JUDGMENT : R.M. Borde, J. 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Respondent waives service. By consent of parties, Petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. Respondent/bank presented Application being Original Application No.36 of 2002 to the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Mumbai (“DRT”) praying for issuance of Recovery Certificate for an amount of Rs 6,65,85,695.76 (Rupees Six crore, sixty five lacs eighty five thousand six hundred ninety five and paise seventy six only) together with 18% interest per annum with quarterly rests payable from 01.02.2001 till realization of the amount. It is not a matter of controversy that the Petitioners herein are borrowers of Respondent/bank and have defaulted in payment of amount due. On consideration of the application tendered by the creditor/bank, the learned Member of DRT by order dated 30.12.2004 allowed the application and passed the order directing Defendant Nos. 1 to 5 i.e. Petitioners herein/original borrowers to pay jointly and severally a sum of Rs 330 lacs together with future interest @ 15% per annum with quarterly rests from the date of application till realization of the amount. 4. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the DRT, two appeals were preferred; one by the borrowers and another by the creditor/bank. Appeal No.193 of 2005 came to be presented by the Bank, challenging the order passed by the DRT, whereas Appeal No.272 of 2005 has been presented by the borrowers objecting to the order of DRT. Both appeals were disposed of by the Appellate Tribunal by a common order passed on 29.09.2014, which records thus:- “ORDER (1) As per the terms of OTS, the respondent has to make the payment of Rs 330 Lacs with @ 10% quarterly rests from the date of OTS order. (2) The appellant bank sold the secured assets and recovered from the purchaser Rs 4.50 Crores also recorded. (3) The appellant bank is directed to send statement of account by way of RPAD to the respondent within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. (4) The appeal filed by the respondent i.e. Appeal No.272/2005 has been dismissed.” While disposing of the appeal, Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (“DRAT”) has observed in paras 8 to 12 as recorded below: “8. (4) The appeal filed by the respondent i.e. Appeal No.272/2005 has been dismissed.” While disposing of the appeal, Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (“DRAT”) has observed in paras 8 to 12 as recorded below: “8. The counsel appearing for the respondent borrower contended that the appellant bank has already accepted Rs 330 Lacs as full and final settlement and accordingly settlement has been arrived as per the OTS scheme dated 26/09/2000. However in spite of sanction of OTS scheme the respondent borrower has not made any payment to the appellant bank. Under such circumstances, he cannot take shelter under OTS proposal but anyhow the property has been sold for Rs 4.50 Crores and the SLP is pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court. Therefore, I am of the view that the appellant bank is entitled for the claim accrued with interest as he has claimed but trial court has ordered Rs 330 Lacs with future interest as he has claimed but trial court has ordered Rs 330 lacs with future interest @ 15% per annum with quarterly rests on Rs 330 Lacs i.e. the OTS amount from the date of application till realization. Considering the sequence of the facts of the case the property has been sold for Rs 4 crores and Rs 50 Lacs were recovered towards labour dues. However, the appellant bank has agreed to accept the proposal for Rs 330 Lacs under OTS proposal. The respondent borrower would have paid the OTS amount by selling the property however the respondent borrower failed to do so. But anyhow the respondent has availed the facilities from appellant bank, the account was settled upon acceptance of OTS scheme however no payments were made by the respondent borrower and therefore the property has been sold and bank has recovered sum of Rs 4.50 Crores. Therefore, I am of the view that instead of 15% p.a. with quarterly rests, 10% p.a. has been ordered with quarterly rests as indicated above and the respondent borrower appeal has been dismissed.” “9. The appellant bank has filed appeal against the order of the DRT by claiming Rs 6,65,85,695.76 enhancing their claim instead of OTS since the OTS has not been complied with by the respondent. The appellant bank has filed appeal against the order of the DRT by claiming Rs 6,65,85,695.76 enhancing their claim instead of OTS since the OTS has not been complied with by the respondent. As per the earlier discussion since the bank has considered for OTS at present for Rs 330 Lacs and this court is also agreed for Rs 330 Lacs under OTS amount even though the bank has claimed for Rs 6,65,85,695.76. Since the amount has been accepted under OTS scheme for Rs 330 Lacs, therefore, I am of the view that Rs 330 Lacs with interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of the OTS order normally 31/10/1997 has to be calculated and it has to be paid by the respondent. 10. The appellant in Appeal No.272/2005 availed credit facilities and the same has been enhanced as per sanction letter dated 15/10/1997 by the bank. As per discussion of both parties revival was formulated on 01/02/1999 and the Income Tax Authorities have attached the properties on 09/11/1999. On 26/9/2000, the respondent no.1 issued a letter informing the acceptance of Rs 330 Lacs towards full and final settlement of outstanding against the appellant. The compromise has been entered into between the parties on 21/10/2000. Thereafter extended from time to time and the properties have been attached by the Income Tax Authorities and thereafter on 5/12/2002, notice under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act has been issued. 