AJN 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.178 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.707 OF 2009 Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev & Ors. ... Applicants Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents Ms. Kranti Anand for the applicants. Smt. V.R. Bhonsale, A.P.P. for the State. Ms. Sangeeta Patil i/b Mr. A.G. Damle for respondent 3. CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI & R.G. KETKAR, JJ. DATED : 1ST JULY, 2009. P.C.:- 1. Heard Ms. Anand, learned counsel appearing for the applicants. 2. On 28/4/2009, we had disposed of the instant Writ AJN 2 Petition No.707 of 2009. While disposing of the writ petition, we had directed the respondents to maintain status-quo for a period of ten weeks from the date of that order. This status-quo order was passed to enable the petitioners to file an application under Section 17 of the Securitization & Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, “the NPA Act”) before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (for short, “the DRT”). 3. It is pertinent to note that in the present application, the date on which the application under Section 17 of the NPA Act is filed before the DRT is not mentioned. It is only when we asked for a copy of the application that learned counsel handed it over to us. We find that the application is filed on 16/6/2009. Learned counsel for the applicants admitted that it is filed on 16/6/2009. Since the date of filing of the application under Section 17 of the NPA Act is not mentioned in the present application, the question of giving explanation therein for such atrocious delay does AJN 3 not arise. In any case, in the interest of justice, we asked learned counsel for the applicants to explain the delay. She could not explain the delay. We had granted considerably long period of time i.e. ten weeks to enable the applicants to file an application under Section 17 of the NPA Act before the DRT. In the interest of justice, we had also directed that the respondents should maintain status-quo for a period of ten weeks. By asking for further stay, the applicants are trying to frustrate the NPA Act. In fact, in our order dated 28/4/2009, we have observed that any application for further extension of interim relief may also be considered by the DRT independently and in accordance with law. We even made it clear that if any application for condonation of delay is made, the DRT shall consider it having regard to the pendency of Writ Petition No.707 of 2009 filed by the applicants in this court. In view of our observation that the application for extension of interim relief may be considered by the DRT, the applicants ought to have approached the DRT for extension of order of status-quo. At the cost of repetition, AJN 4 we must observe that though we had disposed of the writ petition on 28/4/2009 giving ten weeks time to the applicants, the applicants filed the application before the DRT on 16/6/2009 and this date is not mentioned in the present application. In such circumstances, we decline to extend the time. It will be open to the applicants to make an application before the DRT as observed by us in our order dated 28/4/2009 and if such an application is made, the DRT shall consider it independently and in accordance with law. 4. Application is rejected. [SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.] [R.G. KETKAR, J.]