{"id":25302,"date":"2009-11-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-11-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-punjab-urban-planning-and-vs-abn-amro-bank-on-11-november-2009"},"modified":"2015-05-30T08:11:45","modified_gmt":"2015-05-30T02:41:45","slug":"the-punjab-urban-planning-and-vs-abn-amro-bank-on-11-november-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-punjab-urban-planning-and-vs-abn-amro-bank-on-11-november-2009","title":{"rendered":"The Punjab Urban Planning And … vs Abn-Amro Bank on 11 November, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
The Punjab Urban Planning And … vs Abn-Amro Bank on 11 November, 2009<\/div>\n
R.S.A.No. 1811 of 2007 (O&M)                                           1\n\n\n\n      In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh\n\n\n                          R.S.A.No. 1811 of 2007 (O&M)\n                          Date of decision: 11.11.2009\n\n\n\nThe Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority\n\n                                                             ......Appellant\n\n                           Versus\n\n\nABN-AMRO Bank\n                                                           .......Respondent\n\n\nCORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA\n\n\nPresent:    Mr. A.K.Chopra, Sr.Advocate with\n            Ms.Shilpa Malhotra, Advocate,\n            for the appellant.\n\n            Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate, with\n            Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate,\n            for the respondent.\n\n                  ****\n\nSABINA, J.\n<\/pre>\n
            Plaintiff    -appellant    filed    a   suit   for   recovery      of<\/p>\n
Rs.65,58,981\/- with future interest @ 17% and for declaration. The<\/p>\n
suit of the plaintiff     was    decreed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.),<\/p>\n
Chandigarh vide judgment and decree dated 3.10.2001. In appeal,<\/p>\n
the said judgment and decree          were     set aside by the Additional<\/p>\n
District Judge, Chandigarh vide judgment and decree dated
\n R.S.A.No. 1811 of 2007 (O&M)                                    2<\/span><\/p>\n
10.1.2007 and the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. Hence, the<\/p>\n
present appeal by the plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n
            Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the lower appellate<\/p>\n
Court in para Nos. 2 to 4 of its judgment, are as under:-<\/p>\n
            “2.         Tersely put, the plaintiff\/respondent filed the<\/p>\n
            suit for recovery of Rs.65,58,981\/- with future interest @<\/p>\n
            18% and for declaration against the appellant on the<\/p>\n
            averments that the Erstwhile Department, the Punjab<\/p>\n
            Housing    Development      Board,   a    Department     of<\/p>\n
            Government of Punjab paid the appellant bank a sum of<\/p>\n
            Rs.10 crores under cover of a letter dated 28.2.1992. It is<\/p>\n
            averred   that   the   agreement\/waiver dated     7.7.1993<\/p>\n
            between the plaintiff and defendant is hit under Section<\/p>\n
            13 to 19-A of the Contract Act and is not binding on the<\/p>\n
            plaintiff. An amount of Rs.10 crores was lying in various<\/p>\n
            banks belonging to the board earning his nominal interest<\/p>\n
            and hence the board in its meeting decided to invest an<\/p>\n
            amount of Rs.10 crores in some government Securities in<\/p>\n
            order to earn more interest and hence the board in its<\/p>\n
            meeting decided to invest an amount of Rs.10 crores in<\/p>\n
            some Government Securities in order to earn more<\/p>\n
            interest. The defendant vide their letter dated 24.2.1992<\/p>\n
            approached the board with lucrative terms.      The bank,<\/p>\n
            vide their letter dated 26.2.1992 confirmed the terms and
\n R.S.A.No. 1811 of 2007 (O&M)                                  3<\/span><\/p>\n
          conditions of the board for      investment of payment as<\/p>\n
          conveyed vide letter dated 25.2.1992, except that the<\/p>\n
          locking period would be 180 days.        Consequently, the<\/p>\n
          plaintiff vide its letter dated 28.2.1992 invested Rs.10<\/p>\n
          crores on the terms and conditions contained in the letter<\/p>\n
          dated 25.2.1992. The said amount was withdrawn from<\/p>\n
