HCL Infosystems Ltd. vs Bank Of Baroda And Ors.

Ranjit Singh, J

An application is now filed to indicate that respondent No. 2 - ANZ Grindlays Bank had already been struck off from the array of the parties before the Tribunal below. In view of this, prayer made in the application is allowed. Name of respondent No. 2 - ANZ Grindlays Bank is struck off from the array of the parties in this appeal. The application (I.A. No. 195/2015) is accordingly disposed of. The appeal is otherwise ripe for arguments and is accordingly taken up for hearing.

M/s. HCL infosystem Ltd. has filed this appeal to impugn the order passed by the Tribunal below dismissing the application filed by the appellant to seek review of the order earlier passed by the Tribunal on 23.4.2014. This order dated 23.4.2014 was passed in M.A. No. 14/2008, vide which the Tribunal below had directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 4.45 lac along with 10% simple interest within 30 days, failing which decree was to be passed against the defendants.

The appellant prayed for reviewing this order on the ground that this sum of Rs. 4.45 lac was not due or payable in view of full and final settlement reached between the appellant and respondent Bank of Baroda and, accordingly, the order needed to be reviewed. In fact, the appellant has impugned this order dated 23.4.2014 as well in the present appeal.

In the order dated 23.4.2014, the Tribunal has noticed that this O.A. is pending since 1997 and that the parties had entered/compromise on 14.2.2000 for a sum of Rs. 262.06 lac out of which an amount of Rs. 258.00 had been received by the respondent Bank and only Rs. 4.45 lac along with 18% interest was outstanding.

The Counsel for the appellant had prayed for adjournment on the ground that the arguing Counsel was not available. The Tribunal below, however, had gone ahead to decide the M.A. by directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 4.45 lac along with 10% simple interest within 30 days, failing which decree would be passed against the defendants.

I have perused the record and have heard the Counsel. The Counsel for the appellant has drawn my attention to the documents on record, which would show that a settlement had been reached between the parties. Through a letter dated 21.2.2000 the respondent Bank of Baroda had written to the General Manager (Finance) of the appellant in regard for settlement of the dues. The Bank had clearly written in this letter that the Bank was agreeable to accept a sum of Rs. 2.50 crore from the appellant towards full and final settlement of various credit facilities made available to the appellant. The Bank had also expressed its willingness to withdraw the suits filed against the company before DRT.

The Counsel would then refer to letter of the Bank dated 31.3.2000 addressed to Director (Finance) of the appellant company confirming receipt of the amount of Rs. 2.50 crore towards full and final settlement in regard to the advance granted to the appellant as per the compromise approved by the Bank. The Bank had further written that this letter may be treated as No Dues Certificate. The Counsel for the appellant would accordingly plead that this communication would show that the appellant had discharged the full liability as per the settlement and thus nothing would be due which could be claimed by the Bank from the appellant.

I find substance in the submission made by the Counsel for the appellant. While passing the impugned the order, the Tribunal below has not discussed or considered these two documents. Either these documents were not brought to the notice of the Tribunal or it has simply been ignored, may be because of non-presence of the arguing Counsel. On the face of settlement and No Dues Certificate having been issued, the Bank was not in any legal position to claim any further amount which could be said to be due.

The Counsel for the Bank has attempted to justify the impugned order on the ground that no-objection certificate was given subject to realization of an amount of Rs. 9 lac which was to be received from ANZ Grindlays Bank. It is stated that ultimately only a sum of Rs. 4.50 lac was received from the said Bank and thus a sum of Rs. 4.45 lac still remained due. If any amount was still due to be received by the Bank from the ANZ Grindlays Bank, then the respondent Bank was expected not to issue No Dues Certificate. Once the Bank has given No Dues Certificate confirming the receipt of settlement amount of Rs. 2.50 crore, which statedly was paid by the appellant, the Bank was not justified in raking up any further claim. The stand of the Bank cannot be accepted in law and accordingly is deserved to be rejected. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed and the impugned order passed by the Tribunal below directing the appellant to deposit another sum of Rs. 4.45 lac along with 10% interest is set aside. It is held that the appellant is not liable to make any further payment to the respondent Bank. The account of the appellant shall be taken as settled.