dues. 7. It is further submitted that OA before the DRT was disposed of on 3rd May 2011 in light of the settlement and, therefore, the continuance of the proceedings against the appellants would be an exercise in futility. 8. Shri Naidu in support of his submissions relied on the following judgments of this Court in the cases of: (i) Central Bureau of Investigation, SPE, SIU (X), New Delhi v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd., Calcutta1; (ii) Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another2; (iii) Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another3; (iv) Central Bureau of Investigation, ACB, Mumbai v. 1 (1996) 5 SCC 591 2 (2008) 9 SCC 677 3 (2012) 10 SCC 303 8Narendra Lal Jain and others4; (v) Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another5; (vi) Gold Quest International Private Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu and others6; and (vii) Central Bureau of Investigation v. Sadhu Ram Singla and others7. 9. Mr. Brijesh Kumar Tamber, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 Bank