          the various banks of the board and passed on to the<\/p>\n
          defendant bank for 180 days only.         Vide letter dated<\/p>\n
          12.3.1992, the defendant informed the plaintiff that they<\/p>\n
          had purchased on behalf of plaintiff 17% NPC bonds at<\/p>\n
          the base rate of Rs.97\/- per bond for an amount of<\/p>\n
          Rs.9,75,58,904.11 paise.        It was also intimated that<\/p>\n
          balance of Rs.24,41,095.89 paise could not be invested<\/p>\n
          and hence he has put into 46 days fixed deposit carrying<\/p>\n
          11% interest.       Plaintiff vide letter dated 9.4.1992<\/p>\n
          demanded return of the amount of Rs.24,41,095.89 paise<\/p>\n
          which had been invested by the defendant against the<\/p>\n
          instructions @ 17% interest. On 8.5.1992, the defendant<\/p>\n
          was remained for return of 17% interest. The defendant<\/p>\n
          was also requested to confirm of purchase of NPC bonds<\/p>\n
          @ 17% and send complete details of the NPC bonds<\/p>\n
          alongwith date of maturity. The defendant vide their letter<\/p>\n
          dated   12.5.1992    returned    the   balance   amount   of<\/p>\n
          Rs.24,76,982.75 paise with interest of 11%. However, an
\n R.S.A.No. 1811 of 2007 (O&M)                                 4<\/span><\/p>\n
          amount of Rs.11,167.50 paise was deducted as tax and<\/p>\n
          Rs.1500\/- was deducted as draft charges which amount<\/p>\n
          to the breach of terms.    It is further averred that the<\/p>\n
          defendant intentionally and fraudulently concealed the<\/p>\n
          rate of interest payable on the bonds. The defendant had<\/p>\n
          never been instructed in any manner by the board to<\/p>\n
          invest in any of the securities carrying less tan 17%<\/p>\n
          return.    The plaintiff had been writing letters to the<\/p>\n
          defendant on various occasions to depict the correct<\/p>\n
          picture, however, the plaintiff received letter dated<\/p>\n
          28.8.1992 from the defendant vide which the defendant<\/p>\n
          for the first time disclosed that IRFC bonds carried 9%<\/p>\n
          interest which as a shock to the plaintiff and the same<\/p>\n
          was protested. The plaintiff had issued registered letter<\/p>\n
          dated     13.11.1992   demanding   photocopies     of   the<\/p>\n
          securities of the bonds so far purchased by the<\/p>\n
          defendant.    Also vide letter dated 25.11.1992 against<\/p>\n
          initiated the defendant and   demanded the       deduction<\/p>\n
          made from the interest as security etc. so keeping in view<\/p>\n
          the conduct of the defendant, the defendant finally on<\/p>\n
          9.2.1993, called back the entire amount along with<\/p>\n
          interest immediately but the defendant did not respond to<\/p>\n
          the letter of the plaintiff dated 9.2.1993. The registered<\/p>\n
          letter dated 10.3.1993 was again sent to the defendant
\n R.S.A.No. 1811 of 2007 (O&M)                                   5<\/span><\/p>\n
          calling back to the entire loan with interest.      Despite<\/p>\n
          various letters, the defendant kept quite and ultimately a<\/p>\n
          registered letter dated 26.4.1993 was again sent and the<\/p>\n
          plaintiff realized from the conduct of the defendant that<\/p>\n
          the entire principle and interest seems to be unsafe and<\/p>\n
          started contacting defendant personally.       The plaintiff<\/p>\n
          apprehended a risk of the entire amount and defendant<\/p>\n
          wanted to make a profit in the compelling circumstances,<\/p>\n
          dictated its terms such as issue of waiver, full and final<\/p>\n
          agreement before release of the entire amount. Under<\/p>\n
          the said circumstances, the plaintiff had to agree to save<\/p>\n
          the investment, though the plaintiff was not willing to forgo<\/p>\n
          him claim and consent of the plaintiff was obtained under<\/p>\n
          coercion, fraud, misrepresentation and under compelling<\/p>\n
          circumstances. Consequently, it is prayed that an amount<\/p>\n
          of Rs.42,31,450\/- was due as principle from the date of<\/p>\n
          payment made by the defendant and Rs.23,27,530\/- were<\/p>\n
          due as interest @ 17% on the balance of the principle<\/p>\n
          amount and further interest @ 17% on the said amount<\/p>\n
