1 WP-1777-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1777 OF 2010 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 124 OF 2011 Vijay J. Rathi & Ors. ..Petitioners versus Central Bank of India ..Respondents Mr. D. D. Madon, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Chetan Kapadia and Mr. M. Behl i/b. M/s. Apex Paw Partners for Petitioners. Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar with Ms. Sapna Rachure i/b. T. N. Tripathi & Co. for Respondents. CORAM : DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. 14 February 2011. P.C. : This Petition was directed against an order passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal on 15 July 2010 by which the Petitioners were directed to deposit an amount of Rupee Five Crores on or before 30 July 2010 as a condition of pre-deposit for the Appeal to be entertained. When the Petition came up before this Court on 19 October 2010 an Affidavit was filed by the First Petitioner who is a partner of the Third Petitioner stating 2 WP-1777-10 that an amount of Rupees Four Crores would be deposited in four instalments. The admitted position before the Court is that three out of the four instalments in the total amount of Rupees Three Crores have been paid with the Registrar of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal. There was a delay in the payment of the third instalment which was due on 15 January 2011. By an Order of this Court dated 13 January 2011 an extension of time was granted. The Court is informed that the amount has been duly deposited. In addition to the aforesaid amount of Rupees Three Crores, the Bank has realised a further amount of Rupees One Crore upon the sale of certain properties that constituted a secured asset. Thus the Bank has realised in all a total sum of Rupees Four Crores up to this date. 2. The Motion has been taken out by the Petitioners to modify the undertaking furnished by them and to reduce the amount of pre-deposit to Rupees Three Crores. Alternatively it has been prayed that the Petitioners may be given time to effect payment of the balance of Rupees One Crore until 15 May 2011. In the Affidavit in Support, three grounds have been urged (i) the Petitioners have furnished a proposal for a one time settlement on 3 January 2011; (ii) the Petitioners have entered into negotiations with certain third parties in respect of dues payable under Decrees of the District Court at Aurangabad; (iii) the Petitioners have borrowed from friends and 3 WP-1777-10 relatives to pay the amount of deposit as already paid, but that due to the financial crunch faced by them, some additional time is required. 3. Having heard the learned counsel we are not inclined to modify the direction that the Petitioners must deposit an amount of Rupees Four Crores. This direction was issued on 19 October 2010 in terms of an Affidavit filed by the Petitioners. There is no change in the circumstances or hardship of such a nature so as to relieve the Petitioners of their undertaking. The prayer for reducing the amount of pre-deposit therefore cannot be entertained. 4. However, it is evident that the Petitioners have made a bonafide attempt to comply with the order of pre-deposit passed by the Appellate Tribunal and with their own affidavit which is referred to in the Order of the Court dated 19 October 2010. An Amount of Rupees Three Crores has already been deposited besides which an amount of Rupees One Crore has been realised from the sale of certain properties. We are of the view that the ends of justice would be met if an extension of time is granted to the Petitioners to pay the balance of Rupees One Crore on or before 15 April 2011. In the event that the Petitioners deposit the balance of Rupees One Crore on or before 15 April 2011 with the Registrar of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, that would be treated as compliance with the impugned 4 WP-1777-10 order of the Appellate Tribunal since the Petitioners would then comply with the order of pre-deposit. In the event that the Petitioners fail to do so, the consequence as envisaged in the impugned order of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal would ensue. We may note that this course of action has been consented to on behalf of the Petitioners and in view of the extension of time that has been granted by the Court to effect compliance. No argument has been urged on merits. In the event that the Petitioners comply with the order for the deposit of the balance of Rupees One Crore by 15 April 2011, the Appeal filed by the Petitioners shall be restored to the file of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal. In that event in view of the request made on behalf of the Respondents to this Court for expediting the hearing of the Appeal, we request the Appellate Tribunal to dispose of the Appeal preferably within a period of two months from the date of deposit. In the event that the Petitioners fail to comply with the directions noted earlier, the Respondents would be entitled to proceed in accordance with law in terms of the Orders dated 19 October 2010 and 13 January 2011 passed by the Division Bench in these proceedings to confirm the auction sale . Until the disposal of the Appeal, the ad interim protection granted by the Division Bench in its Order dated 19 October 2010 shall continue to remain in operation. 5 WP-1777-10 5. The Petition is disposed of accordingly. 6. In view of the disposal of the Petition, the Notice of Motion does not survive and is disposed of accordingly. (Dr. D. Y. Chandrachud, J.) (Anoop V. Mohta, J.)