Judgment :- S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. The revision application has been preferred by the Industrial Development Bank of India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Bank) against order dated 24th Dec., 2007, passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai (hereinafter referred to as Appellate Tribunal) in R.A. No.42/07. By the said order, the Appellate Tribunal recalled its earlier order dated 14th Dec., 2007 in view of the joint memo filed by the appellant (1st respondent herein) and the 7th respondent and disposed of the appeal in terms with the joint memo. 2. The only plea taken by the petitioner-Bankis that the Appellate Tribunal passed the impugned order on 24th Dec., 2007, without notice and opportunity to the Bank. 3. The question arises for consideration is whether the impugned order, in any manner, affects the right of the petitioner-Bank. .4. It appears that one M/s.Times Guarantee Ltd., filed a company petition, C.P. No.122/97 for winding up the 1st respondent, M/s.Rajalakshmi Mills (a company under the Companies Act, 1956) and winding up order was passed therein on 7th April, 2000, but it was set aside in O.S.A. No.179/01. .The Bank was the secured creditor and the company being the borrower, the Bank preferred an original application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Chennai, (hereinafter referred to as DRT) for recovery of the debts. Initially, DRT was informed that the company was under liquidation, but later on, the Official Liquidator reported the DRT that winding up order has been set aside. The original application was disposed of on 9th Jan., 2002 on the basis of a memo of compromise. 5. It appears that subsequently a recovery certificate was issued on 12th June, 2002 vide DRC No.79/02 for a sum of Rs.4,27,12,951/=. The Recovery Officer attached the secured assets (building) except office building, which was in a dilapidated condition without any roof or beams. The company filed an application for suspension of attachment and some step was taken for demolition of the factory building. The property was put up on auction on 28th May, 2003, by fixing upset price at Rs.18 Crores, but there was no bidder. The property was again put on public auction on 29th Oct., 2004, fixing upset price of Rs.15.50 Crores; but in absence of any bidder, a third time it was put for public auction on 27th Feb., 2004 fixing upset price as Rs.13 Crores, but there was no bidder. The property was again put on public auction on 29th Oct., 2004, fixing upset price of Rs.15.50 Crores; but in absence of any bidder, a third time it was put for public auction on 27th Feb., 2004 fixing upset price as Rs.13 Crores, but there was no bidder. A fresh valuation was obtained by the Bank and once again it was put up for public auction on 30th Aug., 2004 by fixing upset price of Rs.12.50 Crores. The 7th respondent, Mr.K.N.Ramajeyam was declared successful bidder having offered Rs.15.08 Crores and paid 25% of the bid amount inclusive of the Earnest Money Deposit. .6. The company (borrower) filed a writ petition in W.P. No.25635/04, wherein, this Court passed interim order on 19th Sept., 204, and the confirmation of sale was stayed. The Recovery Officer was requested to keep the sale consideration in an interest bearing account till the order of stay was vacated. The auction purchaser (7th respondent herein) filed a petition in I.A. No.534/04 before DRT-I, Chennai for depositing the rest of the 75% of the bid amount, which was allowed on 1th Oct., 204. The 25% of the sale consideration earlier paid was kept in fixed deposit in view of order passed by the Tribunal. 7. In the meantime, the borrower (company) approached the Bank for one time settlement. On 30th Aug., 2005, the Bank confirmed for acceptance, a sum of Rs.4 Crores, towards one time settlement. Pursuant to some understanding between borrower and Bank, one M/s.Pricol was to settle all the dues, which the Bank was entitled from the borrower. Therefore, the Bank requested M/s.Pricol to settle all the creditors, statutory authorities and labour dues of borrower before finalising the OTS proposal of Rs.4 Crores. M/s.Pricol paid all the statutory dues, secured and unsecured creditors on behalf of the borrower (company) whereinafter on 26th April, 2006, the Bank confirmed that it has received Rs.4 Crores in full and final settlement of the dues in respect of the borrower-company – Rajalakshmi Mills. The Bank brought the same to the notice of the Tribunal by filing a memo on 12th May, 2006 and requested to confirm the settlement of amount, having received the sum of Rs.4 Crores and sought for dismissal of the recovery proceeding. 