          as the defendant was utilizing the said amount for<\/p>\n
          commercial purposes from the date of filing of present<\/p>\n
          suit till the date of realization and prayer for recovery of<\/p>\n
          total amount to the tune of Rs.65,58,980\/- has thus been<\/p>\n
          made.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
 R.S.A.No. 1811 of 2007 (O&M)                                      6<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
          3.            Upon notice, the bank has come forward with<\/p>\n
               the plea that the board had paid the bank a sum of<\/p>\n
               Rs.10 crores in terms of various instalments, sent<\/p>\n
               under cover of a letter dated 28.2.1992 on the<\/p>\n
               conditions as follows:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                        a)            The funds will be kept by the bank<\/p>\n
                        or invested in Government Securities\/Unit<\/p>\n
                        Trust of India and tax free public sector<\/p>\n
                        undertaking bonds;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                        b)            The investment would be for 180<\/p>\n
                        days and the bank would guarantee return of<\/p>\n
                        17% on the investment for that period;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                        c)            If required by the board, the money<\/p>\n
                             could be made available to the board earlier<\/p>\n
                             with whatever return becomes due on<\/p>\n
                             deposits at that time.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          4.            It is also asserted that at the request of the<\/p>\n
          board, the bank with a view to purchase 17% NPC bonds<\/p>\n
          @ Rs.97\/- per bond for the benefit of the board made<\/p>\n
          payment of Rs.9,75,58,904.11 paise by bank which<\/p>\n
          favour Andhra Bank through M\/s Naresh K.Aggarwala<\/p>\n
          and Co., its share brokers and the balance sum of<\/p>\n
          Rs.24,41,095.89 paise in deposit for the board pending its<\/p>\n
          instructions. However, the bank did not receive the 17%
\n R.S.A.No. 1811 of 2007 (O&M)                                  7<\/span><\/p>\n
          NPC bond either from the Andhra Bank or from M\/s<\/p>\n
          Naresh K.Aggarwal & Co. who instead delivered by way<\/p>\n
          of alternative security to the bank 9% tax free IRFC bonds<\/p>\n
          covered by a letter of allotment no.016 and a transfer<\/p>\n
          deed signed by Karur Vyasa Bank Limited, the registered<\/p>\n
          holder of the said IRFC bond.      The IRFC bonds were<\/p>\n
          presented by the bank to the IRFC for registration in the<\/p>\n
          name of the bank for the benefit of the board but before<\/p>\n
          the IRFC bonds could be registered in the name of the<\/p>\n
          bank mentioned above, the Standard Chartered Bank<\/p>\n
          also lodged a claim on these bonds on the ground that<\/p>\n
          they had been purchased by it from Karur Vyasa Bank<\/p>\n
          Limited against an existing transaction. Thereafter, the<\/p>\n
          Standard Chartered Bank instituted a suit in the Bombay<\/p>\n
          High Court inter alia against the bank and IRFC for an<\/p>\n
          injunction restraining the registration or transfer of the<\/p>\n
          IRFC bonds to the bank. The appellant bank has also<\/p>\n
          instituted rectification proceedings against IRFC before<\/p>\n
          the Company Law Bord for the registration of the IRFC<\/p>\n
          bond.     The bank had also instituted other legal<\/p>\n
          proceedings against the Andhra Bank for refund of the<\/p>\n
          money paid to it, interest and other reliefs. At the request<\/p>\n
          of the Board on or about 12.5.1992, appellant bank<\/p>\n
          returned to the Punjab Housing Development Board
\n R.S.A.No. 1811 of 2007 (O&M)                                     8<\/span><\/p>\n
          (respondent predecessor in interest) a sum of Rs.24,76,982.75<\/p>\n
          paise inclusive of interest after requisite deductions.     It is<\/p>\n
          further asserted that on or about 9.9.1992, the bank paid the<\/p>\n
          Punjab Housing Development Board a sum of Rs.82,92,507\/-<\/p>\n
