DEPOSIT INSURANCE & CREDIT GUARANTEE CORPORATIONversusRAGUPATHI RAGAVAN & ORS.

                         [2015] 8 S.C.R. 1°24


A        DEPOSIT INSURANCE & CREDIT GUARANTEE
                     CORPORATION
                                   v.
                   RAGUPATHI RAGAVAN & ORS.
8                  (Civil Appeal No. 1035 of 2008)
                            JULY01, 2015
              [ANIL R. DAVE AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.]
c           Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation
    Act, 1961- ss. 3(1), 16, 21- Deposits made by depositors
    with the banking companies - Insurance by appel/ant-
    Corporation - Bank in financial difficulties - Liability of the
    Corporation - Amount insured in respect of each depositor
D   was only Rs. 1 lakh as such all the depositors not paid the
    entire amount deposited with the bank- Writ petition by some
    of the depositors seeking payment of amount which exceeded
    Rs. 1 lakh from the Official Liquidator- Direction by Single
    Judge to the Special Officer to pay the amount deposited by
E   the depositors with accrued interest- Said petitions disposed
    of at an admission stage, even before any reply was filed on
    behalf of the Official Liquidator - Writ Appeal by Official
    Liquidator as well as Special Officer of the Bank- High Court
    held that the amount which was with the Official Liquidator
F   should have been distributed among the depositors and the
    Corporation had no preferential right~ On appeal, held: High
    Court or any other authority has no power to direct payment
    in excess of Rs. 1 lakh by ignoring statutory provisions of the
    Act and the Regulations - High Cou1 exceeded its authority
G   while giving the said direction to the Official Liquidator- Thus,
    order passed by the courts below set aside - Official
    Liquidator and Special Officer to act in accordance with the
    statutory provisions - Deposit Insurance and Credit
H   Guarantee Corporation General Regulations, 1961 - Reg
    22.
                                   124
 DEPOSIT INSURANCE & CREDIT GUARANTEE CORP.                   125
            v. RAGUPATHI RAGAVAN

      Disposing of the appeals, the Court                      A

       HELD: 1.1 As per the provisions of Section 16(1)
of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee
Corporation Act, a sum of Rs.1 lakh is being insured or
guaranteed in respect of each depositor. So a depositor        B
is safe and he has not to wash his hands off his deposit
if the amount deposited by him is less than Rs.1 lakh.
The Official Liquidator, as per the provisions of the Act,
has to give details about the depositors and the amount
deposited by them in a prescribed form within three            C
months from the date on which the liquidation order is
passed or from the day on which he takes charge,
whichever is later and within two months from the date
on which the details are submitted to the Corporation,
the Corporation has to make payment to the above extent       D
either to the depositors directly or to them through the
Official Liquidator. Thus, as per the Scheme, each
depositor, including each original petitioner, must have
received Rs.1 lakh from the Official Liquidator. Initially,
upon the bank being ordered to be wound-up, the               E
depositors had a right to re~over Rs.1 lakh or the amount
deposited, whichever was less, from the Official
Liquidator and the said amount must had been paid to
them when the petitions were filed. [Paras 20, 21) [134-      F
0-H; 135-A]

       1.2 After payment to the above extent is made to
each depositor, if any amount is available at the disposal
of the Official Liquidator, which he might have recovered
from the borrowers or from other sources, he has to pay G
the said amount to the extent to which the amount had
been paid by the Corporation as per the provisions of
Section 21 of the Act. When the Corporation had paid to
the depositors as per the insurance scheme under the H
Act, the Corporation gets a right under Section 21 to get
126         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                (2015] 8 S.C.R.

A money from the Official Liquidator. Thus, the Official
  Liquidator, as per clause 2(a) of Section 21, has to repay
  the amount to the Corporation. Section 21 not only makes
  it obligatory on the part of the Official Liquidator to repay
  the said amount to the Corporation, but it also clarifies
B that there shall not be any other preferential creditor who
  would be getting any amount from the Official Liquidator
  till the amount payable under Section 21 is paid to the
  Corporation. Regulation 22 of the Deposit Insurance and
  Credit Guarantee Corporation General Regulations, 1961
C also provides that the Official Liquidator, after making
  necessary provision for the expenses in relation to the
  liquidation proceedings and for declaration of dividend,
  as prescribed in the Regulations, has to make payment
  to the Corporation. (Paras 22 - 25;28] (135-8-C; 136-8-
0
  E; 137-E-F]                                      .

