1. Heard Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan, learned Advocate appearing along with Mr. S. Khound, learned advocate for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. N.C. Das, learned senior advocate, assisted by Mr. M.K. Mishra, learned advocate for the respondent No. 1.

2. The respondent No. 2 is the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata. This is not an adversarial litigation against the said learned tribunal, the case was not contested on its behalf.

3. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 11.12.2009 passed by the learned Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata (DRAT in short) in Appeal No. 51/2002, thereby setting aside and reversing the order dated 21.10.2002, passed by the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal, Guwahati (DRT in short), in OA No. 52/2001.

4. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners (including the predecessor- in- interest of some petitioners) had availed cash credit and other financial facilities from the erstwhile The Purbanchal Bank Ltd. The initial sanction letter was issued 12.07.1975. In course of time the said Purbanchal Bank Ltd. was amalgamated with Central Bank of India on 29.08.1980. By a notice dated 26.11.1990, the respondent No. 1 bank demanded from the petitioners their dues of Rs. 19,14,079.24/- as on October 1990. As the demanded sum remained unpaid, the respondent No. 1 bank instituted M.S. No. 63/1993 before the Court of Assistant District Judge, Tinsukia on 28.09.1990, for recovery of a sum of Rs, 34,41,790/- inclusive of interest upto 31.08.1993, with further prayer for future interest at the rate of 22% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization. With the enactment of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 (now renamed as Debts Recovery and Bankruptcy Act, 1993), the DRT was established and by virtue of section 31 of the said Act, the said suit got transferred for disposal before the DRT, wherein it was renumbered as OA No. 52/2001.

5. The petitioners herein had filed their written statement and denied the allegations. It was, inter-alia, claimed that excessive interest was charged on the loan account. It was also submitted that the demand promissory notes were executed on 21.03.1982, 01.08.1983 and 31.07.1986 and, as such the claim was barred by limitation. Also it was stated that the Letter of Waiver dated 01.08.1988 and 30.06.1991 did not correspond to any of the demand promissory notes and were never executed by the petitioners in favour of the respondent No. 1, further claiming that the erstwhile Purbanchal Bank Ltd. had obtained blank signed forms from them, which had been used by the respondent No. 1 Bank, as such, they were put to strict proof of their claim. The accuracy of statements of accounts was also disputed and the claim of the respondent No. 1 Bank was denied.

6. The learned Assistant District Judge, Tinsukia had framed the following issues for trial:

(i) Is the suit maintainable in law?

(ii) Whether there is cause of action for the suit?

(iii) Whether the Purbanchal Bank Ltd. sanctioned Cash Credit Limit of Rs. 2,50,000/- (Rs. 1.5 lakhs against Hypothecation, Rs. 50,000/- against pledge of stocks and Rs. 50,000/- against cheque purchase) to the defendants?

(iv) Whether the Cash Credit facilities were raised to Rs. 3 lakhs on 21.7.78 and then raised to Rs. 5 lakhs on 18.1.79?

(v) Whether the defendants’ failure to liquidate the loan amount and on their failure to keep financial commitments, a sum of Rs. 19,14,079.24 became due and payable by the defendants as on October, 1990?

(vi) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree, as prayed for?

(vii) (a) whether the suit is barred by law of limitation?

(b) whether the plaintiff-Bank in absence of any contract can claim the recovery from the defendants?

7. The respondent No. 1 Bank examined two witnesses