          as and by way of guaranteed return on the investment @ 17%<\/p>\n
          p.a. on the investment of Rs.9,75,58,904.11 paise in the said<\/p>\n
          IRFC bonds. The 180 days investment expired on or about<\/p>\n
          September 3, 1992. The board requested that the said<\/p>\n
          investment be continued for a further 6 months upto March 3,<\/p>\n
          1993 in the same securities (i.e. the said IRFC bonds). The<\/p>\n
          Board, thereafter, on expiry of the extended 6 months period of<\/p>\n
          investment     demanded      repayment    of    the    balance<\/p>\n
          Rs.9,75,58,904.11 paise and interest thereon and stated that<\/p>\n
          the Board was not interested in the said IRFC bonds or in any<\/p>\n
          litigation relative thereto or in assuming any risk with<\/p>\n
          respect thereto, and that it was only willing to accept one<\/p>\n
          time payment in full and final settlement of its claims with<\/p>\n
          respect to the said investment. Pursuant thereto, various<\/p>\n
          negotiations were held between the senior officials of the<\/p>\n
          appellant bank and the board and it was agreed that the<\/p>\n
          appellant    bank    would     pay    a   further     sum     of<\/p>\n
          Rs.10,77,82,542.11 paise in additional to the sums<\/p>\n
          already      paid   (making      a    total    payment        of<\/p>\n
          Rs.11,85,64,699.36 paise) i.e. Rs. 10,77,82,542.11 paise<\/p>\n
          + Rs.24,76,982.75 paise + Rs.11,167.50 paise + Rs.1,500\/- +
\n R.S.A.No. 1811 of 2007 (O&M)                                       9<\/span><\/p>\n
            Rs.82,92,507\/-) by the bank to the board in full and final<\/p>\n
            settlement of the board’s claim against the bank. This<\/p>\n
            culminated in a settlement as recorded in a letter dated<\/p>\n
            July 7, 1993 addressed by the Board to the bank. It is<\/p>\n
            further submitted that against and pursuant to delivery to<\/p>\n
            the bank of the board’s aforesaid letter dated 7.7.1993<\/p>\n
            and another letter of the same date instructing the bank to<\/p>\n
            make payment by banker’s cheque drawn in favour of the<\/p>\n
            “Corporation Bank, A\/c Punjab Housing Development<\/p>\n
            Board,      Chandigarh”     and   on    the   basis   of   the<\/p>\n
            representations therein, the appellant paid the board a<\/p>\n
            sum of Rs. 10,77,82,542.11 paise by way of banker’s<\/p>\n
            cheque drawn in favour of the “Corporation Bank, A\/c<\/p>\n
            Punjab Housing Development Board, Chandigarh” in full<\/p>\n
            and final settlement of all claims of the board in respect of<\/p>\n
            or arising out of or in connection with the said investment.<\/p>\n
            All other allegations and assertions put forth by the board<\/p>\n
            have specifically been denied and prayer for dismissal of<\/p>\n
            the claim of the plaintiff has, thus, been made.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were<\/p>\n
framed by the trial Court:-\n<\/p>\n
            1.            Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of<\/p>\n
                 Rs.65,58,981\/- from the defendant along with interest, if<\/p>\n
                 so at what rate? OPP
\n R.S.A.No. 1811 of 2007 (O&M)                                        10<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           2.            Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the<\/p>\n
                declaration    that agreement\/waiver letter          dated<\/p>\n
                7.7.1993 between the parties is hit by the Sections 13<\/p>\n
                to 18 and 19-A of the Contract Act? OPP<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           3.            Whether     the   suit   of   the    plaintiff   is<\/p>\n
           maintainable? OPP<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           4.            Whether the suit has been instituted by a<\/p>\n
                competent person? OPP<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           5.            Whether the plaint has been verified in<\/p>\n
                accordance with law? OPP<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           6.            Whether this Court has territorial jurisdiction to<\/p>\n