             1.3 The High Court should not have given the
      direction which, if complied with, would run contrary to
      the statutory provisions incorporated in the Act. Even if
E     one looks at the entire issue from different point of view,
      one would believe that all the depositors have by and
      large equal right. If the amount deposited is less than
      Rs.1 lakh, each depositor gets the amount in full, but if
F     the deposit is exceeding Rs.1 lakh, then only the amount
      which is in excess of Rs.1 lakh may not be given to the
      depositor, unless the bank in liquidation is having
      sufficient funds which can be given to all on pro-rata
      basis after providing for expenditure in the liquidation
G     proceedings and after repaying· the amount to the
      Corporation as per the provisions of the Act. The· Act in
      a way guarantees repayment of Rs.1 lakh to each
      depositor. The High Court or any other authority has no
      power to direct payment in excess of Rs.1 lakh by
H     ignoring statutory provisions of the Act and the
      Regulations made thereunder. The High Court had
 DEPOSIT INSURANCE & CREDIT GUARANTEE CORP.                     127
            ~ RAGUPATHIRAGAVAN


exceeded its authority while giving. a direction to the A
Official Liquidator and the Special Officer of the Bank,
which is in liquidation, whereby they have been directed
to pay the unpaid amount to the depositors instead of
paying the same to the Corporation which is not in
consonance with the statutory provisions and therefore, B
the judgment and order by the Single Judge as also by
the Division Bench set aside and the Official Liquidator
and the Special Officer are directed to act in accordance
with the statutory provisions. [Para 29-31] [137-G-H; 138-
A-E]                                                       C

       · 1.4 Appeal No.1116 of 2009 and similar matters
were filed at an interlocutory stage and therefore, the said
appeals are disposed of with a direction to the High Court
to decide the matters pending before it In all the ottier D
appeals, some compromise had been arrived at among
the parties before the Single Judge, but the same had
been challenged before the Division Bench. The Division
Bench quashed and set aside the order, whereby the
litigants had entered into a compromise and the matters E
had been remanded to the Single Judge. The said
appeals are dismissed. [Para 33, 34] [138-G; 139-A-B]

      CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.
1035 of 2008                                                    F

       From the Judgment and Order dated 20. 11-.2006 in Writ
Appeal No. 261 of 2006 of the Division Bench of the High
Court of Madurai Bench at Madras.
                              WITH                              G

    Civil Appeal Nos. 1116, 1923, 1924, 1925, 1926, 1927,
1928, 1929, 1930, 1931, 1932, 1934, 1935 of 2009

    Civil Appeal Nos. 5333, 5334, 5335, 5336, 5337-5339          H
of2012
128         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (2015] 8 S.C.R.


A       Jayant Bhushan & Jaideep Gupta, Kuldeep S. Parihar,
  H. S. Parihar, Puneet Jain, Chisti Jain, Chhaya Kfriti, Pratibha
  Jain, C.S.N. Rao, Santhana Krishnan·, A. Ramesh, K. N. Rai,
  G Sivabalamurugan,Anish Mohammad, L. K. Pandey, AON
  Rao, A. Venkatesh, Sudipto Sircar, Vaishali R., Mansha
B Monga, Neelam Jain, V G Pragasam, Ankit Lal, Mishra
  Saurabh, T. V. Ratnam, C. K. Sucharita for the appearing
  parties.

            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
c
            ANIL R. DAVE, J. 1'.Judgmentdated 20th November,
      2006 delivered in Writ Appeal No.261 of 2006 by the Madurai
      Bench of the Madras High Court has been challenged in the
      main appeal. For the sake of convenience, we have
o     considered facts bf the main case for deciding the common
      issues which are involved in all these appeals.

            2. The appellant, who has approached this Court, was
    not a party to the litigations before the High Court, but has
E been constrained to approach this Court as the direction given
    by the learned Single Judge as well as by the Division Bench
    of the High Court in the aforestated writ appeal affects the
    appellant adversely and therefore, the appellant had submitted
    an application for permission to file the Special Leave Petition
F · against the aforestated judgment. Permission was granted to
    the present appellant and therefore, this appeal.

          3. The appellant is Deposit Insurance and Credit
  Guarantee Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the
G Corporation'). The function of the Corporation is to insure
  deposits made by depositors with the banking companies and
  the said Corporation has been constituted under the provisions
  of Section 3(1) of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee
  Corporation Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
H The Act had been enacted with a very laudable purpose.
  Normally a person deposits his savings or invests his money
  DEPOSIT INSURANCE & CREDIT GUARANTEE CORP.                       129
     v. RAGUPATHI RAGAVAN [ANILR. DAVE, J.]

by way of a saving bank account or a fixed deposit with banking A
companies, including cooperative banks, without taking much
care of ascertaining financial condition of the bank, possibly
because of the trust reposed by him in !fie Reserve Bank of
India, which regulates the banking business in the country.
                                                                    B
         4. In the event of any financial difficulty faced by the
banking company, the depositors would generally lose
substantial amount of their deposits, in whichever form made,
because normally at the end of the winding-up proceedings,
the unsecured creditors get very little amount. So as to C
safeguard the interest of such small depositors or investors,
who have parked their funds with banking companies, the Act
had been enacted to insure the amount deposited by the
depositors and to guarantee repayment of certain amount to
such investors, when the banking company is in financial D
difficulty and is ultima~ely wound-up.

        5. In the instant case, we are c~ncerned with Theni
Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd., doing its banking business
mainly in District Theni of Tamil Nadu. The aforestated Bank,      E
which had been registered as an insured bank with the
Corporation on 1st July, 1980, was in financial difficulties and
therefore, the Reserve Bank of India had cancelled its licence
to do banking business under Section 22 of the Banking
Regulations Act, 1949 on 23'd May, 2002. However, the said         F
order cancelling the licence was kept in abeyance for a period
of six months by an order dated 7111 June, 2002.

       6. Ultimately, the said bank could not discharge its
obligations and therefore, on 24 111 December, 2002, the Joint G
Registrar of the Co-operative Societies, Theni, was appointed
as an Official Liquidator to carry out liquidation proceedings.

       7. As stated hereinabove, the said bank had been
insured with the Corporation and therefore, the Official           H
Liquidator prepared a claim list of the depositors etc. as per
130         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2015) 8 S.C.R.


A     the provisions of Section 17 of the Act and forwarded the same
      to the Corporation on 21si May, 2003.

         8. As the Corporation had insured the bank, as per the
  provisions of the Act, the Corporation settled the statutory
B claims of the depositors by releasing a sum of
  Rs.3,26,87,846.12, and thereby maximum amount payable to
  each depositor had been paid. Thus, the amount which the
  Corporation was liable to pay to the depositors under the
  provisions of Section 16 of the Act had been paid by the
C Corporation through the Official Liquidator.

          9. It is pertinent to note that the Corporation does not
  insure the entire amount paid by all the depositors. According
  to the provisions of Section 16 of the Act, at the relevant time
D the amount which was insured in respect of each depositor of
  the said bank was Rs.1 lakh and therefore, every depositor
  was paid the amount of deposit or a sum of Rs.1 lakh,
  whichever was less.

E         10. Though the aforestated amount had been released
  by the Corporation, all the depositors could not be paid the
  entire amount they had deposited with the bank because the
  amount insure<;! in respect of each depositor was only Rs.1
  lakh. So, those who had deposited more than one lakh rupees
F with the bank, were not paid the amount to the extent to which
  their deposits exceeded Rs.1 lakh.

         11. In the aforestated background, Writ Petition
  Nos.6768 and 7372 of 2005 had been filed in the Madurai
G Bench of the Madras High Court by some of the depositors
  praying that the amount which had remained unpaid on their
  fixed deposits be directed to be paid to them by the Joint
  Registrar of the Co-operative Societies, who had been
  appointed as the Official Liquidator. In the said petitions, the
H aforestated officer, i.e. the Official Liquidator as well as the
 DEPOSIT INSURANCE & CREDIT GUARANTEE CORP.                      131
     v. RAGUPATHI RAGAVAN [ANIL R. DAVE, J.]

