( 1 ) THE petitioners are seeking quashing of the order passed on 21. 8. 1998 by Debt Recovery Tribunal, New Delhi (for short the Tribunal) declining to dismiss or reject the Original Application of respondent No. 2 - Indian Bank (for short the Bank ) for a decree of Rs. 2,43,50,000. 00 (Rupees two crores forty three lakhs an fifty thousand only) against the petitioners and other respondents, instituted under the Recovery of Debts Due to the Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short the Act ).

( 2 ) THE Bank filed an Original Application against the petitioners (respondent No. 1 and 2 the Original Application) and others before the Tribunal for recovery decree of the above amount, inter alia, pleading therein:-

" (I) respondent No. 1 through its partners approached the applicant Bank at its Jamshedpur, Bihar Branch for issuance of drafts on various dates;

(II) that pursuant to the request of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 the applicant Bank at Jamshedpur, Bihar issued the following Bank drafts:- 95drj51. htm and the said drafts were payable at the Service Branch of the applicant Bank at New Delhi,

(III) that similarly respondent no. 2 also requested the applicant Bank at its Jamshedpur, Bihar branch for the issuance of Bank drafts and got issued Bank drafts nos. 032136 dated 25. 3. 1998 for Rs. 25,00,000. 00 and another draft no. 032137 dated 25. 3. 1998 for Rs. 50,00,000. 00 and the same were also payable at the Service Branch, New Delhi of the applicant Bank,

(IV) that the proceeds of the above drafts were received by the respondents through clearance by getting the same presented through respondents no. 3 and 4. As there was no suspicion the same were paid in due course of banking business,

(V) the said drafts were fraudulently obtained by respondent nos. 1 and 2 in collusion with the Bank official,

(VI) that on reconciliation of the accounts it was found out that the respondents have not deposited the amount for getting issued these Bank drafts, and the payment of the same has resulted in overdraft,

(VII) that on receiving the information the applicant Bank contacted the respondents for the payment as the amount of the drafts but the respondents have failed to pay the same,

(VIII) that the proceeds of the drafts is lying deposited in the accounts of the respondents bearing account nos. 0231286004 of respondent no. 1, and account no. 0400840008 of respondent no. 2 being maintained with respondent no. 3 HDFC Bank Ltd. "

( 3 ) AFTER service of summons the petitioners filed an application praying for rejection of the Bank s Original Application, inter alia, alleging that the proceedings before the Tribunal were without jurisdiction; bank drafts in question were received by the petitioners from one Jai Prakash Singh of Money Multiplier Services (for short the MMS) in the normal course of their business and were deposited with the Housing Development Finance Corporation (HDFC) and Canara Bank (respondents no. 3 and 4) and thus they were bona fide purchasers; no document was produced by the Bank with their Original Application to prima facie establish that the petitioners had any business activity with them; the petitioners never requested the Bank to issue drafts in question. It was alleged that the averments made in the Original Application alone cannot form the basis of an action before the Tribunal and that the alleged transaction was not a "debt" within the meaning of Section 2 (g) of the Act, which was legally recoverable on the date of institution.

( 4 ) THE Bank filed a reply to above application staling that the demand drafts were got issued from their Jamshedpur Branch without consideration in connivance of the petitioners; they directly or indirectly approached the Bank for issuance of the demand drafts on various dates; they were admitiedly receipients of the said drafts without any corresponding consideration to the Bank; they owned the said amounts to the bank and thus the relationship of debtor and cr