1wp-217-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No.217/2010 Rasiklal Kantilal and Co.and others .. Petitioners. v/s Union of India and Another .. Respondents. Mr Rishabh Shah i/b Munir Merchant, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr Mayur Chandeparkar with Ms Sapana i/b T.W.Tripathi & Co. for the Respondent No.2. CORAM: D.K. DESHMUKH AND A.R.JOSHI,JJ DATED: 3RD MARCH,2010 P.C.:- By this petition, the petitioners challenge the orders dated 15.9.2009 and 30.10.2009 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Mumbai. The petitioners had filed an appeal against the recovery certificate issued by the D.R.T.,and had made application for waiver of the requirement 2wp-217-10 of predeposit. The Appellate Tribunal decided that application by order dated 15.9.2009 directing the petitioners to deposit an amount of Rs.50 lacs and granted six weeks time to deposit the amount. It was mentioned that failure of the petitioners to deposit the amount will result in rejection of the appeal. The petitioners did not challenge that order within the period of six weeks. The petitioners also did not deposit the money. The matter came before the Appellate Tribunal on 30.10.2009 as the amount was not deposited, the appeal stood rejected. In our opinion, if the petitioners were aggrieved by the order dated 15.9.2009 they should have either challenged that order before this Court within a period of six weeks which was granted by the Appellate Tribunal or should have moved the Appellate Tribunal for reconsideration of the order within that period. The petitioners did nothing. They enjoyed the period of six weeks which was granted to them. Even, thereafter they did not move any application before the Tribunal. In our opinion, therefore, this conduct of the petitioners disentitles them to if any relief which is in the discretion of the Court. We put to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, if even now the petitioners are willing to deposit the amount, we are willing to grant them time. Though the petitioners wanted time to deposit the amount, they were not willing to 3wp-217-10 give an undertaking that they will deposit the amount within that period. This shows that the only purpose behind filing of this petition is to kill time. Petition is hereby rejected. (JUSTICE D.K. DESHMUKH,) (JUSTICE A.R.JOSHI,)