Special Officer, Theni Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd. were A
impleaded as respondents. After hearing the concerned
parties, by an order dated 27th July, 2005, the learned Single
Judge was pleased to direct the Special Officer to pay the
amount deposited by the depositors with accrued interest
thereon within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of B
the said order by the Special Officer. Upon perusal of the said
order, it appears that the said petitions had been disposed of
at an admission stage and even before any reply was filed on
behalf of the Official Liquidator.
                                                                  c
        12. Be that as it may, the said order was challenged by
the respondents by filing Writ Appeal No.261 of 2006. At the
time of hearing of the appeal, the learned counsel appearing
forthe_Official Liquidator had submitted before the High Court
that the bank had been ordered to be wound-up on 24'h D
 December, 2002, and an Official Liquidator had been
appointed, who had disbursed the    " amount received from " the
Corporation: It had also been submitted before the High Court
that upon disbursement of the amount received from the
Corporation, the balance amount at the disposal of the Official E
Liquidator was to be refunded to the Corporation ·as per the
provisions of the Act as the Corporation had a preference over
the claim of the depositors, who had already received Rs.1
lakh from the Corporation. Ultimately, after hearing the learned F
counsel, the High Court came to the conclusion that the
Corporation had no preferential right and the amount which
was with the Official Liquidator should have been distributed
among the depositors. The Official Liquidator as well as the
Special Officer had been directed to carry out the said G
instructions within a particular period and thus the writ appeal
had been disposed of.

       13. The Corporation was not a party before the High
Court, but the right of the Corporation to get back the amount    H
132         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2015] 8 S.C.R.


A     in preference over other depositors in pursuance of the
      provisions of the Act was adversely affected by virtue of the
      impugned judgment and therefore, the Corporation filed the
      Special Leave Petition which has now been converted into
      this appeal. These are the circumstances in which this appeal
B     has been placed before us for hearing.

          14. According to the learned counsel for the
  Corporation, the directions given by the learned Single Judge
  as well as the Division Bench in appeal by the High Court are
C contrary to the provisions of the Act. The learned counsel had
  taken us through the provisions of the Act, more particularly,
  the provisions of Sections 16, 17, 21and22 and the provisions
  of the Banking Regulations Act, 1949, so as to establish the
  case of the Corporation to the effect that after payment by the
D Corporation to the depositors to the extent to which the
  deposits had been guaranteed, the surplus should be put at
  the disposal of the Corporation subject to the provision of
  Section 21 of the Act. Till the said surplus is paid to the
  Corporation, subject to the provisions regarding making
E payment qf winding up expenditure, dividend to be paid as
  per the provisions of Section 21 of the Act, the depositors could
  not have been given any further amount. Any payment to
  depositors at that stage would be contrary to the provisions of
F the Act and by virtue of the orders passed by the High Court,
  the Official Liquidator was directed to act contrary to the
  provisions oftheAct.

           15. It had been submitted by the learned counsel that
  the High Court did not consider any of the provisions of the Act
G or the provisions of the Banking Regulations Act, 1949 before
  passing the impugned order. According to him, once each
  depositor is paid the amount deposited or Rs.1 lakh, whichever
  is less, the Official Liquidator of the Bank should have given
H the amount to the Corporation as per the provisions of Section
  DEPOSIT INSURANCE & CREDIT GUARANTEE CORP.                      133
     v. RAGUPATHI RAGAVAN [ANIL R. DAVE, J.)

21 of the Act. In view of the aforestated legal position, the      A
High Court committed an error by giving a direction to the
Official Liquidator that the amount which he had, should be
distributed among the depositors. Doing so would be
absolutely contrary to the Scheme and spirit of the Act. The
learned counsel had narrated the object with which the Act had     B
been enacted and the Corporation had been set-up, which
has been narrated hereinabove.

          16. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing
  for the depositors had submitted that it was the duty of the C
 ·Official Liquidator to distribute the amount which he had with
  him among the depositors as it is done in insolvency/winding-
  up proceedings. According to him, the Corporation having
. paid the amount which it had guaranteed to pay, had no right
  to get any amount from the Official Liquidator as the bank had D
  been paying premium to the Corporation in accordance with
  the provisions of the Act and therefore, it was the duty of the
  Corporation to disburse the amount guaranteed among the
  depositors. After paying the said amount, the Corporation had
  no right of whatsoever type to get any amount from the Official E
  Liquidator or the Special Officer.

        17. We have heard the learned counsel at length and
 have also considered some judgments·referred to by them
 and-the provisions of the Act and the Banking Regulations Act,    F
 1949.
        18. Upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for
the parties and looking at the facts of the case, we are of the
view that this appeal deserves to be allowed. We note the G
fact that Writ Petition Nos.6768 of 2005 and 7372 of 2005
had been finally disposed of at an admission stage. In the
said petitions, the present appellant Corporation was not made
a party, though it was stated before the learned Single Judge
that according to the statutory provisions of the Act, the Official H
134         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2015] 8 S.C.R.


A     Liquidator had to make payment to the Corporation. In view
      of the said submission, in our opinion, it would have been better
      if the Corporation had been impleaded as one of the
      respondents. In that event, the stand of the Corporation and
      the provisions of the Act could have been known in detail by
B     the learned Single Judge.

