1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION W. NO.1076/2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.5931/2006 (M/s. Suchitra Trading Company vs. The Samata Sahakari Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. and others) __________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri A.M. Ghare, Advocate for petitioner. Shri S.P. Deshpande, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 and 2. Shri D.M. Kale, Advocate for respondent no.3. --------- CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND A.B. CHAUDHARI, JJ. DATED : SEPTEMBER 1, 2010 Heard learned Counsel for the parties. This writ petition was admitted for final hearing on the question of law that is pending consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court after the decision was rendered by this Court. By this civil application, respondent Bank has prayed for direction that the petitioner should deposit the entire amount of Rs.1,39,01,185/-. Shri Ghare, learned Counsel for the 2 petitioner, vehemently argued that the petition was admitted and interim order was granted. He, however, agrees that the respondent Bank did not appear at that time. It thus appears that the interim order was granted and continued, but the respondent Bank was not heard. Shri Ghare, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner had discharged the entire loan liability. Be that as it may, the liability that is projected by the respondent Bank as against the petitioner is huge and not only that, the audit report shows that the group of persons, who are partners in the petitioner firm, had obtained loans in the names of various firms from the respondent Bank and the total liability presently as per the audit report is more than rupees eight crores. It is not in dispute that the respondent Samata Sahakari Urban Cooperative Bank stands closed down due to siphoning of around Rs.150 crores by Directors of the Bank and borrowers. Merely because this Court has admitted the petition and the Apex Court is seized of the matter for deciding the issue raised before it, the petitioner cannot be allowed to prosecute the present 3 petition without depositing any amount in this Court. After all there is found to be the monetary liability prima facie in the audit report. The Court will have to balance the equity between the parties. To continue the blanket order of stay of the recovery of money would not be in the fitness of things. We, however, do not agree with the learned Counsel for the respondent Bank that the petitioner should deposit entire amount in this Court. But, we find that the petitioner should deposit 50% of the amount projected by the respondent Bank in this case. For the above reasons, we make the following order : The civil application is partly allowed. The petitioner is directed to deposit 50% of the amount of Rs.1,39,01,185/- in this Court within four weeks from today, failing which the petition shall stand dismissed without reference to the Court. This Court has merely asked the petitioner to deposit the amount in this Court and it is not to be disbursed to the respondent Bank. Shri Ghare, learned Counsel for the petitioner, requested for suspending this order for 4 four weeks. The request is rejected. The civil application is disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE khj