(-1-) hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1687 OF 2007 Rajrajeshwar Mangal Karyalaya Pvt. Ltd. ... Petitioner Versus The State of Mah. and Ors. .. Respondents Mr. S.A. Sawant with Mr. V.G. Ghosalkar for Petitioner. Mrs. M.P. Thakur, A.G.P. for R. Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. S.H. Sabrad for R. No. 3. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. REBELLO REBELLO REBELLO & R.M. SAVANT,JJ. R.M. SAVANT,JJ. R.M. SAVANT,JJ. DATED: MARCH 15, 2007 DATED: MARCH 15, 2007 DATED: MARCH 15, 2007 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Rule. Heard forthwith. . A certificate under M.C.S. Act was issued against the Petitioner herein. That was subject matter of the various proceedings. Writ Petition came to be filed before this court being Writ Petition No. 7782 of 2004 dated 8.12.2005. An order was passed in terms of the Minutes of the order signed between the parties. In terms of Prayer Clause (a), the amount was worked out with reference to O.T.S. proposal in the sum of Rs.19,32,016/-. The amount was to be paid in 18 installments which were to carry simple interest at the rate of 13%. Clause (d) of the minutes of order recorded (-2-) that in the vent of any two defaults, the respondent bank shall be at liberty to recover the balance amount. In terms of the order the Petitioner has been paying the installments. . By letter dated 16.1.2007 the Petitioners informed the Branch Manager, Nashik Peoples Bank that they would like to make repayment of the entire balance amount within 45 days instead of repaying six monthly instalments upto June, 2003. The bank was requested to communicate interest payable and due at the at the rate of 13% simple interest. The Bank was also asked to confirm the amounts towards "Shares" in the Bank, in the name of borrower company and individual directors, so as to deduct the same from the due and payable loan amount. On receipt of the said letter the Bank wrote to the Petitioner by communication of 18.1.2007 that they were not agreeable to the same. By subsequent communication of 23.2.2007 the banks’ attention was invited to the fact that the Bank had refused to accept the amount either in due installments of Rs.1,07,500/- or at once, from January, 2007 onwards under the pretext of earlier Demand Notice served by the Bank on 25.5.2006. It is pointed out that this is evident from the bank’s communication No. 1514 dated 18/01/2007. It was also pointed out that the bank had not furnished the statement of accounts despite of specific directions in that regard from the High Court. Though there were repeated reminders on that court by the (-3-) Petitioner herein. The Bank was informed that on the one hand the bank is not accepting the regularly due monthly instalments nor considering the offer of one payment of six instalments and on the contrary the fresh demand was being served. The bank by letter of 1.3.2007 denied that the Petitioner had approached them to pay instalments. This Petition was filed on 9.3.2007 pursuant to the demand made on them by the Respondent No. 2 by communication dated 8.3.2007. . The contention of the Bank is that considering Para 6 of the Minutes of oder, for non payment of instalments of January and February, 2007, necessary proceedings were initiated. . The question here is whether there was any deliberate default committed by the Petitioner herein. The instalments were due on 10th of each of the month in future. The Petitioner on 16.1.2007 had addressed a communication to the Bank intimating their intention to pay the entire amount. This was thereafter again reiterated on 23.2.2007. There is dispute as to whether in fact the Petitioner approached to pay the amounts or not. The case of the Petitioner is that he had approached to pay the instalments for the months whichthe Bank has refused. Considering the contention of the Petitioners and the fact that they had approached the court at the earliest available opportunity and had made (-4-) statement that they are willing to deposit the balance amount, due and payable, in our opinion it cannot be said that there was willful default in terms of the orders passed by this court. . The respondents had worked out the dues in terms of the Minutes of the order till June, 2007 in the sum of Rs.8,97,825.77 which included the amount other than loan amount. The Petitioner has worked out the amount as on 31.3.2007 in the sum of Rs.8,68,327/-. The Petitioners today have brought a demand draft in the sum of Rs.8,75,000/- drawn in the name of Respondent Bank. . Considering the fact that there was no willful default on the part of the Petitioners, this Petition will have to be allowed and accordingly rule made absolute in terms of Prayer Clause (a), (b) and (c) on the Petitioners’ forwarding to the respondents demand draft. The learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1 states that he has no instructions to receive the demand draft. Petitioners to forward the same by registered A.D. . The learned counsel seeks stay of the order.In our opinion there is no question of granting any stay. Hence, application for stay is rejected. (-5-) (R.M. SAVANT,J.) (R.M. SAVANT,J.) (R.M. SAVANT,J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.)