                try and entertain the suit? OPP<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           7.            Whether the suit is barred by the principle of<\/p>\n
           estoppel? OPP<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           8.            Whether the suit is filed beyond the period of<\/p>\n
           limitation? OPD<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           9.            Relief.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           After hearing learned senior counsel for the parties, I am<\/p>\n
of the opinion that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.<\/p>\n
           The plaintiff-Board had agreed to invest a sum of Rupees<\/p>\n
Ten Crores in Government securities with the bank.              The said<\/p>\n
amount was invested by the bank on behalf of the Board. As per<\/p>\n
letter Ex.P-5, an amount of Rs.9,75,58,904.11 (Rupees nine crores<\/p>\n
seventy five lakhs fifty eight thousand nine hundred four and paise
\n R.S.A.No. 1811 of 2007 (O&M)                                          11<\/span><\/p>\n
eleven only) was invested by the bank by purchasing 17% NPC<\/p>\n
bonds at a base rate of Rs.97\/- per bond.                 The amount of<\/p>\n
Rs.24,41,095.89 P. was invested in FDR. However, the Board was<\/p>\n
given the liberty to withdraw the said amount invested in the FDR.<\/p>\n
Vide Ex.P-6, it was intimated to the Board that, in fact, the bonds had<\/p>\n
been purchased on behalf of the Board i.e. Indian Railway Finance<\/p>\n
Corporation Bonds instead of NPC bonds. A dispute arose between<\/p>\n
the parties and ultimately after a lot of negotiations, a settlement took<\/p>\n
place between the parties.\n<\/p>\n
                  Ex.P-27, whereby the plaintiff-Board had accepted<\/p>\n
Rs.10,77,82,542.11 P. in full and final settlement of all claims reads<\/p>\n
as under:-\n<\/p>\n
             1.              Whereas the Punjab Housing Development<\/p>\n
                  Board (hereinafter called the ‘Board’) had public funds<\/p>\n
                  amounting to Rs.10,00,00,000\/- (Rupees ten crores<\/p>\n
                  only) available for a short term investment, the Board<\/p>\n
                  paid the said amount to ABN AMRO Bank (hereinafter<\/p>\n
                  called the ‘Bank’) for investment in Government<\/p>\n
                  securities insuring a return of at least 17% p.a.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
             2.              And whereas at the request of the Board,<\/p>\n
                  the Bank with a view to purchase 17% (seventeen<\/p>\n
                  percent) NPC Bonds at the rate of Rs.97\/- (Rupees<\/p>\n
                  ninety seven only) per bond for the benefit of the Board<\/p>\n
                  made payment of Rs.9,75,58,904.11 (Rupees nine
\n R.S.A.No. 1811 of 2007 (O&M)                                     12<\/span><\/p>\n
               crores seventy five lakhs fifty eight thousand nine<\/p>\n
               hundred four and paise eleven only) by Banker’s<\/p>\n
               cheque favouring Andhra Bank through M\/s Naresh<\/p>\n
               K.Aggarwala and Company, its share brokers, and<\/p>\n
               returned    the    Board     the   balance    sum      of<\/p>\n
               Rs.24,41,095.89.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          3.              And whereas the Bank did not receive the<\/p>\n
               17% NPC Bonds either from Andhra Bank or the said<\/p>\n
               M\/s N.K. Aggarwala & Co. who instead delivered by<\/p>\n
               way of alternate security to the Bank 9% (nine percent)<\/p>\n
               tax free IRFC (Indian Railway Finance Corporation)<\/p>\n
               Bonds covered by a letter of Allotment No. 016 and a<\/p>\n
               Transfer Deed signed in blank by Karur Vyasa Bank,<\/p>\n
               the registered holder of the said IRFC Bonds<\/p>\n
               (hereinafter called the ‘IRFC Bonds’)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
          4.              And     whereas   the   IRFC   Bonds     were<\/p>\n
               presented by the Bank to the IRFC ( Indian Railway<\/p>\n
               Finance Corporation) for registration in the name of the<\/p>\n
               Bank for the benefit of the Board, but before the IRFC<\/p>\n
               Bonds could be registered in the name of the Bank as<\/p>\n
               aforesaid, the Standard Chartered Bank also lodged a<\/p>\n
               claim on these bonds on the ground that they had been<\/p>\n