              19. Be that as it may, now we are concerned with a
      direction given by the High Court to the Official Liquidator and
      th~ Special Officer of the Bank, which is in liquidation, whereby
C     they have been directed to pay the unpaid amount to the
      depositors instead of paying the same to the Corporation.

          20. The object with which the Act has been enacted
  has been stated hereinabove in a nutshell. The object was to
o insure the depositors so that they may not have to stand in a
  queue before the Official Liquidator for every paisa deposited
  by them with the concerned bank. As on today, as per the
  provisions of Section 16(1) of the Act, a sum of Rs.1 lakh is
  being insured or guaranteed in respect of each depositor. So
E a depositor is safe and he has not to wash his hands off his
  deposit ifthe amount deposited by him is less than Rs.1 lakh.
  The Official Liquidator, as per the provisions of the Act, has to
  give details about the depositors and the amount deposited
  by them in a prescribed form within three months from the date
F on which the liquidation order is pas~ed or from the day on
  which he takes charge, whichever is later and within two months
  from the date on which the details are submitted to the
  Corporation, the Corporation has to make payment to the
  above extent either to the depositors directly or to them through
G the Official Liquidator.

         21. Thus, as per the above-referred Scheme, each
  depositor, including each original petitioner, must have
  received Rs.1 lakh from the Official Liquidator. Initially, upon
H the bank being ordered to be wound-up, the original petitioners
  DEPOSIT INSURANCE &CREDIT GUARANTEE CORP.                        135
     v. RAGUPATHI RAGAVAN [ANIL R. DAVE, J.)

 and other depositors had a right to recover Rs.1 lakh or the       A
 amount deposited, whichever was less, from the Official
 Liquidator and the said amount must had been paid to them
 when the petitions were filed.

          22. According to the provisions of the Act, after payment B
  to the above extent is made to each depositor, if any amount
  is available at the disposal of the Official Liquidator, which he
  might have recovered from the borrowers or from other
  sources, he has to pay the said amount to the extent to which
  the amount had been paid by the Corporation as per the C
. provisions of Section 21 of the Act. Section 21 of the Act reads
  as under:-

    "21. (1) Where any amount has been paid under section
    17 or section 18 or any provision therefor has been made       D
    under section 20, the Corporation shall furnish to the
    liquidator or to the insured bank or to the transferee bank,
    as the case may be, information as regards the amount
    so paid or provided for.
                                                                   E
    2) On receipt of the information under sub-section ( 1),
    notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any
    other law for the time being in force, -

   (a) the liquidator shall, within such time and in such
                                                                   F
   manner as may be prescribed, repay to the Corporation
   out of the amount, if any payable by him in respect of any
   deposit such sum or sums as make up the amount paid
   or provided for by the Corporation in respect of that
   deposit;                                                        G
   (b) the insured bank or, as the case may be, the transferee
   bank, shall, within such time and in such manner as may
   be prescribed, repay to the Corporation out of the amount,
   if any, to be paid or credited in respect of any deposit
                                                                   H
   after the date of the coming into force of the scheme.
136          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     (2015) 8 S.C.R.


A        referred to in section 18, such sum or sums as make up
         the amount paid or provided for by the Corporation in
         respect of that deposit."

              23. It is pertinent to note that when the Corporation had
B     paid to the depositors as per the insurance scheme under the
      Act, the Corporation gets a right under the aforestated Section
      21 of the Act to get money from the Official Liquidator.

         24. One has to look at sub-Section (2) of Section 21,
c which in unequivocal terms, directs the Official Liquidator to
  make the payment to the Corporation as it has been stated in
  the said sub-section, notwithstanding anything to the contrary
  contained in any other law for the time being in force. Thus,
  the Official Liquidator, as per clause 2(a) of Section 21 of the
D Act, has to repay the amount to the Corporation.

              25. The aforestated Section 21 not only makes it
      obligatory on the part of the Official Liquidator to repay the
      said amount to the Corporation, but it also clarifies that there
E     shall not be any other preferential creditor who would be getting
      any amount from the Official Liquidator till the amount payable
      under Section 21 of the Act is paid to the Corporation.

              26. In view of the aforestated clear legal position, in our
F     opinion, the High Court was not right when it directed the
      Official Liquidator to determine the mode of payment by
      ignoring the aforestated statutory provision.

