Judgment :- In both the Civil Revision Petitions, as common order dated 13. 2008 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (for short, the DRAT), Chennai in M.A.Nos.172 and 173 of 2007, is under challenge, and as the petitioner and the respondents are common, they were heard together and disposed of by this common order. 2. It appears that the petitioner-M/s.Maruti Acetylene Co. Pvt. Ltd., the borrower, failed to pay the loan amount, the respondent-Central Bank of India, Coimbatore (for short, the Bank), preferred Original Application against the petitioner-borrower, now bearing T.A.No.937 of 2002 on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (for short, the DRT), Coimbatore, for recovery of a sum of Rs.99,14,379.46, together with interest thereon at 18.5% p.a. with quarterly rest from 16. 2001. After more than five years of the pendency of the said application in T.A.No.937 of 2002, the borrower, who is one of the defendants in the said T.A.No.937 of 2002, filed two applications before the DRT, Coimbatore, one in I.A.No.1215 of 2007 under Section 19(25) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short, the RDDB Act) to accept a sum of Rs.70 lakhs towards full and final settlement of account of all their claims and another application in I.A.No.1183 of 2007 under Section 19(25) of the RDDB Act, to permit the petitioner-borrower to cross-examine (a) the Branch Manager/Manager-in-charge of the Main Branch of the Bank who was posted during the period 1991 to 1994 and (b) Mr.S.Pillai Iyengar, Regional Manager of the Bank. The DRT, Coimbatore, on hearing the parties, by order dated 8. 2007, having rejected both the applications preferred by the petitioner, two appeals under the RDDB Act, 1993 in M.A.Nos.172 and 173 of 2007 were preferred by the petitioner-borrower before the DRAT, Chennai. The order of the DRT, Coimbatore, having been affirmed by the DRAT, Chennai, the present Civil Revision Petitions have been preferred by the petitioner-borrower. 3. It appears that the DRAT, Chennai, having noticed the stand taken by the petitioner-borrower-Company in its letter dated 22. The order of the DRT, Coimbatore, having been affirmed by the DRAT, Chennai, the present Civil Revision Petitions have been preferred by the petitioner-borrower. 3. It appears that the DRAT, Chennai, having noticed the stand taken by the petitioner-borrower-Company in its letter dated 22. 2007 that it will pay Rs.70 lakhs in favour of the Bank towards "One Time Settlement" (for short, the OTS"), i.e. Rs.25 lakhs within 30 days and the balance Rs.45 lakhs within 60 days, allowed the petitioner-borrower to pay a sum of Rs.25 lakhs and the Bank was directed to keep the same in a separate interest bearing no lien account. It further appears that rest of the amount of Rs.45 lakhs was not deposited within 60 days, for one or other reason, and finally, the DRAT, Chennai, having noticed the relevant facts, found that cross-examination of the Bank Manager/Regional Manager was not necessary and confirmed the orders passed by the DRT, Coimbatore and rejected the appeals preferred by the petitioner-borrower. 4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner-borrower referred to one or other letter issued by the Bank to show the manner in which the Bank delayed the matter by giving some sort of idea that the matter will be settled between the parties. Referring to the Reserve Bank of India OTS Scheme and the offer given by the petitioner-borrower, vide letter dated 23. 2003; the Chief Manager Mr.R.Narayanan, Central Bank of India, Coimbatore Main Branch, Coimbatore-641 001, letter dated 4. 2003, whereby the petitioner was informed that offer was not acceptable to the Bank, further informed that as per the Reserve Bank of India OTS, the minimum amount will be Rs.31,72,3546. It was further informed that the settlement amount will be decided taking into the security/ies value. The petitioner-borrower did not reply to the said letter dated 4. 2003. But after about three years, the petitioner wrote a letter to the Bank on 23. It was further informed that the settlement amount will be decided taking into the security/ies value. The petitioner-borrower did not reply to the said letter dated 4. 2003. But after about three years, the petitioner wrote a letter to the Bank on 23. 2006 stating that as per the Reserve Bank of India (for short, the RBI) Guidelines and norms, vide Notification- RPCD.PLNFS.BC.No.39/06.02.31/2005-06, the amount liable to be paid by the borrower for OTS is Rs.31.72 lakhs, which is the outstanding amount as per their Books of Accounts, which was becoming a doubtful NPA, that due to long period, the borrower offered that it was agreed to pay a sum of Rs.43 lakhs, i.e. 20% higher than the norms stipulated in the RBI Notification for OTS offer and willing to make payment of 25% within two months from the date of receiving the written communication of the acceptance of their offer by the Bank and 75% within six months from the date of receipt of such communication of acceptance of offer. Pursuant to the said letter dated 23. 2006, the Bank through the Regional Manager, informed the petitioner-borrower, by letter dated 26. 