1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO. 134 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 8450 OF 2009 M/s. Aditya Diamonds & Ors. ... Petitioners Vs. Small Industries Development Bank of India. Respondents Mr.S.C.Naidu with Mr. Rui Rodrigues, Mr. A.M.Sethna & Mr. S.B.Nagar i/b. M/s. Global Law Offices, Advocates for the petitioners. Mr. Prakash Panjabi i/b. Prakash Panjabi & Co., Advocates, for the respondents. CORAM: F.I.REBELLO AND J.H.BHATIA, JJ. DATE : 10th November, 2009. P.C. 1. This Review Petition is directed against the order dated October 8, 2009 passed by a Division Bench of this Court. As the members constituting the Bench are not available, the present Review has been considered by us. 2. The petitioners were directed by the impugned order to deposit Rs.1 crore as a condition for maintainability of the appeal. While not interfering with the order, this Court observed as follows :- 2 “The Petitioner desires that the above-stated appeal preferred by the Petitioner should be heard without depositing the said amount, which according to us would be contrary to the provisions of law.” Considering Section 21, there is a power in the appellate Authority to waive the amount of deposit. This does not mean that this Court, in the observation quoted above, has laid down any law. It was merely a casual observation. It is Section 21 which would govern the jurisdiction of DRTAT in considering an application of waiver of deposit. With the above observations, no interference in the exercise of our Extraordinary Jurisdiction. 3. The learned Counsel seeks extension of 8 weeks’ time to deposit the amount. We are not inclined to grant such time. However, considering the financial difficulties pointed out by the learned Counsel, we grant six weeks’ time. On such deposit, the Appeal be heard on merits. Failure to deposit the amount, the Appeal to stand dismissed for non-prosecution. Review Petition is disposed of. (J.H.BHATIA, J.) (F.I.REBELLO,J.)