JUDGMENT

Sema, J.-Heard Mr. Dhruv Mehta, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Senior advocate on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 & 2 at length.

2. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 30.05.2001 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal ( DRAT ), Calcutta. Two appeals were preferred before the DRAT. Appeal No. A-23/2000 was preferred by the appellant and Appeal No. A-6/2001 was preferred by the respondents herein. By the impugned judgment Appeal No. A-23/2000 was dismissed and Appeal No. A-6/2001 was allowed. In view of the order that we propose to pass, it may not be necessary to delve into the facts leading to the filing of the present appeals. Suffice it to say that during the pendency of the suit, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was arrived at, in a meeting held on 18.05.1994 between the parties in which a compromise was entered into, on the sole basis of which the order impugned was rendered.

3. The spinal question raised in these appeals, therefore, is centered around as to whether the MOU, entered into between the parties on 18.05.1994 and forwarded by letter dated 20.05.1994, has been acted upon and complied with by the parties.

4. After considering the MOU, the Tribunal arrived at the following conclusion:

"In order to resolve the dispute between the parties it is necessary to interpret the terms of compromise as conveyed by the appellant bank by letter dated 20.5.1994. Since, there was talk of compromise between the parties which actually took place on 18.5.1994 at 3.00 p.m., the consensus arrived at must be taken to be a new contract between the parties and in the event the terms of this contract is obeyed by any party the other side cannot get away from it on the principle laid down in section 62 of the Contract Act. The clause-II of the enclosure containing the terms of the compromise fixes these settled amount at Rs. 33.14 lakhs plus interest at 6% thereon till the date of liquidation which is fixed at 12 months from the payment of first installment of 12 lakhs which is to be paid within a month from the date of arriving at the MOU. From the series correspondence which I have referred earlier it is amply clear that the first installment was paid by the opposite party in time and the liquidation of the agreed amount was also made within the terms of the MOU. So far as the Bank guarantee is concerned, it is no body case that such guarantee has actually been invoked and as such the opposite party is under no obligation to pay the said sum to the Bank. The only question remains in dispute is the calculation of interest rather the date time from which such interest is to be calculated. That MOU does not mention the time from which such interest is to be calculated and as such in my opinion since a new contract has invoked by way of talk between the parties on 18.5.1994 the claim of interest cannot go earlier to the said period. Because the Bank actually waived its the original claim of a much more higher sum by agreeing to remain contended with 33.14 lakhs as suit amount. As such, the subsequent contention of the Bank as conveyed by letter dated 12,6.1995 enhancing the suit amount as 47.22 lakhs cannot stand. It further appears that inspite of the fact that the opposite party actually obeyed the terms of MOU in toto, the bank did not adhere to the terms of the said agreement and did not release the title deeds as claimed by the opposite party. It is surprising that in course of the written note it has even been alleged on behalf of the bank that the MOU reveals that the mind of one officer of the Bank alone and there was no resolution of the Board of Directors to that effect on the said date. It is true that there was some exchanging of letters between the parties after the MOU. But that does not mean that the MOU looses its legality and significance, rather such correspondence were made around between the parties due to wrong interpretation given to the s