8. The Bank brought the same to the notice of the Tribunal by filing a memo on 12th May, 2006 and requested to confirm the settlement of amount, having received the sum of Rs.4 Crores and sought for dismissal of the recovery proceeding. 8. The writ petition, W.P. No.25635/04 and another W.P. No.27208/04, etc., which were filed were dismissed on 24th July, 2006 with direction that if the auction purchaser remits the balance amount of sale consideration, the recovery officer can issue sale certificate. In view of that, the auction purchaser (7th respondent herein), remitted 90% of the balance sale consideration again on 25th July, 2006. The recovery officer, on receipt of such amount, issued sale certificate in favour of the auction purchaser (7th respondent herein) on 26th July, 2006. In Nov., 2006, the Bank filed a counter in M.A. No.6/06 accepting that it has received Rs.4 Crores towards full and final settlement even though the auction purchaser had deposited the entire amount of Rs.15.08 Crores, which has not been withdrawn. .9. At this stage, it is desirable to notice that one M/s.Pricol, who in the meantime paid all the statutory dues of the secured and unsecured creditors on behalf of the borrower, had incurred expenditure to the tune of Rs.17 Crores approximately. 10. The borrower was unhappy with the auction sale and so it filed M.A. No.6/06 (renumbered as Appeal No.3/07 – DRT-II) against issuance of sale certificate. In the said case, the Bank accepted that it has received Rs.4 Crores from M/s.Pricol on behalf of the borrower. The said appeal was dismissed by DRT-I on 2nd April, 2007, which refused to accept the one time settlement and held that the Bank was entitled for Rs.5,54,66,566/= as on 12th May, 2006. A memo filed by the Bank to withdraw the recovery proceeding was also dismissed on 2nd April, 2007 and the bank was directed to refund a sum of Rs.4 Crores to M/s.Pricol. .11. The borrower was unhappy as the one time settlement reached between it and the Bank for Rs.4 Crores was not accepted by the DRT inspite of the fact that the Bank has received the amount of Rs.4 Crores. Therefore, the borrower (company) preferred two appeals (M.A. No.94/07 and R.A. No.42/07) against the aforesaid orders, both dated 2nd April, 2007. .11. The borrower was unhappy as the one time settlement reached between it and the Bank for Rs.4 Crores was not accepted by the DRT inspite of the fact that the Bank has received the amount of Rs.4 Crores. Therefore, the borrower (company) preferred two appeals (M.A. No.94/07 and R.A. No.42/07) against the aforesaid orders, both dated 2nd April, 2007. What happened, the Bank took steps for refund of Rs.4 Crores to M/s.Pricol and to adjust its due out of the amount of Rs.15.08 Crores deposited by the auction purchaser (7th respondent). The appeal, R.A. No.42/07, which was preferred against the order dated 2nd April, 2007 on the memo of the Bank for withdrawal of the original application was first taken up by the Appellate Tribunal. After hearing the parties, the Appellate Tribunal, by order dated 14th Dec., 2007, set aside the order of DRT dated 2nd April, 2007 with observation that the consequence of the said order will be that the sale certificate dated 26th July, 2006 shall stand cancelled. The Recovery Officer was directed to refund the amount deposited by the auction purchaser and the auction purchaser (7th respondent) was directed to restore possession of the mortgaged properties to the borrower. 