Principal District Court, Pondicherry, will stand disposed of as settled out of Court.'' The learned Government Pleader would submit that he did not make any statement to the effect that on receipt of Rs.34 lakhs, the Government of Puducherry would give up all claims against M/s.New Horizon Sugar Mills Limited. 9. Mr.K.G.Raghavan, Learned Senior Counsel for the fifth respondent in W.A. No. 847 of 2022 (S.Natarajan, the petitioner in W.P. No. 18693 of 2019) made the following submissions: (a) It cannot be said that the MOU is no longer valid. 9. Mr.K.G.Raghavan, Learned Senior Counsel for the fifth respondent in W.A. No. 847 of 2022 (S.Natarajan, the petitioner in W.P. No. 18693 of 2019) made the following submissions: (a) It cannot be said that the MOU is no longer valid. This Court, by an order dated 23.06.2014 in W.P. No. 11857 of 2013, was pleased to record that MOU shall form part and parcel of the order. The order of this Court in the said Writ Petition has become final. (b) The prayer of the Pondicherry Depositors in W.P. No. 4722 of 2016 was for a mandamus directing implementation of the MOU and the order of this Court in W.P. No. 11857 of 2013. The Learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition as prayed for and it cannot be said that it is just a consent order. (c)The observations of the Learned Single Judge that consensus was arrived at cannot be disputed as the record of the Court is final. The learned Senior Counsel in support of his submission has relied upon a judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak and anr., reported in (1982) 2 SCC 463 (d)The Pondicherry Depositors filed a review against the observations relating to consent order and the Learned Single Judge dismissed their Review Petitions by a reasoned order. In fact, in the said order the Learned Single Judge has dealt with the two letters said to have been written by the President of the Pondicherry Depositors. The Learned Single Judge found that there were inconsistencies and discrepancies in the letter pad of the Association in as much as the office bearers of the Association shown in the letter dated 24.02.2021 and in the letter dated 25.02.2021 were different and therefore, the letters cannot be said to be issued by the Association representing the Depositors and some disgruntled individuals for extraneous reasons have sent the letters. (e)The statute, namely, the Pondicherry Act does not prohibit receipt of lesser value in full and final settlement of the Depositors’ claims, the MOU cannot be said to be contrary to the statute. (f) The observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the quash petition were based on the allegations in the Final Report and the observations of the Learned Single Judge cannot be said to be contrary to the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court. 10. Mr. (f) The observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the quash petition were based on the allegations in the Final Report and the observations of the Learned Single Judge cannot be said to be contrary to the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court. 10. Mr. A.R.L Sundaresan, Learned Senior Counsel for respondents 5 to 10 in W.A. No. 842 of 2022 (petitioners in W.P. No. 18681 of 2020 Rajalakshmi and others) reiterated the submissions of the Learned Senior Counsel for the fifth respondent in W.A.No.847of 2022. 11. Mr.S.Ravi, Learned Counsel for the Nidhi and its promoters (R4 in W.A. No. 842 of 2022, R3 to R5 in W.A. No. 844 of 2022 and R8 in W.A. No. 847 of 2022), submitted that the Nidhi could not make any payments directly as per the MOU since all the properties were attached and also expressed the difficulties faced in settling the parties, since some of them had jewel loans and that had to be adjusted/recovered from them. The learned counsel would also submit that Pondicherry Government filed a suit in O.S.No.135 of 2016 on the file of the Principal District Court, Pondicherry against M/s.New Horizon Sugar Mills Limited, wherein the Promoters of the Company held 99% shares. The learned counsel would further submit that in view of the pendency of the suit no one was willing to purchase the property measuring an extent of 42 acres, sale proceeds of which would have been sufficient to satisfy the claims of the Depositors. The learned counsel also reiterated that the MOU is still valid and a few Depositors changed their mind on coming to know that Rs.100 crores have been attached by the Union Territory of Puducherry. The majority of the Depositors are not in favour of prolonging the litigation and are agreeable for a settlement as per the MOU. Because, of a handful of Depositors, the Association is put to untold hardship. The learned counsel would also submit that the Government of Union Territory of Puducherry was agreeable to the proposal suggested by the learned Single Judge and that they did not intend to file an appeal. The learned counsel produced the note file received under Right to Information Act from the Government of Puducherry which supports his contention. In fact, the Hon'ble Chief Minister has made a note directing the officers to implement the decision of this Court in the Writ Petitions. The learned counsel produced the note file received under Right to Information Act from the Government of Puducherry which supports his contention. In fact, the Hon'ble Chief Minister has made a note directing the officers to implement the decision of this Court in the Writ Petitions. The learned counsel would submit that the Writ Appeals were actually filed at the instance of the Competent Authority contrary to the directions of the officers of Union Territory of Pondicherry made in the note file. 12. After giving our anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsels