Regular Second Appeal No. 4189 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 4189 of 2011 Date of Decision: 20.10.2011 *** M/s Dev Rachit Colour Lab .. Appellant VS. Haryana Financial Corporation .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. Both the Courts below have non-suited the plaintiff-appellant with respect to its prayer to direct the respondent-Corporation to consider its case under one time settlement policy known as Compromise Settlement of Chronic Non-Performing Assets and to settle its loan account to the tune of Rs.16,13,155/- as per offer letter dated 14.8.2003. The factual aspect of the matter to the extent of taking loan by the appellant from the respondent Corporation and non-payment thereof is not in dispute. The case of the respondent Corporation is that the plaintiff availed the loan amount of Rs.11,22,600/- but did not repay the same and a sum of Rs.97.03 lacs was outstanding towards it. The stand taken by the plaintiff in the suit is that under one time settlement scheme the defendant Corporation vide letter dated 14.8.2003 offered it to pay an amount of Rs.16,13,155/- and acting upon the same, some of the outstanding amount was deposited by the plaintiff, but later the defendant resiled from letter dated 14.8.2003 and settled the account for Rs.21,18,204/-. It emerges out from the perusal of impugned judgments that the whole genesis of the claim of the plaintiff hinges upon the letter dated 14.8.2003. Both the Courts below while relying upon the contents thereof came to the conclusion that therein a tentative calculation of the loan account was done, which was subject to final calculations to be done upon Regular Second Appeal No. 4189 of 2011 2 the request of the plaintiff, which consequently was assessed finally at Rs. 21,18,204/-. The said letter has been reproduced in the judgment delivered by the learned appellate Court below and the perusal thereof leaves no manner of doubt that the amount offered therein was tentative. Thus, both the Courts below rightly held that the respondent Corporation cannot be forced to settle the accounts for the amount mentioned in letter dated 14.8.2003, which otherwise was tentative only. There is no room to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below which are neither illegal nor perverse. No substantial question of law arises in the instant regular second appeal. Finding no merits in the instant appeal, the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE October 20,2011 Jiten