12. In view of the aforesaid order, it appears that the auction purchaser (7th respondent) approached the borrower (company) and they signed a joint memo on 24th Dec., 2007. The relevant clause (3) and (4) of the joint memo reads as follows :- “Clause No.3 : Therefore, the memo on 12.05.2006 filed by the Industrial Development Bank of India, before the Debts Recovery Tribunal that the Appellat has settled its claim under One Time Settlement Claim by paying a sum of Rs.4 Crores be accepted and that Debts Recovery Tribunal may be pleased to bring on record the above payment as prayed for in the Memo. Clause No.4 : The 7th respondent agrees that this Honble Tribunal may be pleased to allow R.A. 42 of 2007 to the extent of directing the Industrial Development Bank of India to return the amount withdrawn by it, over and above the sum of Rs.4 Crores from the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, pursuant to the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal dated 02.04.2007." The Bank was happy with Rs.4 Crores received as per the one time settlement reached with the borrower. It was not the question as to who paid on behalf of the borrower and, therefore, they wanted to withdraw the original application for recovery of the dues. Taking into consideration the aforesaid fact that the Bank in any case has already received Rs.4 Crores and could adjust the said amount of Rs.4 Crores out of the Rs.15.08 Crores deposited by the auction purchaser, the Appellate Tribunal, in turn, entertained the said joint memo and passed the impugned order dated 24th Dec., 2007, without notice to the Bank and disposed of the same in terms with the joint memo. 13. As stated above, the only ground taken by learned senior counsel for the Bank is that the order was passed without notice to the petitioner-Bank. Per contra, the stand of the respondent-borrower was that the Bank in no manner was affected. 14. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and noticed the rival contentions and the relevant facts as discussed above. It will be evident that the Bank has received Rs.4 Crores or could adjust Rs.4 Crores out of Rs.15.08 Crores it has received from the auction purchaser (7th respondent). It agreed for one time settlement for Rs.4 Crores and accepted that it has received Rs.4 Crores and, therefore, requested the DRT to dismiss their application. The DRT should have accepted such agreement reached between the secured creditor and the borrower as one time settlement, particularly when the amount had been received by the Bank and the Bank was satisfied. The Tribunal having failed to do so, the Appellate Tribunal set aside the said order on 14th Dec., 2007 against which the Bank has not preferred any appeal. That means, the Bank was interested for settlement and for dismissal of the O.A. as not pressed. Now the effect of the impugned order dated 24th Dec., 2007 is that he O.A. stands closed and the secured creditor (Bank) remain satisfied with Rs.4 Crores, which it can adjust out of the Rs.15.08 Crores deposited by the auction purchaser (7th respondent) and, thereby, in no manner the Bank is going to be affected. 15. Learned counsel for the Bank submitted that the auction purchaser in such case cannot get the property by virtue of an agreement made between the borrower and the auction purchaser. 15. Learned counsel for the Bank submitted that the auction purchaser in such case cannot get the property by virtue of an agreement made between the borrower and the auction purchaser. We are of the view that the secured creditor (Bank) is not supposed to know as to whom the borrower will sell the secured asset, once the secured creditor (Bank) is satisfied on receipt of payment. The Bank, by its letter dated 26th April, 2006 having issued a letter confirming receipt of Rs.4 Crores in full and final settlement of the dues and having filed such memo before DRT-I, Chennai, relevant portion of which is extracted hereunder, it cannot raise any other issue in regard to the secured asset :- "MEMO It is submitted that the 1st defendant company has settled the claim of the applicant bank under one time settlement scheme by paying a sum of Rs.4 Crores. It is therefore prayed that this Honble Tribunal may be pleased to record the above payment and dismiss the D.R.C. proceedings as settled out of court and thus render justice." 16. We have already noticed that even if Rs.4 Crores is returned to M/s.Pricol, which has not made any objection, the Bank is satisfied with Rs.4 Crores available with it out of Rs.15.08 Crores deposited by the auction purchaser (7th respondent). In the circumstances, as the Bank in no manner will be affected pursuant to the impugned order dated 24th Dec., 2007, we are of the view that no notice is required to be given to the Bank before passing the impugned order. There being no merit, the revision petition is dismissed. But there shall be no order as to costs.