2006 to improve the offer to atleast Rs.69.60 lakhs without delay. It appears that even after more than six months, the petitioner-borrower did not choose to reply. On 22. 2007, the petitioner-borrower, referring to the OTS, offered to pay a sum of Rs.70 lakhs by remitting Rs.25 lakhs within 30 days from the date of communication and the balance within 60 days. Having received no reply, the petitioner-borrower filed both the Interlocutory Applications aforesaid, in July 2007 in I.A.Nos.1215 and 1283 of 2007 in T.A.No.937 of 2002, as in the meantime, the said T.A. was proceeding on merits and witnesses had been examined. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner-borrower further submitted that the RBI Guidelines are binding on the Bank. The Bank is bound to make OTS as per the RBI Guidelines and both the DRT and the DRAT failed to notice the same and failed to exercise their jurisdiction. Reliance was placed on Section 19(25) of the RDDB Act, under which the Interlocutory Application(s) were filed for OTS to suggest that the DRT had ample powers to give such a direction to secure the ends of justice. Reliance was placed on Section 19(25) of the RDDB Act, under which the Interlocutory Application(s) were filed for OTS to suggest that the DRT had ample powers to give such a direction to secure the ends of justice. So far as cross-examination of the Branch Manager/Regional Manager/Manager-in-charge is concerned, it was submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner-borrower that the Branch Manager/Regional Manager/Manager-in-charge, having accepted for OTS, it was necessary to cross-examine them. The DRT, as also the DRAT, both failed to notice the relevant facts and erred in refusing the prayer to cross-examine them. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Central Bank of India opposed both the prayers. According to him, the RBI Guidelines for OTS are not statutory, and no policy decision in regard to the Bank had been taken by the RBI and the said Notification had not been issued either under Section 21 or under Section 35-A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. If the contention of the borrower is accepted, the interest of the depositors and the public interest would suffer. Further, according to the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank, the petitioner-borrower has no existing legal right for issuance of direction against the Bank compelling them to make the OTS for Rs.70 lakhs, in the absence of corresponding statutory duty cast on the Bank for such OTS, waiving either the interest or the penal interest. The object of the RDDB Act is to see that the rights of the parties are required to be determined and the Thousands of Crores of Rupees due by the debtors to the nationalised Bank(s) are to be recovered. If the Guidelines as contained in the Notification of the RBI are accepted as statutory, the Banking Policy, which is a laudable object of the Banks Nationalisation, will be defeated. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank also placed reliance on one or other judgment of the High Court and the Supreme Court. 6. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and noticed the rival contentions. 7. Some of the Guidelines which were communicated by the RBI, vide letter dated 27. 2000 to all Public Sector Banks, for recovery of dues relating to Non-performing Assets (i.e. NPA) of Public Sector Banks, have been enclosed in the typed set of papers filed along with the Civil Revision Petitions. 7. Some of the Guidelines which were communicated by the RBI, vide letter dated 27. 2000 to all Public Sector Banks, for recovery of dues relating to Non-performing Assets (i.e. NPA) of Public Sector Banks, have been enclosed in the typed set of papers filed along with the Civil Revision Petitions. Relevant portion of the said Guidelines reads as follows: "2. A review of compromise settlements of NPAs through Settlement Advisory Committees (SACs) made by us has revealed that the progress of recovery of NPAs through this mechanism has not been encouraging. The recovery position in respect of categories of borrowers other than small sector has also not been satisfactory. Banks have represented to us that on account of the relative inflexibility of the parameters given in the aforesaid guidelines, much progress could not be made in the recovery of NPAs. While banks should take effective measures to strengthen the credit appraisal and post-credit monitoring to arrest the incidence of fresh NPAs, a more realistic approach is needed to reduce the stock of existing and chronic NPAs in all categories. It has therefore, been decided to modify the guidelines, which will provide a simplified, non-discretionary and non-discriminatory mechanism for recovery of the stock of NPAs. All public sector banks should uniformly implement these guidelines, so that maximum realisation of dues is achieved from the stock of NPAs within the stipulated time. 3. The revised guidelines will cover NPAs relating to all sectors including the small sector. The guidelines will not, however, cover cases of wilful default, fraud and malfeasance. The banks should identify cases of wilful default, fraud and malfeasance and initiate