PRANAB KUMAR CHATTOPADHYAY, J. - (1.) THE petitioners herein have challenged the order dated 16th July 2003 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'DRAT'). By the said order, learned Chairperson of the DRAT was pleased to set aside the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal -II, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as 'DRT') on March 7, 2003.
(2.) IT was alleged on behalf of the respondent bank before the DRAT that the learned Presiding Officer of DRT passed the aforesaid order on 7th March 2003 recording entire claim of the respondent bank as settled at Rs. 58.51 lakhs with interest in terms of the provisions of OTS -2003 (OneTime Settlement Scheme, 2003) ignoring the objections raised on behalf of the respondent bank against recording of the said settlement. The question agitated before the DRAT is whether the decree/certificate issued by the DRT -II was passed on compromise/ settlement or otherwise. It has been specifically submitted on behalf of the respondent bank that there was no settlement and hence, the order of DRT -II dated 7th March 2003 should not be treated as a consent order.
(3.) THE undisputed facts relating to this matter are mentioned hereinafter : In April, 1991, State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as 'Bank') filed Title Mortgage Suit No. 73 of 1991 in the Court of learned Asstt. District Judge at Barasat against Eastern Paper Mills Machinery Pvt. Ltd., Adhir Kumar Bose, Mrs. Pushpa Bose, Amitava Bose, Anil Kumar Bose, Enayet Ali and Azizur Rahman, praying for a decree for Rs. 1,56,92,599.57p against the defendants jointly and severally.;