ORDER : 1. The petitioner is calling in question the order dated 28.2.2002 passed by the DRT in O.A. No. 888 of 1995 and the confirmation of the same by the DRAT by order dated 4.3.2009 in R.A. No. 32 of 2003. The petitioner was the third respondent before this DRT and appellant before the DRAT. He was the Director of the first respondent-Company before the DRT and also the guarantor. The DRAT, after considering the rival contentions, has decreed the claim of the applicant. The petitioner herein claiming to be aggrieved by the same is before this Court. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials on record. 3. The primary contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the claim application was not maintainable before the DRT since M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, is not a public institution. The further contention is that the petitioner herein has resigned as a Director of the first respondent-Company on 6.7.1987 and, as such, the petitioner in any case could not have been made liable for the claim as before the DRT and approved before the DRAT. It is, therefore, contended that the orders are not sustainable. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that DRT band DRAT have not properly considered the contentions with regard to the limitation. 4. With regard to the first contention, it is noticed that the factual foundation with regard to the first respondent before the DRAT not being a public institution has not been raised. In any event, the said institution being a Bank has been impleaded in the appeal, since they have subsequently taken over the claim from the State Bank of India who have executed the assignment agreement. Therefore, the said contention merits no consideration. 5. With regard to the factual aspects of the matter, a perusal of the order passed by the DRT would indicate that all the contentions have been noticed by the DRT and on placing reliance on the evidence namely, Exs. A.3 to A.9 and also the documents at Exs. A. 10 to A.26, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the claim made by the applicant before it was proved. 6. A.3 to A.9 and also the documents at Exs. A. 10 to A.26, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the claim made by the applicant before it was proved. 6. Insofar as the contention which was put forth by the petitioner herein contending that he would not remain liable for the same since he was resigned on 6.7.1987 as Director of the borrower company, the DRT has made a specific reference to the document at Ex. A.7 viz., the guarantee which has been executed. Therefore, noticing the contents of guarantee that the same is continuing in nature and also taking into consideration all that the petitioner has done was to address a letter to the Bank which has not been acted upon by the Bank, has come to the conclusion that the petitioner would continue to be liable to discharge the loan. As against the said finding which was rendered by the DRT, the DRAT has also examined the said contentions and held that since the guarantee is in the nature as contemplated u/s 128 of the Contract Act, 1872 and being continuing guarantee, the petitioner herein cannot contend otherwise. Even with regard to the contention regarding limitation, the DRAT has referred to the decision as rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Margaret Lalita Samuel Vs. The Indo Commercial Bank Ltd., (1979) 2 SCC 396 , and has thereafter concluded that the DRT was justified in decreeing the claim. 7. In a matter of this nature, where both DRT and DRAT have appreciated the evidence available on record and have recorded concurrent findings of fact, this Court while examining the same in the limited jurisdiction of judicial review, we are of the view that we find no error or perversity in the order, so as to call for interference. 8. Accordingly, petition being devoid of merits is dismissed. No order as to costs.