IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14722 of 2008 M/S LAXMAN WIRE INDUSTRIES LTD, a company registered under Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Digha, P.O.-and P.S. Digha, District-Patna through its one of the Director Kamal Kumar Jain, son of late-Manohar Lal Jain, resident of Digha, Loha Godam, P.O. and P.S.-Digha, District-Patna. ……..Petitioner Versus 1. Central Bank Of India, a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies Acquisition and transfer of undertaking Act, 1970 having its Head Office at Chandra Mukhi Nariman Point, Mumbai and branches at other places through its Chief Manager, Main Branch, Dak Bunglow Road, Police Station-Kotwali, District-Patna 2. Recovery Officer-II, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Patna 369, East Boring Canal Road, Patna. ………Respondents. ----------- 06. 16.11.2009 The writ in question has been filed to quash the order, the notice dated 25.07.2008 as well as consequential order dated 26.08.2008 by virtue of which a proclamation for sale has been settled by the Recovery Officer of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Patna, details of which are reflected in Annexure-1 and 1/1. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order in question passed is beyond jurisdiction. It is in violation of well settled principle of law that when a matter has already come to be settled by a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction(details of which will be taken note of in the subsequent part of the order), no subsequent proceeding under the debt recovery Act can be initiated and taken against the petitioner. The short facts are that the petitioner is a joint stock company established in the year 1971 and is registered under the Companies Act 1956. Certain loan from the 2 Central Bank of India came to be taken in the year 1973 which was for a sum of Rs. 20 lacs. Hypothitication of stocks and materials was made with the Central Bank of India. Subsequently there was default in failure of loan amount and various proceedings including title suit came to be filed by the bank and Company. In the case filed by Company one of the prayers was to return the pledged stock and iron materials. The matter traveled to High Court in a civil revision. The High Court was of the considered opinion that the two parties should sort out their issues by approaching the Lok Adalat in this regard. The order in question passed by the High Court in the civil revision has been brought on record by the petitioner himself as would be evident from perusal of page 55 of the writ application. The matter was referred to the Lok Adalat by civil Court as there are reflections of this in various orders and annexures which has been brought on record by the parties. Before the final settlement between the parties some terms and conditions came to be laid down. The terms and conditions were, down payment of Rs. 5 lacs immediately on acceptance of compromise offer, 15 lacs was to be paid within 60 days from the date of consent decree and the balance of Rs. 6 lacs was to be paid within 6 months from the date of consent decree without interest thereon. Annexure-A certifies the above position filed with the counter affidavit. 3 Petitioner’s stand is that 5 lacs down payment was made and the other amount has been paid from time to time though not within the time frame. But one thing is clear that the issue did not get settled or resolved because final accounting and the payment never got to be made. Matter has dragged on from the nineties till Bank decided to move Debt Recovery Tribunal for recovery of due amount. Learned counsel representing Respondent Central Bank of India has filed a counter affidavit in which he has taken a stand that some of the basic facts which has been pleaded or urged by the petitioner are not in dispute. His primary submission is that the proceedings which came to be referred to the Lok Adalat and the compromise or the agreement reached between the parties had a meaning provided it was acted upon in letter and spirit. The compromise or the consent decree was based on give and take by both the sides. Even at the relevant time the Respondent Bank had made concessions in favour of the petitioner to settle the dispute on one agreed amount of Rs. 26 lacs, to bring all litigations between the parties to rest and not to prolong recovery of amount beyond a reasonable time frame. If the magnanimity shown by the Respondent bank was not reciprocated by the petitioner then Bank has been left with no option but to take steps for recovery of the amount by due 4 process of law which has been brought into play by a legislation of the Central Government. There seems to be some force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the Bank that the compromise decree was never put into effect and the payments never came to be made by the petitioner. In other words, the decree was a dead letter word and the compromise had failed by the conduct of the petitioner. If there are dues against the account and are reflected on the record or the ledger of the Bank, then as per the law in existence, Bank has a right to recover its loan amount under the Debt Recovery Laws. The Bank has a right to approach the Tribunal created in this regard. In absence of any final or conclusive evidence brought on record by the petitioner with regard to the payment of the agreed amount between the parties, the Court has no hesitation in recording that even though the matter traveled to the Lok Adalat and the compromise was worked out, it was never given effect to by the petitioner by his own conduct and if the outstanding dues was not settled the proceeding before the Tribunal can not be interfered with. The writ petition has no merit. It stands dismissed. Shageer (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)