11. The respondent also has filed another appeal to set aside the O.A. amount fixed by the DRT since both are one at the same and under OTS scheme, the respondent has agreed to make the payment of Rs 330 Lacs and the bank has given a concession. Under such circumstances, the appeal cannot be allowed. Hence the respondent's appeal has been dismissed. 12. The amount of Rs 330 Lacs with interest @ 10% p.a. is correct one and therefore the appeal filed by the appellant bank has been ordered with quarterly rests as indicated above.” 5. Respondent/bank/creditor realized at later point of time that there are certain inadvertent errors appearing in the order passed by the DRAT and, as such, the Respondent/bank orally requested the DRAT to effect corrections in the order. Respondent/bank/creditor realized at later point of time that there are certain inadvertent errors appearing in the order passed by the DRAT and, as such, the Respondent/bank orally requested the DRAT to effect corrections in the order. It is the contention of the bank/creditor that while dictating the order in the open Court, DRAT, in fact, has allowed the appeal presented by the bank and directed the Petitioners herein/original borrowers to make payment of the amount of Rs 6,65,85,695.76 together with 15% interest. The order passed by the DRAT, however, records entitlement of the bank to recover a sum of Rs 330 lacs with 15% interest with quarterly rest from the date of OTS order. It is also the contention of the bank/creditor that reference to Rs 4.50 crores in para 2 of the operative order needs to be corrected as Rs 4.00 crores. It is an admitted fact that no written application or praecipe has been presented by the bank/creditor. However, praecipe has been served upon the Advocate for original borrowers informing him that DRAT has prescribed 16.12.2014 as the date for considering the request of speaking to the minutes of the order of DRAT passed on 29.09.2014 and the original borrowers/Petitioners herein may cause their appearance in the matter. 6. Considering the contentions raised by the bank/creditor, DRAT proceeded to direct substantial corrections in the order passed earlier by order dated 16.12.2014 about three months after passing of the original order by the DRAT on 29.09.2014. By the said order dated 16.12.2014, decree in respect of recovery of amount which was originally in the sum of Rs 330 lacs has been corrected entitling the bank/creditor to recover an amount of Rs 6,65,85,695.76 with interest @ 10% per annum with quarterly rests from the date of the application. The entitlement of the bank to recover the amount from the date of OTS order which is 31/10/1997 occurring in the original order has been directed to be omitted. In second para of the operative order, correction has been made in respect of figure of amount of Rs 4.50 crores as Rs 4.00 crores. It is this order dated 16.12.2014 which is objected by the Petitioners/original borrowers. It is the contention of the Petitioners that reference in the order that the borrowers have consented for effecting corrections is denied specifically by the borrowers. It is this order dated 16.12.2014 which is objected by the Petitioners/original borrowers. It is the contention of the Petitioners that reference in the order that the borrowers have consented for effecting corrections is denied specifically by the borrowers. It is the contentions of the Petitioners/borrowers that an affidavit has been tendered by the borrowers after borrowers came to know about the corrections effected in the order passed by the DRAT reiterating therein that the borrowers had never consented for effecting such corrections. This aspect has been seriously controverted by the bank/creditor/Respondent herein. The factual controversy as to whether there was a consent by the original borrowers before the DRAT for effecting corrections as claimed by the bank/creditor need not be gone into in exercise of our writ jurisdiction. It will also be difficult to arrive at specific conclusion in this regard since the Chairperson of the DRAT has retired within short time after passing of the order impugned in this Petition. The contention raised by the Petitioners/original borrowers is that the correction in the order as directed by the Chairperson of the DRAT entitling the bank/creditor to recover an amount of Rs 6,65,85,695.76 instead of Rs 330 lacs as originally directed under order dated 29.09.2014 passed by the DRAT while disposing the appeal, cannot be the matter of consideration by the DRAT upon oral request at the instance of bank/creditor. There are several disputed questions raised by the original borrowers in respect of the order passed by the DRAT directing corrections in the original order on 16.12.2014. According to us, only inadvertent typographical mistakes can be directed to be corrected while considering the request for speaking to the minutes of the order. The substantial corrections in respect of entitlement of the bank/creditor to receive larger amount of Rs 6,65,85,695.76 instead of Rs 330 lacs as originally directed by the DRAT does not come within the scope of consideration of request for speaking to the minutes of the order. It was open for the bank/creditor