Summary
The High Court quashed a financial corporation’s post-settlement demand because the parties had consented to a one-time settlement and the corporation had not earlier objected to the accountant’s exercise. The Supreme Court held that a fresh dispute over calculation, payments and discharge of liability still required merits adjudication. It restored the writ petition for fresh consideration, preferably within six months.
Issues
- Whether consent to a one-time settlement and the accountant’s exercise barred examination of a subsequent liability dispute.
Held
- The agreement was to settle under the corporation’s policy; the court-appointed accountant was to determine the liability and report. Consent to that process did not by itself resolve a later dispute over its calculation and implementation. (¶¶ 16, 17)
- Ambiguity or disagreement concerning the report, outstanding liability and payments could be examined on merits, including by reference to another reputable chartered accountant if required. The High Court needed a categorical finding establishing compliance with the settlement and discharge of liability before quashing the demand. (¶¶ 17, 18)
- Both the writ judgment and review order were set aside. The restored writ petition was to be decided afresh and expeditiously, preferably within six months because public money was involved. (¶¶ 19, 20)
Result
Appeals allowed; both High Court orders set aside and writ petition restored for fresh merits decision, preferably within six months.