N.J. JAMADAR, J.

1. These Petitions, under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, are directed against the common order dated 19.10.2016 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as “DRAT” for short) in Appeal No. 128 of 2014 and Appeal No. 145 of 2014 whereby both the Appeals, preferred by the Petitioner herein against the order dated 11.02.2014 passed in OA No. 31 of 2010 and order dated 27.03.2014 passed in Securitization Application No. 119 of 2012, respectively, by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur (hereinafter referred to as “DRT” for short), were dismissed.

2. As these writ petitions arise out of the common order passed by the DRAT and background facts are also identical, we deem it appropriate to dispose of both these writ petitions by this common judgment and order.

3. For the sake of clarity and convenience, it would be apposite to enumerate the facts in OA No. 31 of 2010 and S.A. No. 119 of 2012, distinctly.

FACTS IN OA NO. 31 OF 2010

(i) The Bank of India, the predecessor in title of M/s. Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. (the Petitioner herein) had extended certain financial facilities to M/s. Sunil Solvent Extraction Limited Defendant No. 1, a private limited company, which came to be subsequently converted into a public limited company. The Defendants Nos. 2 to 8 had stood guarantor to the said loan/ financial facility extended to Defendant No. 1.

(ii) The Defendants committed default in repayment. The Bank of India declared the loan and financial facilities extended to the Defendants, as nonperforming assets. Thereupon action under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short SARFAESI Act), was initiated.

(iii) On 30.03.2011 the debts came to assigned in favour of the Petitioner an asset reconstruction company. On 31.03.2011, the Petitioner claimed to have taken possession of the secured assets.

(iv) In the meanwhile, the predecessor in title of the Petitioner had filed OA No. 31 of 2010, claiming an amount of Rs. 4,50,65,000/- with interest at the rate of 13.60% per annum from the Defendants. The Petitioner assignee got itself substituted in the said O.A. During the pendency of the said OA No. 31 of 2010, I.A. No. 321 of 2011 came to be filed for recording the settlement arrived at between the Petitioner and Defendant Nos. 1, 3, 5, 7 and 8, and passing order in terms thereof. Vide order dated 25.07.2011 in I.A. No 321 of 2011, the DRT recorded the terms of settlement and it was directed that the Defendant shall pay the sum i.e. Rs. 4,37,00,000/- to the Petitioner towards full and final settlement of the dues. The DRT further directed that, in the event of default, the said amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

(v) The Petitioner, being dissatisfied with the rate of interest, filed Review Application No. 10 of 2011 and claimed the interest at the rate of 30% per annum on the sum agreed to be paid i.e. Rs. 4,37,00,000/- towards full and final settlement.

(vi) The learned Presiding Officer DRT specifically observed that, as regards the rate of interest, it was agreed by both the sides that whatever rate of interest would be determined by the Tribunal, shall be acceptable to both the parties. The Tribunal thus allowed OA No. 31 of 2010 and thereby ordered the Defendant Nos. 1 to 8 to jointly and severally pay the sum of Rs. 4,37,00,000/- to the Petitioner, as ordered in terms of the settlement alongwith the further interest at the rate of 8% per annum.

(vii) Being further aggrieved and dissatisfied with the award of interest at the rate of 8% per annum, the Petitioner preferred Appeal No. 128 of 2014 before the DRAT, Mumbai.

FACTS IN S.A. NO. 119 OF 2012:

(viii) As observed earlier, the loan accounts were assigned to the Petitioner by the Bank of India, the original Secured Creditor, vide Deed of Assignment dated 30.03.2011. The possession of the secured assets under sect