               purchased by it from Karur Vyasa Bank against an<\/p>\n
               existing transaction.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
 R.S.A.No. 1811 of 2007 (O&M)                                       13<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
          5.              And whereas, as stated by the Bank, the<\/p>\n
               Standard Chartered Bank thereafter filed a suit in the<\/p>\n
               Bombay High Court inter alia against the Bank and<\/p>\n
               IRFC for an injunction restraining the registration or the<\/p>\n
               transfer of the IRFC Bonds to the Bank.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          6.              And whereas the Bank has also instituted<\/p>\n
               rectification proceedings agaisnt IRFC before the<\/p>\n
               Company Law Board for the registration of the IRFC<\/p>\n
               Bonds.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          7.              And whereas legal proceedings are bound<\/p>\n
               to involve substantial time and the Board is in<\/p>\n
               immediate need of the aforementioned Public Funds<\/p>\n
               for the execution of its various schemes, and is<\/p>\n
               consequently,    desirous    of   entering   into    some<\/p>\n
               arrangements with the bank by which it could get the<\/p>\n
               immediate return of its capital employed in the<\/p>\n
               purchase of the IRFC Bonds together with such<\/p>\n
               reasonable return as the circumstances permit.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
          8.              And whereas there have consequently been<\/p>\n
               protracted negotiations between the Bank and the<\/p>\n
               Board resultant upon which it has been agreed that the<\/p>\n
               Bank would immediately return the principal amounting<\/p>\n
               to Rs.9,75,58,904.11 to the Board. The interest would<\/p>\n
               be calculated at the rate of 17% p.a. For the first six
\n R.S.A.No. 1811 of 2007 (O&M)                                  14<\/span><\/p>\n
            months upto 3rd September 1992, which amounts to<\/p>\n
            Rs.82,92,507\/- (which has already been received by<\/p>\n
            us) and for the balance period i.e. 4th September 1992<\/p>\n
            till date of payment of the principal amount, interest<\/p>\n
            would be paid at the rate payable on fixed deposits of<\/p>\n
            this length of time, which, calculated at the rate of 12%<\/p>\n
            per annum comes to Rs. 1.02,23,638\/-. Also in case<\/p>\n
            and as and when the IRFC Bonds are transferred in the<\/p>\n
            name of the Bank or Andhra Bank returns the moneys<\/p>\n
            due to the Bank together with interest, the Bank would<\/p>\n
            additionally make a payment of the interest differential<\/p>\n
            between the rate of 17% p.a. and the fixed deposit rate<\/p>\n
            for the balance period i.e. 12 \u00bd% p.a. amounting to<\/p>\n
            Rs.36,80,510\/-. Interest on this differential amount of<\/p>\n
            Rs.36,80,510\/- would be paid to us by the Bank at the<\/p>\n
            rate applicable to fixed deposits of the period for which<\/p>\n
            the amount is retained by the Bank, in accordance with<\/p>\n
            the provisions of this para, indicated above, provided<\/p>\n
            the Bank also likewise receive interest on its interest<\/p>\n
            claims.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                       That subject to the provisions of this<\/p>\n
          paragraph as indicated above, the Board would accept<\/p>\n
          payment as above in full and final settlement of its claims<\/p>\n
          arising out of or in connection with the said investment,
\n R.S.A.No. 1811 of 2007 (O&M)                                             15<\/span><\/p>\n
          and for which the Board would furnish the Bank a<\/p>\n
          disclaimer and waiver as hereinafter appearing.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                          That the Bank, shall from time to time, and<\/p>\n
          not atleast less than once in a month, intimate the<\/p>\n
          position and progress made in the matter of settlement of<\/p>\n
          claims arising out of the purchase of these IRFC Bonds.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
