- (1.) The State Bank of India and one of its "Stressed Assets Recovery Branch" (SARB), Dehradun has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court for quashing of the orders dated 7.11.2012 (Annexure - 1 to the writ petition) and 23.1.2012 (Annexure - 13 to the writ petition) passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad.
(2.) The brief facts leading to the passing of the impugned orders are that an order was passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal on 1.12.2006. This order was taken in appeal to the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal. The appeal was decided on 23.1.2012 in terms of some settlement whereupon the Bank preferred Writ Petition No.15010 of 2012 alleging that the order of the appellate tribunal dated 23.1.2012 is based upon incorrect facts. The said writ petition was disposed of with liberty to the Bank to file a proper application before the appellate tribunal, if so advised, and it was expected that if such an application is filed it shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with law. It is in pursuance of the above order that the Bank moved an application for recall of the order dated 23.1.2012. The said application after contest has been rejected by the impugned order dated 7.11.2012.
(3.) Sri Bhanu Prakash Dubey, learned counsel for the Bank argued that in the first place the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal could not have decided the appeal on the basis of the alleged settlement as it is contrary to the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in M/s. Sardar Associates and others1; and secondly, the Bank had declined OTS to the contesting respondent and there was no settlement on the basis of which the appeal could have been decided. No deliberation had taken place before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal for the purposes of settlement and that the counsel under law is not authorized to enter into any compromise or settlement without instructions of the party concerned.;