PRASENJIT MANDAL, J. - (1.) THIS application is at the instance of the debtors and is directed against the judgment and order dated March 12, 2012 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata in Appeal No.73 of 2010 thereby rejecting the appeal preferred by the debtors.
(2.) THE defendant nos.2 to 6 of the application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal – 3, Kolkata being T.A. No.133 of 2002 availed different kinds of credit facilities from the State Bank of India upon certain terms and conditions and there the credit amount of the State Bank of India had been assigned to the respondent M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. The defendant nos.2 to 7 stood as guarantors for the transaction and executed different documents. The re-payment of loan was not satisfactory and as such the concerned Bank filed the application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal - 1, Kolkata and the said application had been transferred to the Debts Recovery Tribunal – 3, Kolkata. Upon consideration of the materials on record on behalf of both the parties, the Debts Recovery Tribunal directed the defendants/petitioners herein to pay a sum of Rs.57,83,831.58/- together with interests and then being dissatisfied with the said award, preferred an appeal being Appeal No.73 of 2010 which was dismissed by the impugned judgment and order thereby affirming the order dated August 20, 2010 passed by the Debts Recover Tribunal – 3, Kolkata. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred. Now, the question is whether the impugned judgment and order should be sustained.
(3.) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that only the question urged in the matter before this Bench on behalf of the petitioners is with regard to one time settlement scheme as sought for by the petitioners and the N.P.A. amount having not been disclosed by the opposite parties in spite of repeated requests.;