          9.              And     whereas    pursuant       to     the        said<\/p>\n
               settlement, the Bank has paid to the Boards a sum of<\/p>\n
               Rs.10,77,82,542.11 (Rupees ten crores seventy seven<\/p>\n
               lakhs eighty two thousand five hundred forty two and<\/p>\n
               paise eleven only) in full and final settlement of the<\/p>\n
               Board’s claims against the Bank arising out of or in<\/p>\n
               connection with the said investment (the receipt of<\/p>\n
               which in full and final settlement, as aforesaid, the<\/p>\n
               Board   hereby     admits    and    acknowledges)              and<\/p>\n
               consequently the Board is executing the discharge and<\/p>\n
               waiver as hereinafter appearing.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          10.             Now, therefore, we the Punjab Housing<\/p>\n
               Development      Board   acting    through    the    Housing<\/p>\n
               Commissioner, Punjab Housing Development Board do<\/p>\n
               hereby accept the said sum of Rs.10,77,82,542.11<\/p>\n
               (Rupees ten crores seventy seven lakhs eighty two<\/p>\n
               thousand five hundred forty two and paise eleven only)<\/p>\n
               in full and final settlement of all claims of the Punjab
\n R.S.A.No. 1811 of 2007 (O&M)                                     16<\/span><\/p>\n
               Housing Development Board in respect of or arising out<\/p>\n
               of or in connection with the said investment of<\/p>\n
               Rs.9,75,58,904.11 (Rupees nine crores seventy five<\/p>\n
               lakhs fifty eight thousand nine hundred four and paise<\/p>\n
               eleven only) on behalf of the Board and do confirm and<\/p>\n
               declare that the Bank shall be entitled at its discretion<\/p>\n
               to demand, sue for, enforce, settle compromise or<\/p>\n
               otherwise howsoever deal with any and all matters<\/p>\n
               arising out of or concerning the same without any right<\/p>\n
               in the Board in respect of the usufructs, proceeds or<\/p>\n
               benefits of such demand, suit enforcement, settlement,<\/p>\n
               compromise or other dealing(s) and the Board hereby<\/p>\n
               disclaims, waives and relinquishes in favour of the<\/p>\n
               Bank any and all rights and claims whatsoever that it<\/p>\n
               may have with respect thereto.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              Thus, the parties, after negotiations, had arrived at a<\/p>\n
compromise      and     the   plaintiff-Board    had   accepted       Rs.<\/p>\n
10,77,82,542.11 P. in full and final settlement of all the claims. The<\/p>\n
case of the plaintiff-Board is that it had not signed the settlement of<\/p>\n
free will.   The settlement had been arrived due to coercion and<\/p>\n
compelling circumstances. However, the said plea of the plaintiff-<\/p>\n
Board was rightly rejected by the learned Additional District Judge as<\/p>\n
the parties had arrived at a compromise after negotiations. There<\/p>\n
was no question of fraud, coercion or undue influence having been
\n R.S.A.No. 1811 of 2007 (O&M)                                       17<\/span><\/p>\n
exercised by the bank on the plaintiff-Board.         The plaintiff-Board<\/p>\n
failed to establish as to what fraud or mis-representation had been<\/p>\n
effected on them which induced them to sign the agreement. Senior<\/p>\n
officials of the Board had participated in the negotiations and<\/p>\n
accepted the conditions of the settlement.           Learned Additional<\/p>\n
District Judge, thus, rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-Board for<\/p>\n
recovery.\n<\/p>\n
            No substantial question of law arises in this regular<\/p>\n
second appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.<\/p>\n
                                                 (SABINA)
\n                                                  JUDGE
\nNovember 11, 2009
