2003 Supp 5 SCR 129 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SEMA, J. Heard Mr. Dhruv Mehta, learned companynsel for the appellant and Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Senior advocate on behalf of respondent Nos.
A 23/ 2000 was preferred by the appellant and Appeal No.
Appeal No.
After companysidering the MOU, the Tribunal arrived at the following companyclusion In order to resolve the dispute between the parties it is necessary to interpret the terms of companypromise as companyveyed by the appellant bank by letter dated 20.05.1994.
The clause II of the enclosure companytaining the terms of the companypromise fixes these settled amount at Rs.
By the impugned judgment Appeal No.
33.14 lakhs plus interest at 6 thereon till the date of liquidation which is fixed at 12 months from the payment of first instalment of 12 lakhs which is to be paid within a month from the date of arriving at the MOU.
Two appeals were preferred before the DRAT.
A 6/2001 was preferred by the respondents herein.
These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 30.05.2001 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal DRAT , Calcutta.
1 and 2 at length.
