J.C.Varma, J. - (1.) These two writ petitions have been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India against the common order dated 15.12.1998, arising out of the applications filed under Order 23 Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal on the applications filed by the petitioner in the suits pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. It was stated therein, that two suits were filed before the High Court at Shimla for recovery of an amount of Rs. 741 19 lacs and Rs. 194.38 lacs respectively.
(2.) The litigation between the parties had even gone up to the Supreme Court as well when the Bank had tried to stop the running of accounts of the petitioner. The Supreme Court had allowed the L.C. and B D. facilities to the petitioner against 100% margin so that the business of the petitioner company may not suffer. It is stated that the petitioner was employing about 500 employees and their very employment had been jeopardized. Vide orders of Hon. Supreme Court the petitioner is depositing Rs 75,000/- p.m. in the bank regularly and the petitioner has deposited about Rs 50/60 lacs in the non-lien account being maintained by the bank The suits filed by the bank in the year 1992 in the aforesaid account had been transferred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal at Jaipur.
(3.) The petitioner submitted in the application that as per circular issued by the RBI dated 28th of October 1992 and 28th of July 1995, purported to have been issued under Section 35A of the Banking Regulations Act, which were binding on the banks, the bank had to exercise the discretion for affecting compromise It was stated that on the representation of the Banking institutions and following the doctrine of legitimate expectation that the Bank in the present case had agreed to get the loan matter settled by way of compromise and in pursuance of the above directions, number of meetings and discussions are said to be held between the officers of bank and the petitioner. It is the allegation that initially an offer of Rs. 277.53 lacs was made in October 1995 to liquidate all the alleged outstand- ings. The bank had asked the petitioner to attend the zonal office at Chandigarh and after discussion, the petitioner was asked to enhance the amount as per the suggestion of the bank to Rs. 367 lacs. It is stated that the petitioner had agreed. The petitioner was again called by the zonal office He was asked to enhance the amount to Rs. 375 lacs The petitioner had agreed to such suggestion as well It is the case of the petitioner that the bank had been forcing the petitioner to get the matter settled by way of enhancement of amount from 375 lacs to 400 lacs. The matter is said to have been sent for approval. The petitioner was again invited by the Executive Director of the Bank and again after discussion, the petitioner was asked to put the proposal of Rs. 412 lacs and for the reason that the petitioner was suffering very heavily, the petitioner again had no option but to agree. The Managing Committee of the bank again forced the petitioner to put the proposal of Rs 430 lacs for final settlement in June 1998 but after number of discussions ultimately it is stated by the petitioner that the bank had offered for a final proposal of Rs. 475 lacs which amount was an agreed amount after holding discussions between the parties and it is stated that the petitioner was asked to agree to Rs 475 lacs, to settle the dispute in to which proposal the petitioner had agreed;