prompt action against them. Accordingly, in modification of guidelines set out in our Circular of 27th May, 1999, revised guidelines for recovery of dues relating to NPAs of public sector banks in all sectors are given below: (A) Guidelines for recovery of NPAs upto Rs.5.00 crore [i] Coverage a) The revised guidelines will cover all NPAs in all sectors irrespective of the nature of business, which have become doubtful or loss as on 31st March, 1997 with outstanding balance of Rs.5.00 crore and below on the cut off date. b) The guidelines will also cover NPAs classified as sub-standard as on 31st March, 1997, which have subsequently become doubtful or loss category. b) The guidelines will also cover NPAs classified as sub-standard as on 31st March, 1997, which have subsequently become doubtful or loss category. c) These guidelines will also cover cases pending before Courts/DRTs/BIFR, subject to consent decree being obtained from the Courts/DRTs/BIFR. d) Cases of wilful default, fraud and malfeasance will not be covered. e) The revised guidelines will remain operative only upto 31st March, 2001. [ii] Settlement Formula-Amount and off date a) NPAs classified as Doubtful or Loss as on 31st March, 1997 The minimum amount that should be recovered under the revised guidelines in respect of compromise settlement of NPAs classified as doubtful or loss as on 31st March, 1997 would be 100% of the outstanding balance in the account as on the date of transfer to the protested bills account or the amount outstanding as on the date on which the account was categorised as doubtful NPAs, whichever happened earlier, as the case may be. b) NPAs classified as Sub-standard as on 31st March, 1997 which became doubtful or loss subsequently The minimum amount that should be recovered in respect of NPAs classified as Substandard as on 31st March, 1997 which became doubtful or loss subsequently would be 100% of the outstanding balance in the account as on the date of transfer to the protested bills account or the amount as on the date on which the account was categorised as doubtful NPAs, whichever happened earlier, as the case may be, plus interest at existing Prime Lending Rate from 1st April, 1997 till the date of final payment. [iii] Payment The amount of settlement arrived at in both the above cases, should preferably be paid in one lump sum, in cases where the borrowers are unable to pay the entire amount in one lump sum, at least 25% of the amount of settlement should be paid upfront and the balance amount of 75% should be recovered in instalments within a period of one year together with interest at the existing Prime Lending Rate from the date of settlement upto the date of final payment." 8. The guidelines aforesaid for OTS and recovery of dues relating to NPAs, issued by the RBI, do not say that they have been issued under Section 21 or 35-A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. The guidelines aforesaid for OTS and recovery of dues relating to NPAs, issued by the RBI, do not say that they have been issued under Section 21 or 35-A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. Section 21 of the Banking Regulation Act relates to the power of the Reserve Bank to control advances by banking companies and in the said provision, direction can be given by the RBI in public interest or in the interest of depositors or banking policy, including the direction for the purposes for which advances may or may not be made, the margins to be maintained in respect of secured advances, etc. Section 35-A of the Banking Regulation Act also empowers the RBI to give direction where it is satisfied that in the public interest or in the interest of banking policy, or to prevent the affairs of any banking company being conducted in a manner detrimental to the interests of the depositors or in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the banking company or to secure the proper management of any banking company generally, and in such cases, the Banking Companies shall be bound to comply with such directions. 9. From a reading of the aforesaid provisions and the Guidelines issued by the RBI for recovery of the dues by way of the OTS, we are of the view that the said Guidelines are not statutory Guidelines by way of direction(s) issued under Section 21 or under Section 35-A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. However, even if they are the general Guidelines, normally, except where discretion has been given to the Banking Companies, all the Banking Companies are supposed to follow the Guidelines. 10. The question arises whether any Tribunal or a Court of Law, can direct any person, whether a Bank or a Financial Institution or a borrower or a guarantor, to make "One Time Settlement" with the contesting parties to the case(s). 11. From the RBI Guidelines, dated 27. 2000, it will be evident that the said Guidelines are supposed to remain operative only upto 33. 2001. It will be further evident from the said Guidelines that no order of settlement can be passed by any Court, till an agreement to that effect is reached between the parties. 12. 11. From the RBI Guidelines, dated 27. 2000, it will be evident that the said Guidelines are supposed to remain operative only upto 33. 