to present a detailed application specifying their objections to the order. However, nothing has been placed in writing by the bank before the DRAT. The reasons recorded by DRAT while rejecting the request of the bank entitling them to recover the amount of Rs 6,65,85,695.76 are recorded in paragraph 8 of the order. It was open for the bank/creditor to present a detailed application specifying their objections to the order. However, nothing has been placed in writing by the bank before the DRAT. The reasons recorded by DRAT while rejecting the request of the bank entitling them to recover the amount of Rs 6,65,85,695.76 are recorded in paragraph 8 of the order. It has been observed by the DRAT in para 8 of the said order as under:- “8. ….......................Therefore, I am of the view that the appellant bank is entitled for the claim accrued with interest as he has claimed but trial court has ordered Rs 330 Lacs with future interest as he has claimed but trial court has ordered Rs 330 Lacs with future interest @ 15% per annum with quarterly rests on Rs 330 Lacs i.e. the OTS amount from the date of application till realization.......” It is also further observed in the same para as under:- “…...Therefore, I am of the view that instead of 15% p.a. with quarterly rests, 10% p.a. has been ordered with quarterly rests as indicated above and the respondent borrower appeal has been dismissed.” Although it is categorically recorded in para 8 of the order that the bank would be entitled to recover a sum of Rs 330 lacs with future interest @ 10% with quarterly rests from the date of OTS order, reference in respect of the amount recoverable with 10% interest with quarterly rests in the concluding portion of the said paragraph has been directed to be corrected and the said observation recorded by the DRAT remains the part of the order. Even if corrections as have been ordered by DRAT in paras 9, 11 and operative portion are considered, reasoning recorded in para 8 of the order remains which is in conflict with the reasoning recorded in other paras of the order. It is also difficult to understand as to when DRAT has granted relief in respect of payment of amount of interest and directed the borrowers to pay interest @ 10% per annum with quarterly rests, as to how the appeal presented by the borrowers can be said to have been dismissed. It is also difficult to understand as to when DRAT has granted relief in respect of payment of amount of interest and directed the borrowers to pay interest @ 10% per annum with quarterly rests, as to how the appeal presented by the borrowers can be said to have been dismissed. If at all, corrections as directed by DRAT in paras 9 and 11 as well as the operative portion of the order are to be considered, the net result thereof would be that the appeal presented by the bank shall be deemed to have been allowed in its totality. However, appeal presented by the bank/creditor has been dismissed by the DRAT. The original order directing dismissal of the appeal of a party cannot be directed to be corrected on consideration of oral request by the said party. There are certain other modes available for reviving the order which could have been followed by the DRAT. The order passed by the DRAT directing corrections in the original judgment after a lapse of three months is obviously illegal and beyond the powers exercisable by the appellate forum. Apart from this, corrections as are directed by the DRAT have totally changed the complexion of the original order as has been stated above and the net result of issuance of directions making corrections in the original order passed by the DRAT is that the appeal presented by the respondent/creditor stands allowed, although under original order the same was directed to be dismissed. Such a drastic change in the order, obviously, cannot be made while considering the oral request of the respondent/bank. The order passed by the DRAT on 16.12.2014, directing corrections in the original order has resulted in failure of justice and therefore needs to be set aside. At the same time, it must be observed that there appears to be some errors in the order in respect of figures and those could have been corrected i.e. to say a reference to Rs 4.50 crores appearing in para 2 of the operative portion of the order which is directed to be corrected as Rs. 4.00 crores could have been made. However, other corrections as directed by the DRAT entitling the bank/creditor to recover larger sum is surely beyond the purview of the jurisdictional authority of the DRAT while considering the oral request of the party. 7. 4.00 crores could have been made. However, other corrections as directed by the DRAT entitling the bank/creditor to recover larger sum is surely beyond the purview of the jurisdictional authority of the DRAT while considering the oral request of the party. 7. The order passed by the DRAT on 16/12/2014 which is impugned in this Petition therefore deserves to be quashed and set aside. At the same time, parties are at liberty to tender appropriate application seeking review of the order if they so desire. If such an application is presented within four weeks from today, DRAT shall consider the said application and decide the same as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of presenting such application. Any order passed on such application would be amenable to challenge at the instance of either of the parties, including the original order passed by the DRAT on 29.09.2014. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs.