- (1.) MR . Anil Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that a compromise proposal was entered into between the parties on 25.1.2011 (Annexure -2) and accordingly the petitioner handed over seven undated cheques aggregating to Rs. 1.25 crores in terms thereof. It was not known when they would be presented before the Bank. Then a letter dated 22.2.2011 (Annexure -3) was issued alleging that since the petitioner has not followed the terms of compromise, the same stood rejected, without disclosing how the petitioner did not follow the terms. Even then the Bank presented one of the cheques of Rs.20,00,000/ - on 26.2.2011 without any intimation to the petitioner and therefore it was dishonoured, and in view of the said letter dated 22.2.2011, petitioner was justified in stopping payment of other cheques. However, he submitted that the petitioner is ready to honour the compromise and compensate the Bank, as may be directed by this Court.
(2.) ON the other hand, Mr. R.R. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the Bank submitted that it is true that in the letter dated 22.2.2011 it was not disclosed as to how the petitioner violated the compromise proposal, but in the counter affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner went on requesting the Bank not to present the cheques, and, therefore, they were not presented. There appears to be some vagueness in the compromise proposal. The Bank has not brought on record anything in support of its contention that the petitioner went on requesting the Bank not to present the cheques. In any event, the Bank acceded to such request. Further the Bank presented the said cheque after cancellation of the compromise.
(3.) IN the facts and circumstances, I am inclined to give one chance to the petitioner to honour the compromise by compensating the Bank.;