and to the records of the case, we find that the only issue to be decided in these Writ Appeals is whether the order of the learned Single Judge was based on the concession and if it was valid in the eye of law. 13. We will first deal with the Writ Appeals filed by the Union Territory of Puducherry. Admittedly, the Union Territory of Puducherry is not aggreived by the directions issued by the learned Single Judge. Their only grievance is that the learned Single Judge made observations that they agreed to give up their claim as against M/s.New Horizon Sugar Mills Limited, on receipt of Rs.34 lakhs. It is their case that no such concession was made by them. Such a grievance cannot be entertained in these appeals. It is trite that the observations of the learned Judge is the final word with regard to what transpired between the Court and the learned counsel, who appeared at the time of hearing the matter and no party can question the correctness of the statement made by the Court. If a party feels that the happenings were wrongly recorded, it is for him to seek the attention of the learned Judge, make a representation and correct the record. In fact, in this case, the Pondicherry Government filed Review Application Nos. 86, 87, 88 of 2021 seeking to remove the word "consent" from the judgment. The learned Single Judge dismissed the said Review Applications by a common order dated 06.09.2021 along with the Review Applications filed by the Pondicherry Association. In fact, in this case, the Pondicherry Government filed Review Application Nos. 86, 87, 88 of 2021 seeking to remove the word "consent" from the judgment. The learned Single Judge dismissed the said Review Applications by a common order dated 06.09.2021 along with the Review Applications filed by the Pondicherry Association. In this regard, we refer to the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak and anr., reported in (1982) 2 SCC 463 ''4.....................We are bound to accept the statement of the Judges recorded in their Judgement as to what transpired in Court. We cannot allow the statement of the Judges to be contradicted by statements at the Bar or by affidavit and other evidence. If the Judges say in their Judgement that something was done, said or admitted before them, that has to be the last word on the Subject. The principle is wellsettled that statements of fact as to what transpired at the hearing, recorded in the Judgement of the Court, are conclusive of the facts so stated and no one can contradict such statements by affidavit or other evidence. If a party thinks that the happenings in Court have been wrongly recorded in a judgement, it is incumbent upon the party, while the matter is still fresh in the minds of the judges, to call the attention of the very judges who have made the record to the fact that the statement made with regard to his conduct was statement that had been made in error. That is the only way to have the record corrected. If no such step is taken, the matter must necessarily end there. Of course a party may resile and appellate court may permit him in rare and appropriate cases to resile from a concession on the ground that the concession was made on a wrong appreciation of the law and had led to gross injustice; but he may not call in question the very fact of making the concession as recorded in the Judgement. 8.So the Judges' record is conclusive. 8.So the Judges' record is conclusive. Neither lawyer nor litigant may claim to contradict it, except before the judge himself, but nowhere else'' Since the only ground raised by the Union Territory of Puducherry is with regard to the observations made by the learned Single Judge relating to their consent, cannot be accepted, W.A.Nos.1376, 1377 and 1380 of 2022 have to be dismissed as devoid of merits. We also find that the Government of Puducherry did not intend to file any appeal, against the order of the Learned Single Judge as seen from the file obtained through RTI. Since, the Writ Appeals, have been instituted at the instance of the Competent Authority, the Writ Appeals deserve to be rejected on this ground also. 14. As regards the Writ Appeals filed by the Pondicherry Depositors, the submissions of the learned Senior counsel to the effect that there was no concession made, has to be rejected, as it is contrary to what was recorded by the learned Single Judge. In fact, the Pondicherry Depositors, as stated earlier, had filed Review Application Nos. 144, 145 & 146 of 2021 before the learned Single Judge and the learned Judge had rejected the Review Petitions on the ground that the appellants have not made any ground for review and reiterated the fact that the Depositors agreed and expressed their intention to settle the dispute in terms of the MOU and enforce the order passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.11857 of 2013 dated 20.06.2014. The Writ Appeals in W.A.Nos.3011, 3012 & 3015 of 2021 filed by the Pondicherry Depositors challenging the orders passed in the Review Applications were dismissed by this Court on 14.06.2022 as not maintainable. Thus, we cannot hold that there was no concession on the part of the appellants before the learned Single Judge to receive 75% of the deposits of amount. 