1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4726 OF 2009 1. M/s. Girish Wines, Through its Prop. Jawaharlal Kanheyalal Chawala, Age: 48 years, Occ: Service, R/o "Chawala Niwas", Navjeevan Society, Sindhi Colony, Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon. 2. Hareshkumar Kanheyalal Chawala, Age: 46 years, Occ: Service, R/o. House No. 2098l, TP Scheme No.1, Plot NO.19B,19C, 20A, under Sr. No.171/1/2/2/2 in Plot No.33B, Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon. .. Petitioners Versus The Authorised Officer, Sushilkumar Nahata Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., M.T. Road, Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon. .. Respondent ... Mr. D.K. Kulkarni, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. S.P. Brahme, Advocate for respondent. ... CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR & S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 13TH JANUARY, 2010 2 PER COURT : Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is taken up for final hearing at admission stage. 2. This petition takes exception to the orders passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Mumbai dated 27-03-2009 and 08-06-2009 in M.A. No. 749/2009 with Appeal No. 156/2008. The petitioners had filed the appeal before the Tribunal. By order dated 27-03-2009 the Tribunal directed the petitioners to deposit a sum of Rs.2.5 lacs on or before 15-05-2009 so that the appeal can proceed further. That order of predeposit was not complied. As a result, on 08-06-2009 the Tribunal dismissed the application as well as the appeal for non compliance of the predeposit order. Both these orders are the subject matter of the challenge in the present Writ Petition. 3 3. Insofar as the order dated 08-06-2009 is concerned, that is only the consequential order. The real challenge is to the order dated 27-03-2009. However, having considered the facts emerging from the record, we have no hesitation in taking the view that no fault can be found with the directions issued by the Tribunal requiring the petitioners to deposit the amount of Rs. 2.5 lacs. That was on account of statutory requirement under the Act. Indeed, the Counsel for the respondent - bank would contend that the amount of Rs. 2.5 lacs will not be inconformity with the requirement of 25% of the amount determined which is required to be paid by law. According to him, an amount of 25% would be somewhere around Rs.3,50,000/-. However, it is not open for us to question the correctness of the said amount in the present Writ Petition, which has been filed by the appellant. The respondent - bank has not challenged the finding recorded in order dated 4 27-03-2009. Therefore, we would proceed on the basis of the amount so specified in the order dated 27-03-2009. It will be open to the respondent to invite the attention of the Tribunal, if there is any discrepancy in the amount so specified. If such an application is made, the Tribunal would consider the same on its own merits. 4. Reverting back to the grievance made in the present Writ Petition as aforesaid, we find no reason to interfere with the amount towards predeposit specified by the Tribunal in order dated 27-03-2009. We uphold the view of the Tribunal with liberty to the respondent - bank as aforesaid. 5. The next question is whether the petitioners have made out sufficient cause for non compliance of the conditional order dated 27-03-2009. It is obvious that even till 08-06-2009 the petitioners did not deposit the 5 amount which they were expected to deposit in terms of order dated 27-03-2009 on or before 15-05-2009. However, since the petitioners have now shown willingness to deposit that amount, as conveyed through Counsel before us, in the interest of justice, we accept this limited request of the petitioners and in the circumstances, we set aside the order dated 08-06-2009 passed in M.A. No.749/2009 as well as Appeal No. 156/2008 and restore both the proceedings before the Tribunal, on condition that the petitioners shall deposit the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- in the Tribunal within TWO WEEKS from today. Failing which, the orders passed by the Tribunal which are impugned in this Writ Petition will stand revived. In the event, the petitioners were to comply with the direction specified in this order, which in turn, modifies the condition mentioned in order dated 27-03-2009, the Tribunal may proceed with the pending proceedings on its own merit in accordance with law. We reiterate that in the 6 event, the respondent - bank was to file any application for calling upon the petitioners to deposit any further amount, that application will have to be decided on its own merit. All questions which may arise in the pending proceedings or the proposed applications are left open to be decided on its own merit. 6. This petition is allowed on condition that the petitioners shall pay costs of this petition to the respondent - bank quantified at Rs.7500/- (Rs. Seven Thousand Five Hundred only) within TWO WEEKS from today. Rule made absolute in above terms. ( S.S. SHINDE, J. ) ( A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.) sut/JAN10/wp4726.09