\nanita\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court The Punjab Urban Planning And … vs Abn-Amro Bank on 11 November, 2009 R.S.A.No. 1811 of 2007 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 1811 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision: 11.11.2009 The Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority ……Appellant Versus ABN-AMRO Bank …….Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-25302","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Punjab Urban Planning And ... vs Abn-Amro Bank on 11 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-punjab-urban-planning-and-vs-abn-amro-bank-on-11-november-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Punjab Urban Planning And ... vs Abn-Amro Bank on 11 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-punjab-urban-planning-and-vs-abn-amro-bank-on-11-november-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-11-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-05-30T02:41:45+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-punjab-urban-planning-and-vs-abn-amro-bank-on-11-november-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-punjab-urban-planning-and-vs-abn-amro-bank-on-11-november-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Punjab Urban Planning And … vs Abn-Amro Bank on 11 November, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-30T02:41:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-punjab-urban-planning-and-vs-abn-amro-bank-on-11-november-2009\"},\"wordCount\":3360,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-punjab-urban-planning-and-vs-abn-amro-bank-on-11-november-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-punjab-urban-planning-and-vs-abn-amro-bank-on-11-november-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-punjab-urban-planning-and-vs-abn-amro-bank-on-11-november-2009\",\"name\":\"The Punjab Urban Planning And ... vs Abn-Amro Bank on 11 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-30T02:41:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-punjab-urban-planning-and-vs-abn-amro-bank-on-11-november-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-punjab-urban-planning-and-vs-abn-amro-bank-on-11-november-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-punjab-urban-planning-and-vs-abn-amro-bank-on-11-november-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Punjab Urban Planning And … vs Abn-Amro Bank on 11 November, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Punjab Urban Planning And ... vs Abn-Amro Bank on 11 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-punjab-urban-planning-and-vs-abn-amro-bank-on-11-november-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Punjab Urban Planning And ... vs Abn-Amro Bank on 11 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-punjab-urban-planning-and-vs-abn-amro-bank-on-11-november-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-11-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-05-30T02:41:45+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-punjab-urban-planning-and-vs-abn-amro-bank-on-11-november-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-punjab-urban-planning-and-vs-abn-amro-bank-on-11-november-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Punjab Urban Planning And … vs Abn-Amro Bank on 11 November, 2009","datePublished":"2009-11-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-30T02:41:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-punjab-urban-planning-and-vs-abn-amro-bank-on-11-november-2009"},"wordCount":3360,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-punjab-urban-planning-and-vs-abn-amro-bank-on-11-november-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-punjab-urban-planning-and-vs-abn-amro-bank-on-11-november-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-punjab-urban-planning-and-vs-abn-amro-bank-on-11-november-2009","name":"The Punjab Urban Planning And ... vs Abn-Amro Bank on 11 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-11-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-30T02:41:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-punjab-urban-planning-and-vs-abn-amro-bank-on-11-november-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-punjab-urban-planning-and-vs-abn-amro-bank-on-11-november-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-punjab-urban-planning-and-vs-abn-amro-bank-on-11-november-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Punjab Urban Planning And … vs Abn-Amro Bank on 11 November, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25302","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=25302"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25302\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=25302"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=25302"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=25302"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}