LCL JEWELLERY LIMITED Vs. DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When the matter was first taken up, on behalf of opposite party, i.e., respondent bank, Smt. Archana Singh, learned advocate, appeared who was granted time to get instruction from the bank official and to file an affidavit in view of the observation as made in the order of this court dated 4 October 2006 upon which Smt. Singh got a short counter affidavit filed by Sri Jai Pal Arun, the senior manager of the concerned Bank. Sri Agarwal, learned advocate, has filed rejoinder affidavit to the aforesaid.

(2.) After the aforesaid as the issue between the parties appears to be very small although the stakes appears to be high, as jointly submitted/agreed, keeping the matter pending may not serve any purpose to either of the side, the matter has been heard and is being finally decided.

(3.) In the matter of recovery of dues payable by the petitioner, having been initiated by the respondent bank, against the order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow, in T.A. No. 137/2002, an appeal-was pending before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal. In the appeal a compromise was arrived at between the parties and that was reduced in writing and that was filed before the DRAT on 19.1.2006 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition), on the basis of which DRAT on that very date, i.e., on 19.1.2006, passed a final order (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) disposing of the appeal in terms of the compromise filed before him. There is no dispute even as on today in respect to that compromise which was arrived at between the parties. In terms of the compromise, petitioner's company was to pay an amount of Rs. 533.00 lakh within 180 days and, at the same time, there was a provision in the compromise that attachment order in respect of plants and machinery lying with the Department of Customs, New Delhi, in terms of the order of the DRT, Lucknow, is to be withdrawn.