1 Lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2457 OF 2010 Mr.Kiran Ramchandra Shete : Petitioner versus Canara Bank and ors. : Respondents. Mr. Uday Warunjikar for the Petitioner Mr. N K Kamat for Respondent No.1. CORAM : A M KHANWILKAR & R M SAVANT, JJ DATED : 05th April 2010 P.C. 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The order impugned in this Petition is dated 4 th February 2010 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Mumbai rejecting the application for waiver of deposit filed under Section 21 of the Recovery Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. In stead, the Tribunal has given option to the Petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.10 lacs within six weeks from the date of its order. 3. For the reasons recorded by the Tribunal and the order impugned being discretionary order, we see no propriety in interfering with the same in exercise of writ jurisdiction. No case 2 for interfering in exercise of writ jurisdiction is made out. The Petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. According to the counsel for the Petitioner, the Petitioner is only the alleged guarantor. The fact that the Petitioner is the alleged guarantor does not extricate the Petitioner from the liability arising out of the default committed by the borrower himself. 5. It was argued that the guarantee document which was signed by the Petitioner has been altered by the Bank unilaterally and for which reason the same is not bindning on the Petitioner. No such argument was canvassed before the Tribunal, which has rejected the application for waiver of deposit. In any case, that is a matter which may have to be considered in Appeal after the same is registered and proceeded further. 6. In the circumstances, this Petition is dismissed. However, by way of indulgence we direct the Respondent-Bank not to take any coercive action against the Petitioner for a period of two weeks from today. (R M SAVANT, J.) (A M KHANWILKAR, J)