Hon’ble Pankaj Mithal, J.—The State Bank of India and one of its “Stressed Assets Recovery Branch” (SARB), Dehradun has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court for quashing of the orders dated 7.11.2012 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) and 23.1.2012 (Annexure 13 to the writ petition) passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad.

2. The brief facts leading to the passing of the impugned orders are that an order was passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal on 1.12.2006. This order was taken in appeal to the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal. The appeal was decided on 23.1.2012 in terms of some settlement whereupon the Bank preferred Writ Petition No. 15010 of 2012 alleging that the order of the appellate tribunal dated 23.1.2012 is based upon incorrect facts. The said writ petition was disposed of with liberty to the Bank to file a proper application before the appellate tribunal, if so advised, and it was expected that if such an application is filed it shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with law. It is in pursuance of the above order that the Bank moved an application for recall of the order dated 23.1.2012. The said application after contest has been rejected by the impugned order dated 7.11.2012.

3. Sri Bhanu Prakash Dubey, learned counsel for the Bank argued that in the first place the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal could not have decided the appeal on the basis of the alleged settlement as it is contrary to the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in M/s. Sardar Associates and others v. Punjab & Sind Bank and others, (2009) 8 SCC 257; and secondly, the Bank had declined OTS to the contesting respondent and there was no settlement on the basis of which the appeal could have been decided. No deliberation had taken place before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal for the purposes of settlement and that the counsel under law is not authorized to enter into any compromise or settlement without instructions of the party concerned.

4. In contra to the above submissions advanced on behalf of the Bank, Sri K.K. Arora learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 submits that the order-sheet of the appeal reflects that the parties were negotiating and deliberating for settlement. The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal had passed the order dated 23.1.2012 in open Court in presence of the counsel for the Bank, after the parties have deliberated on the matter. The order of settlement passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal is not against the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India, inasmuch as one of the conditions for the payment of interest on the balance principal amount payable in installments was not applicable to the facts of the present case. The counsel for the Bank was specifically authorized to enter into a settlement on its behalf and in view of the said specific power, the Bank is bound by the settlement which was recorded in the presence of its counsel. In terms of the said settlement the Bank had accepted the payment and had encashed the drafts/cheques without objecting to the settlement and is, therefore, stopped under law from contending that the said settlement is not binding upon it.

5. The order of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal dated 23.1.2012 passed on the basis of the deliberations which took place during the course of argument decided the appeal in terms of the settlement with the following directions:

(1) The contesting respondents are to pay Rs. 56 in full and final settlement of the debt as on that date;

(2) 25% of the above amount is to be paid within 15 days from the said date;

(3) The remaining amount of Rs. 42 Lakhs is to be paid within six months in six equal monthly installments of 7 Lakhs each from the date of deposit of 25% of the amount;

(4) In the event the entire amount is paid as aforesaid the Bank shall return the title deeds to the contesting respondents within 15 days; and

(5) In case the amount is not