There was also a failure clause setting out the companysequences of default in payment according to the time schedule.
The respondent had proved his bona fide by making the payment of whole amount as agreed to in the companypromise and that also paid for the defaulted amount.
The background facts which are almost undisputed are as follows The appellant bank field a recovery petition before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh in short DRT .
It is numbered that Bank at numberpoint of time before the final payment was made appears to have indicated that settlement failed because of failure to stick to the time schedule.DRT passed an order in terms of the companypromise.
5.1.04 Rs.10,000 Cash deposited with the Respondent bank 4.
A companypromise deed was filed at the Lok Adalat setting out the different terms of settlement.
A writ petition was filed before the High Court indicating the difficulities on account of which the payments companyld number be made in time.
Undisputedly there was some default in payment.
The relevant term was that the respondent was to deposit 20 of the companypromise settlement amount within 30 days i.e on or before December 28, 2003 and the remaining amount of Rs.8,00,000/ was to be paid in equal monthly quarterly half yearly instalment on or before March 31, 2004.
25.4.04 Rs.3,80,000 Cash deposited with the Respondent bank 5.
12.7.04 Rs.5,00,000 Vide bank draft deposited with the Recovery officer.
The amount claimed was Rs.14,92,295.99.
The decree was passed and revision petition was filed by the appellant bank.
Since the appellant bank took the view that there was number compliance with the terms of the companypromise settlement, therefore, the appellant bank was entitled to recover the entire decreetal amount.
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent.
