Settlement – One Time Settlement (OTS) – Respondent defaulted in repaying the loan taken from appellant-Corporation – In terms of OTS policy, matter was referred to Chartered Accountant to determine the remaining outstanding balance amount payable by the respondent to the appellant-Corporation – Dispute arose even after the settlement as to the liability determined and worked out by the Chartered Accountant – Demand of Rs.49 lacs raised on the respondent – Respondent filed writ petition before the High Court, which was allowed on the ground that since the whole issue was settled with consent and no objection was raised by the appellant at any point of time, the issue cannot be allowed to be re-opened – On appeal, held: The parties only agreed to settle the dispute in terms of OTS policy of the appellant-Corporation and, therefore, one Chartered Accountant was appointed by the Court to go into the question and submit his report – The dispute which arose out of the terms of the settlement was new dispute and it had to be settled on its own merits in accordance with law – It was necessary for the High Court to record a categorical finding on the issue as to how and on what basis the respondent had complied with the terms of settlement and had thus discharged its entire liability – It was not done – Matter remitted to High Court for consideration afresh – Bank/Banking.
Allowing the appeals and remitting the matter to High Court, the Court
HELD: If there was some dispute or ambiguity or clarification needed in the report of the Chartered Accountant with a view to decide the actual liability of the respondent and how much amount was paid by the respondent to the appellant against the said settlement; and the manner in which the liability was worked out because the Corporation was saying one thing and the respondent was saying other, then the issue could still be referred to any other Chartered Accountant of repute. It is for this reason that this was a new dispute, which had arisen out of the terms of the settlement, and it had to be settled on its own merits in accordance with law. The issue, which was raised by the appellant by raising a demand, was, therefore, required to be examined on its merits before quashing the huge demand which was raised by the appellant against the respondent. [Paras 1618][86-E-G]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.