One-time settlement may cover all connected disputes, while a second review remains barred absent valid review grounds.

A one-time settlement was construed from the parties' correspondence and conduct as covering all pending disputes between the bank, the company, its directors and guarantors, not only the recovery proceeding but also the proceedings arising from the buy-back agreement. Acceptance of the settlement amount, issuance of the no dues certificate, and the absence of objection when connected matters were disposed of supported that comprehensive reading. On review, no error apparent on the face of the record or newly discovered material was shown, and a second review was barred under Order XLVII Rule 9 CPC. The review challenge therefore failed and no relief was granted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the one time settlement covered both the bank's recovery proceedings and the proceedings arising from the buy-back agreement; (ii) whether the later review application and the attempt to seek a second review were maintainable.

Issue (i): Whether the one time settlement covered both the bank's recovery proceedings and the proceedings arising from the buy-back agreement.

Analysis: The correspondence between the parties showed that the settlement proposal was intended to cover all pending matters between the bank, the company, its directors and guarantors. The references were to pending proceedings in the plural, and the settlement language expressly extended to all disputes before courts and tribunals, not merely the recovery proceeding. The conduct of the parties, including the acceptance of the settlement amount, the issuance of the no dues certificate, and the absence of objection when the tribunal disposed of the connected matters, supported the conclusion that the compromise was comprehensive.

Conclusion: The settlement was held to encompass both proceedings, including the matter arising from the buy-back agreement, against the respondent.

Issue (ii): Whether the later review application and the attempt to seek a second review were maintainable.

Analysis: The impugned order rejecting review was tested on settled principles governing review jurisdiction. No error apparent on the face of the record or newly discovered material was shown. The subsequent attempt to review the order rejecting review was barred by the principle that a second review is not maintainable under Order XLVII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Conclusion: The review application and the further attempt at review were not maintainable and were rightly rejected.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the tribunal's review orders failed, and the writ petition was dismissed with no relief granted to the bank.

Ratio Decidendi: A settlement must be construed from the parties' correspondence and conduct as a whole, and once a review is rejected, a second review is barred unless the limited grounds for review jurisdiction are independently made out.

---