2001. It will be further evident from the said Guidelines that no order of settlement can be passed by any Court, till an agreement to that effect is reached between the parties. 12. Before deciding the question of settlement as per the RBI Guidelines, the Bank is to find out whether the borrower is a wilful defaulter, played fraud/malfeasance and in cases of such wilful default, fraud/malfeasance, the said Guidelines will not be applicable, as they do not cover them. 13. The aforesaid question of fact as to whether the borrower is a wilful defaulter/played fraud/malfeasance, cannot be determined by the DRT/DRAT or a Court of Law, till such determination is made by the Bank on the basis of evidence on record. 14. From the aforesaid Guidelines of the RBI, it would be further evident that even if it is found that the borrower is not a wilful defaulter/played fraud/malfeasance, it is to be determined by the Bank as to what is the value of the secured asset(s) and the actual amount(s) due from the borrower(s) along with interest and whether the borrower(s) is/are capable to pay the amount(s) and such amount(s) can be recovered by sale of all the secured asset(s) or any particular asset(s) of the borrower/guarantor. From the aforesaid Guidelines, it would be further evident that in respect of the NPAs classified as sub-standard as on a particular date, which became doubtful or loss subsequently, then, one formula has to be adopted, whereas, some other formula has to be adopted with regard to the borrower(s) whose NPAs were classified as doubtful or loss, after a particular date. As the aforesaid factual aspect can be determined by the Bank, till such decision is taken by the Bank, it is not possible for a Tribunal or a Court of Law to decide the same. 15. The aforesaid Guidelines further show that a compromise/settlement of NPAs can be reached between the parties and when once that is reached, even in a case pending before Court/DRT/DRAT/BIFR, a compromise petition to be filed for obtaining a decree from the Court/DRT/DRAT/BIFR. 16. It is a settled law that no terms of compromise/settlement can be fixed by a Court of Law, including the Tribunal. 17. 16. It is a settled law that no terms of compromise/settlement can be fixed by a Court of Law, including the Tribunal. 17. In the above context, it is relevant to notice the meaning of "Settlement" as may be applicable for the present case. As per "Concise Oxford English Dictionary Indian Edition-Eleventh Edition, Revised, Edited by Catherine Soanes, Angus Stevenson, Third Impression 2007", the "Settlement" is "an official agreement intended to resolve a dispute or conflict". The meaning of "Settlement" as per "Blacks Law Dictionary, Eighth Edition, Bryan A.Garner, Editor in Chief", is "an agreement ending a dispute or lawsuit." 18. Therefore, we hold that a Tribunal or any Court of Law is not competent to direct any of the parties to a case pending before it, to settle the dispute on a particular terms and conditions, till the parties agree to settle such dispute on certain terms and conditions either before Court or outside the Court. 19. In the present case, if the DRT, Coimbatore or the DRAT, Chennai, refused to issue such direction(s) to the Bank to make "One Time Settlement" with the petitioner by accepting a sum of Rs.70 lakhs, we find no error in the impugned common order dated 13. 2008 passed by the DRAT, Chennai. 20. However, we make it clear that taking into consideration the relevant facts of each case, at the time of determination of the Original Application pending before the DRT concerned, or after its decision, even during pendency of an appeal before the DRAT, it is always open for the DRT or the DRAT, to make such orders and give such direction (s) as may be necessary or expediently to secure the ends of justice, as stipulated under Section 19(25) of the RDDB Act, and in such a case, the concerned DRT/DRAT, under Section 19 or 20 of the RDDB Act, as the case may be, is empowered to decide the percentage of interest, to be paid by the borrower/guarantor in favour of the applicant/Bank/Financial Institution. 21. So far as the petitioners prayer relating to cross-examination of the Branch Manager/Manager-in-Charge/Regional Manager, is concerned, as no specific case is made out as to why the petitioner-borrower wants to cross-examine such Manager, and the case for recovery of outstanding dues is pending for more than six years, we are not inclined to grant such relief. 22. 21. So far as the petitioners prayer relating to cross-examination of the Branch Manager/Manager-in-Charge/Regional Manager, is concerned, as no specific case is made out as to why the petitioner-borrower wants to cross-examine such Manager, and the case for recovery of outstanding dues is pending for more than six years, we are not inclined to grant such relief. 22. In the present facts and circumstances of the case, it is not necessary to discuss the decisions relied on by the counsel for the parties. 23. There being no merit, both the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed, but there shall be no order as to costs. The Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.