         27. The Corporation was not represented before the
  learned Single Judge, but at least before the Division Bench,
G the learned counsel appearing for the Official Liquidator pad
  drawn attention of the Bench to the aforestated legal provisions
  of the Act. Moreover, provisions of Regulation 22 of the
  Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation General
H Regulations, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations')
  had also been referred to by the learned counsel. The said
  DEPOSIT INSURANCE & CREDIT GUARANTEE CORP.                        137
     v. RAGUPATHI RAGAVAN [ANIL R. DAVE, J.]

Regulation 22 reads as under                                         A

   "22. The amounts repayable to the Corporation under
   sub-section (2) of section 21 of the Act shall be paid from
   time to time by, -
                                                                     B
      (a) the liquidator as soon as the realisations and other
      amounts in his hands, after making provision for
      expenses payable by that time, are sufficientto enable
      him to declare a dividend of not less than one paisa.
      in the Rupee to each depositor.                                c
      (b) the insured bank or the transferee bank, as the
      case may be, as soon as the realisations and other
      amounts in its hands, after making provision for
      expenses payable by that time in respect of such
                                                                     D
      realisations or other amounts in its hands are sufficient
      to enable it after the date of coming into force of the
      scheme referred to in section 18 of the Act, to pay or
      credit in respect of each depositor a sum not less than
      one paisa in the Rupee."                                      E
       28. The aforestated Regulation 22 also provides that
the Official Liquidator, after making necessary provision for
the expenses in relation to the liquidation proceedings and for
declaration of dividend, as prescribed in the Regulations, has      F
to make payment to the Corporation.

        29. In view Of the aforestated statutory legal provision,
in our opinion, the High Court should not have given the
direction which, if complied with, would run contrary to the
statutory provisions incorporated in the Act.                       G

       30. Even if one looks at the entire issue from different
point of view, one would believe that all the depositors have by
and large equal right. If the amount deposited is less than Rs.1
lakh, each depositor gets the amount in full, but if the deposit H
138         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2015] 8 S.C.R.


A     is exceeding Rs.1 lakh, then only the amount which is in excess
      of Rs.1 lakh may not be given to the depositor, unless the bank
      in liquidation is having sufficient funds which can be given to
      all on pro-rata basis after providing for expenditure in the
      liquidation proceedings and after repaying the amount to the
B     Corporation as per the provisions of the Act. The Act in a way
      guarantees repayment of Rs.1. lakh to each depositor. The
      High Court or any other authority has no power to direct
      payment in excess of Rs.1 lakh by ignoring statutory provisions
      oftheAct and the Regulations made thereunder.
c
          31. For the aforestated reason, we are of the view that
  the High Court had exceeded its authority while giving a
  direction to the Official Liquidator, which is not in consonance
  with the statutory provisions and therefore, we set aside the
D judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge as
  also by the Division Bench and direct the Official Liquidator
  and the Special Officer to act in accordance with the statutory
  provisions.

E            32. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed with no order
      as to costs.

            CIVIL APPEAL NOS.1116, 1923, 1924, 1925, 1926,
      1927, 1928, 1929, 1930, 1931, 1932, 1934 AND 1935 OF
F     2009

           33. So far as Appeal No.1116 of 2009 and similar
  matters are concerned, we record the fact that they have been
  filed at an interlocutory stage and therefore, the said appeals
G are disposed of with a direction to the High Court to decide
  the matters, which are pending befor~ it, in the light of the law
  laid down hereinabove.

        CIVIL APPEAL NOS.5333, 5334, 5335, 5336 AND
H 5337-5339 OF 2012
. DEPOSITINSURANCE &CREDIT GUARANTEE CORP.                       139
     v. RAGUPATHI RAGAVAN [ANIL R. DAVE, J.]

       34. In all the aforestafed appeals~ some compromise A
had been arrived at among the parties before the learned
Single Judge, but the same had been challenged before the
Division Bench. The Division Bench had quashed and set
aside the order, whereby the litigants had entered into a
compromise and the matters had been remanded to the B
learned Single Judge. We dismiss the aforestated appeals
as the matters have been remanded to the learned Single
Judge. However, we direct thatthe present appellant shall be
impleaded as a party-respondent before the learned Single+
Judge so that all Writ Petitions can be decided afresh after C
considering the provisions of the Act and after hearing the
present appellant.

       35. The appeals are, thus, disposed of with no order
as to costs.                                                D

Nidhi Jain                                Appeals disposed of.