The main contention urged on behalf of the appellant in these appeals is, firstly, that the recording of such compromise is wholly outside the purview of the Article 226 of the Constitution of India; secondly, the appellant is not a party to the said compromise nor there is any notice and thus the orders recording such compromise is without notice and against the principles of natural justice; and thirdly, having regard to the preferential priority for the claims of the appellant as provided under Section 21 (2) (a) of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 read with regulation there under and Section 22 (a) of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation General Regulations, 1961 and Section 115B (v) of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964, and therefore, the question of any payment or arrangement for such payment in between these two banks dehorse the claim that of the appellant is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. Further, it is contended that the orders between the parties in W.p.No.12612 of 2008 dated 13-09-2008 were not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge. That apart it is also the contention of the appellant that since Visakhapatnam Cooperative Bank has absolutely no priority over its claims, it cannot seek for very payment or come to such an arrangement. Even other wise, it is the case of the appellant that even though the appellant was added as respondent No.3 during the pendency of
