Voluntary withdrawal of settlement applications bars revival on duress claims, but fresh application remains possible under the settlement framework.

A settlement application withdrawn by the petitioner was not revived because the withdrawal record showed a voluntary decision, with no contemporaneous claim of coercion or duress, and the petitioner had not challenged the committee's condition before the proper forum. The Court held that a fresh settlement application could still be made within the statutory settlement framework, subject to Regulation 7 and consideration by the competent appellate forum and High Powered Advisory Committee. It also ruled that any deposit-related condition could not operate as a threshold bar before settlement was determined; it would arise only after the competent authority fixed the settlement terms. Revival was refused, but fresh recourse was left open.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner could revive its withdrawn settlement applications on the plea that the withdrawal was under coercion or duress and that the settlement condition imposed by the Internal Committee was illegal. (ii) Whether, after withdrawal of the settlement applications, the petitioner could move fresh settlement applications and whether the alleged deposit condition could operate as a precondition before settlement was determined.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner could revive its withdrawn settlement applications on the plea that the withdrawal was under coercion or duress and that the settlement condition imposed by the Internal Committee was illegal.

Analysis: The petitioner had sought settlement under the statutory settlement framework, but when the Internal Committee required repatriation of the GDR proceeds, the petitioner responded in writing that it was not possible to bring back the amount and thereafter instructed its advocates to withdraw the settlement applications. The withdrawal communication contained no mention of pressure, duress, or coercion. The Court found that the petitioner withdrew the applications of its own volition, without challenging the condition before any appropriate forum, and later participated in the regular proceedings on the show-cause notices.

Conclusion: The plea of coercion or duress was rejected and revival of the withdrawn settlement applications was declined.

Issue (ii): Whether, after withdrawal of the settlement applications, the petitioner could move fresh settlement applications and whether the alleged deposit condition could operate as a precondition before settlement was determined.

Analysis: Regulation 7 of the Settlement Regulations permits withdrawal before the relevant decision stage and bars another application in respect of the same default, subject to consideration by the High Powered Advisory Committee with an increased settlement amount. On that basis, the Court held that a fresh settlement application could be made, but only before the proper appellate forum and then placed before the High Powered Advisory Committee. The Court also held that the deposit-related condition could not operate as a precondition at the threshold; it could arise only after settlement is arrived at and the amount is determined by the competent committee.

Conclusion: Fresh settlement application was permitted in law, but only in accordance with Regulation 7 and before the competent forum, and the deposit condition was not a prior bar.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed insofar as revival of the earlier settlement applications was sought, but the petitioner was left at liberty to pursue a fresh settlement application under the applicable settlement regulations in the manner indicated by the Court.

Ratio Decidendi: A settlement application once voluntarily withdrawn cannot be revived on a bare allegation of coercion where the withdrawal record is unequivocal, but a fresh application may still be pursued only within the statutory settlement framework and subject to the decision of the competent authority.

---