1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL NO.466 OF 2010. Devisingh Kanayasingh Chauhan ... Appellant. Versus The Maharashtra State Financial Corporation, Ltd., ... Respondent. ... Mr.A.H.Kasliwal, advocate holding for Mr.A.D.Kasliwal, advocate for the Appellant. Mr.S.R.Deshpande, advocate for the Respondent. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 04.10.2010. PER COURT 1. This is plaintiff's Second Appeal. The plaintiff had filed a suit seeking the relief of injunction and declaration on the ground that the 2 plaintiff had submitted One Time Settlement proposal (OTS) with the Respondent Bank. The Respondent bank had accepted the said proposal and it has no authority to unilaterally rescind the same. The trial Court dismissed the suit. The plaintiff preferred an appeal. The appellate Court confirmed the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. The plaintiff has assailed the said judgment before this Court. 2. Mr.A.H.Kasliwal, learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that after having accepted the One Time Settlement proposal, the Respondent could not have unilaterally revoked the same. He further submitted that as the Respondent has accepted an amount of Rs. 54,000/- (Rupees fifty four thousand), the same amounts to acceptance of proposal and it amounts to a concluded contract between the parties. According to him, acceptance of consideration amount along with the proposal amounts to acceptance giving rise to a promise as laid down U/s 8 of the Contract Act. He further submitted that the Courts have failed to consider this 3 aspect. 3. Per contra, Mr.S.R.Deshpande, learned counsel for the Respondent submits that there is nothing on record to substantiate the fact that the proposal given by the plaintiff was accepted by the defendant. Any amount submitted by the plaintiff along with One Time Settlement proposal is kept in suspense account and the same is not credited unless and until either the proposal is accepted or rejected. In the present case, the proposal submitted by the plaintiff for One Time Settlement (OTS) was never accepted and as such promise did not come into existence and there was no executed contract between the parties. When there is no concluded contract between the parties, no rights and liabilities arise. 4. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the respective parties, I have gone through the judgments delivered by both the Courts and also through the depositions of the plaintiff. No doubt, if it is a case of an acceptance of consideration amount, then the same 4 would come within the ambit and purview of Section 8 of the Contract Act but in the present case, the plaintiff himself has stated that he had deposited the processing charges and the required amount and that they were kept in suspense account. Even the plaintiff in his deposition in para 34 has stated that he is not aware about the terms and conditions of One Time Settlement (OTS). He never inquired with the defendant about the terms and conditions. He further stated that the Branch Manager of the Zonal Office told him that his matter was pending with the Head Office for decision and till this date his proposal for One Time Settlement (OTS) is not finalised and is waiting for decision. In view of such categorical statement on the part of the plaintiff who himself in no uncertain words has stated that the defendant informed him that his proposal is pending decision with the Head Office and the proposal of One Time Settlement (OTS) is not finalised, in such circumstances, no question arises of acceptance of the said proposal by Respondent. Promise would come into existence only if the proposal is accepted in 5 toto. Even as per the case of the plaintiff, the said proposal was pending decision and consideration with the defendant's higher office and the defendant thereafter communicated the decision that the proposal is not accepted vide Exh.64. 5. In light of these circumstances that the proposal was never accepted, it can not be said that there was concluded contract between the parties regarding the acceptance of the One Time Settlement (OTS) given by the plaintiff. 6. In view of the same no error can be found in the judgments of the Courts below. The Second Appeal being sans any substantial question of law is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/sa466.10 6