1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. WRIT PETITION NO.2308 OF 2008 Central Bank of India. ...Petitioner. Vs. Meckinnon Mackenzie & Co. Ltd. ...Respondent. .... Mr.Shailesh Shah i/b. T.N. Tripathi & Co. for the Petitioner. Mr.I. M. Chagla, Senior Advocate with Mr.C. D'Souza and Ms.Sanidha Vedpathak i/b. Maneksha Sethna for the Respondent. ..... CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J. January 30, 2009. P.C. : We have heard Learned Counsel for the parties. The challenge in the present Writ Petition is to the orders both dated 30th July 2008, one passed on Appeal No.66 of 2007 condoning the delay of 74 days in filing the appeal and the second on Misc. Application No.175 of 2007 in Appeal No.66 of 2007 wherein the application for waiver of deposit was allowed. It is contended on behalf of the Petitioner before us that firstly the impugned order in relation to Appeal No.66 of 2007 contains no reasons whatsoever. It just noted the contentions raised by the parties when in fact, it ought to have 2 been decided in accordance with law. Further it is contended that a further sum of Rs.100 crores accrued by way of interest and the interest of the financial institution has not been protected. The request for waiver of deposit was also disputed. However, Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent submitted that only a sum of Rs. 1.70 crores was outstanding. Thereafter, it is stated that a ship belonging to the Respondents had already been sold and they had settled under a one time settlement scheme with two financial institutions and are ready to settle the matter with the Petitioner Bank. Having heard the rival contentions raised before us and upon going through the contents of the impugned orders, we are of the opinion that a discretion has been exercised by the Appellate Tribunal to condone delay. Though specific reasons have not been recorded, the Appellate Tribunal has accepted the contentions raised by the appellant. There has been delay which is an admitted fact. Certain reasons have been mentioned. Keeping in view the cumulative effect of these reasons, we do not propose to interfere in the discretion exercised by the Appellate Tribunal. Since the delay 3 has now been condoned by the Appellate Tribunal, the matter has to be considered on the question of whether the ex-parte decree deserves to be set aside. We are of the considered view that the Bank would be at liberty to raise all contentions while arguing the matter for setting aside the ex-parte decree before the Tribunal in accordance with law. The Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. CHIEF JUSTICE Dr.D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.