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 wit