15. The next argument of the learned Senior Counsel is that the consent was obtained in a irregular manner and hence, it has to be treated as an invalid consent in the eye of law. It is seen that the learned Single Judge has specifically questioned the President of the Appellant Association and he had stated that the members are agreeable for early settlement of their monies in terms of the MOU dated 15.04.2013. It is seen that the learned Single Judge has specifically questioned the President of the Appellant Association and he had stated that the members are agreeable for early settlement of their monies in terms of the MOU dated 15.04.2013. This fact has been recorded by the learned Single Judge in para 7 of his order, which reads as follows: ‘’The president of Depositors Association and some of the depositors identified by the counsel also express the same sentiment of settlement of their monies at the earliest as per the Memorandum of Understanding dated 15.04.2013. It is also submitted before this Court, the will of the majority is only for implementation of the order of this Court dated 20.06.2014.’’ Therefore, it cannot be stated that the consent was recorded irregularly by the learned Single Judge. The President represents the Association consisting of 3650 depositors and he had categorically given consent for the settlement of dues as per the MOU. That apart, the learned Single Judge in para 23 of his order also found that the issue as to whether the settlement can be made was put to vote and the majority voted against prolonging litigation and preferred an early settlement. The relevant observation are extracted here under: ''When it was put to vote by the petitioner Association, majority voted against prolonging the litigation and preferred settlement. The depositor who appeared on line also affirmed the same view.'' For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the consent was validly obtained and it was not a consent by only the counsel and we reject all the submissions to the contrary. 16. Further argument of the learned senior counsel is that assuming that the concession is valid, it has to be ignored, since it runs contrary to the statute. The learned counsel relied upon Section 4(2) of the Pondicherry Act to submit that the deposits have to be returned in full. In support of his contention the learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Integrated Finance Company Limited vs. Reserve Bank of India and others reported in (2015) 13 SCC 772 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that Section 45QA of the RBI Act was mandatory and there cannot be a scheme which is contrary to the said provision. We may note that the Pondicherry Act does not prohibit any settlement by payment of amount lesser than the deposit collected. As regards the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Integrated Finance (stated supra), we are of the view that the observations were made in the context of a scheme introduced under Section 391 of the Companies Act which lacked bonafides. The observations, in our view, cannot be meant to say that any settlement for a lesser sum, which is bonafide and made in the interest of the depositors, is ruled out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Further, Section 45QA deals with the power of the Company Law Board. In fact Section 45QA(2) confers powers on the Company Law Board to make repayment in 'part' as well if it is necessary to do so in the interests of the Company, depositors or the public. In the instant case, we find that the MOU was itself entered nearly 9 years after the default in payments, since the assets of the Nidhi and its Directors could not be liquidated to satisfy the entire claim of the Depositors. That apart, as stated earlier, the MOU has now become part and parcel of an order of this Court in W.P. No. 11847 of 2013 dated 20.06.2014. The said order of this Court has not been challenged and it has become final. Above all, the prayer in W.P. No. 4722 of 2016 of the Pondicherry Depositors is for implementation of the terms of MOU and the directions of this Court made in W.P. No. 11847 of 2013. Also in the given facts and circumstances, we find that if a consensus order is not passed as rightly held by the Learned Single Judge, the depositors would be entangled in further litigations which are not likely to end in the near future. For the aforesaid reasons, we find that the consensus was arrived at by the parties and it is valid in the eye of law. 17. We also find that the Learned Single Judge has allowed the prayer in W.P. No. 4722 of 2016 and the Pondicherry Depositors cannot be aggrieved over the same. For the aforesaid reasons, we find that the consensus was arrived at by the parties and it is valid in the eye of law. 17. We also find that the Learned Single Judge has allowed the prayer in W.P. No. 4722 of 2016 and the Pondicherry Depositors cannot be aggrieved over the same. As rightly observed by the Learned Single Judge in the Review Applications, the letters said to have been given by the President of the Pondicherry Depositors relating to not pressing the prayer in the said Writ Petition, do not reflect the sentiments of the majority of the depositors. It is a mischievous attempt by a few disgruntled persons to thwart the entire settlement process. The letter pads in the two letters which contains discrepancies and difference in the office bearers of the Association, further confirms that these letters are not genuine. 18. We also find that, before the Learned Single Judge a petition to implead was filed by a few depositors in W.M.P. No.2157 of 2021 in W.P. No. 1863 of 2020 praying that since Rs. 100 Crores was now available, the entire sum must be paid to the depositors with interest. The Learned Single Judge has observed that when it was pointed out to them that the process of settling the depositors from Rs.100 Crores would involve prolonged litigation, the impleading petitioners have also agreed for settlement in terms of the MOU. 19. Thus, we hold that there are no merits in the above Writ Appeals. We are of the view that the directions of the Learned Single Judge have to be complied with. 20. In the result, the Writ Appeals are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.