petitioner / defendants submits that they had addressed a letter, filed as Ex.B7, to the respondent / applicant bank asking them to consider their OTS proposal for Rs.2 crores along with demand draft drawn in favour of 1st defendant entity account with the applicant UCO bank. The copy of the said instrument is also filed as Ex.B8 which establishes that the demand draft obtained is in the name of 1st defendant together with a letter from a 3rd party suggesting therein that the amount may be kept in a no lien account, for consideration of the OTS proposal of petitioner / defendants herein, with the liberty to appropriate the amount if there is any amicably mutual agreement for OTS in an event that could have been reached by applicant bank and defendants. It is also submitted therein that in case there is no settlement arrived at between the parties, the amount may be returned to the depositer who is a 3rd party to the debt between applicant and defendants herein. Ld.Counsel for petitioner / defendants submits that the order of the Tribunal dated 28.11.2018 at Para No.10 has erroneously recorded that the demand draft was obtained in the name of the 3rd party and not in the name of 1st defendant, owing to which the OTS proposal could not be considered by applicant bank. Whereas Ex.B8 clinchingly confirms that the demand draft is obtained in favour of 1st defendant account with UCO bank which is the applicant bank, and therefore prays that the order in question may be reviewed and corrected with the actual facts of the case.
