ORDER : 1. These are counter appeals filed by the Allahabad Bank (Civil Appeal Nos.4588-4591 of 1998) and Samsing Plantation (Civil Appeal Nos.4592-4593 of 1998) against the Judgment of the Calcutta High Court dated 14th July, 1998. Neither party has made any effort to support the judgment. It is clear that not only the impugned Judgment but also the manner of passing the same is unsupportable. 2. The Calcutta High Court had before it an Appeal No.470 of 1991 which was disposed of by judgment dated 6th December, 1991. Some clarifications in respect of the Judgment were sought. These were also given on 22nd May, 1997. It must be mentioned that in the Appeal Allahabad Bank had given a bank guarantee. 3. Thereafter, in the disposed off matter, when the Court was functus officio, applications were filed by Samsing Plantation pertaining to some labour problem in the Tea Estate. In the meantime, Allahabad Bank had filed a claim before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (in short "DRT"). Another application was filed by Samsing Plantation to bring Allahabad Bank on record in a disposed of proceeding. This was allowed ex parte. It was claimed that even though this bank guarantee, given in Appeal 470 of 1991 was not invoked, yet before DRT the bank had made a claim for the amount of the guarantee. A writ petition was also filed asking the Court to sanction a scheme for rehabilitation and to prevent proceedings, before the DRT, from going on. Knowing fully well that a competent judicial authority was ceased of the matter, the High Court has, by the impugned judgment, proceeded to crystalise, on an adhoc basis, the claim of the Allahabad Bank and set out the manner in which the claim was to be paid. The High Court has also, by the impugned judgment, provided that the proceedings before the DRT would remain stayed so long as payments as per its Order were being made. 4. As stated above, such an Order is entirely unsustainable. This Court, therefore, by an Order dated 12th February, 1999 stayed the impugned judgment and all interim orders. This Court directed that the proceedings before the DRT will proceed. 5. We are informed that the proceedings before the DRT have proceeded, gone upto the High Court and have now been sent back to DRT. 6. This Court, therefore, by an Order dated 12th February, 1999 stayed the impugned judgment and all interim orders. This Court directed that the proceedings before the DRT will proceed. 5. We are informed that the proceedings before the DRT have proceeded, gone upto the High Court and have now been sent back to DRT. 6. We set aside the impugned Order and direct that the DRT shall proceed with O.A. No.241 of 1997 as expeditiously as possible and in any event dispose of the same within a period of six months from today. 7. The Appeals stand disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs. 8. All the interlocutory applications do not survive and stand disposed of with no order as to costs.