the parties and the matter was settled. Accordingly, learned DRT held that no cause exists and the S.A. becomes infructuous. The S.A. was dismissed. Subsequent thereto M.A. 30 of 2021 was filed by th… and bank guarantee and for that purpose re-hearing of S.A. 84 of 2017 is required. Learned DRT has allowed the M.A. for hearing of the matter. Learned counsel for the appellant bank would submit that

1
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
                                
 Appl. Dy No. 294 of 2021
(Arising out of M.A. 30 of 2021 – S.A. 84 of 2017 – DRT-Cuttack)
            
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SHRI ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, 
CHAIRPERSON
Order No. 23
13.12.2024                                                                                        
1. The Authorised Officer – cum – Asst. General Manager, 
BANK OF INDIA having office at Jayadev Vihar Branch, 
Star House,1/1D, Jayadev Vihar, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar – 
751015.
2. The AUTHORISD OFFICER,  BANK OF INDIA Zonal Office 
at 
1/D 
STAR 
HOUSE, 
JAYDEV 
VIHAR, 
NAYAPALLI, 
BHUBANESWAR – 751015. 
                                                                ... Appellants
                                         --Vs--
1. M/s. B.N Parida having office at Indoo, A/12 Surya 
Nagar, Bhubaneswar, Pin 751003 Odisha.
2.MR SARADA PRASANNA PARIJA residing at A/12 SURYA 
NAGAR, BHUBANESWAR – 751003. Odisha
3.MR BARADA PRASANNA PARIJA residing at A/12 SURYA 
NAGAR, BHUBANESWAR – 751003 odisha
4.SMT INDUMATI DEVI residing at A/12 SURYA NAGAR, 
BHUBANESWAR – 751003. Odisha
5.MR DURGA PRASANNA PARIJA residing at A/12 SURYA 
NAGAR, BHUBANESWAR – 751003, Odisha. 
                                             ... Respondents           
   
For Appellant 
:  Mr. Surojit Dasgupta, ld. adv. on virtual mode.
 
For Respondent
: Mr. Kailash Ch. Satapathy, ld. adv. on virtual mode. 
 
  
THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :
Heard learned counsel for the parties virtually and perused 
the records. 
Instant appeal has been preferred against the order dated 
09.02.2021 passed in M.A. 31 of 2021 arising out of S.A. 84 of 
2017 whereby learned DRT-Cuttack has allowed the M.A. 30 of 

2
2021 and reopened hearing of M.A. 31 of 2021 and S.A. 84 of 
2017.
It appears that S.A. 84 of 2017 was filed by the respondent 
herein before the learned DRT which was decided on 17.05.2018 
wherein it was observed that settlement had arrived at between 
the parties and the matter was settled.  Accordingly, learned DRT 
held that no cause exists and the S.A. becomes infructuous. The 
S.A. was dismissed.  Subsequent thereto M.A. 30 of 2021 was 
filed by the respondent alleging issuance of bankers’ certificate 
for continuance of the cash credit account and bank guarantee 
and for that purpose re-hearing of S.A. 84 of 2017 is required.  
Learned DRT has allowed the M.A. for hearing of the matter.   
Learned counsel for the appellant bank would submit that 
the matter was settled between the parties on the basis of OTS 
proposal dated 23.02.2018.  All the documents have already been 
released and charge upon the secured asset has also been 
removed by the bank.  Learned counsel for the appellant bank 
submits that issuance of bank guarantee or operation of cash 
credit account and some other grievances of the respondent are 
not related to the terms and conditions of the OTS, which they 
have agreed to and on the basis of that matter was settled in 
terms of the OTS.  As far as relief claimed in the S.A. 84 of 2017 
is concerned the same held as infructuous in view of the OTS 
settlement on 23.02.2018. Further, charge over the secured 
asset has been removed and documents have been returned to 

3
the respondent.  Now respondents have no grievance against the 
bank.  If they have any grievance other than the relief claimed in 
the S.A. 84 of 2017, they may move appropriate forum for legal 
recourse in accordance with law.  But as far as relief claimed in 
the S.A. 84 of 2017 is concerned the matter has already been 
dismissed and there is no question of exercising inherent power 
of the DRT to re-open the matter by passing the impugned order.  
The impugned order suffers from material illegality and 
irregularity which is liable to set aside.  The appeal deserves to be 
allowed. 
O R D E R
Appeal is allowed.  
Impugned order dated 09.02.2021 
passed in M.A. 31 of 2021 arising out of S.A. 84 of 2017 is set 
aside. Costs e

…