1 jpc/- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDNARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2045 OF 2009 Nipco Manufacturing and Trading Co. Ltd. and others. .. Petitioners Versus Central Bank of India .. Respondent Shri Sunil Purohit i/by Yogesh K. Deshpande, for the Petitioner Shri Mayur Khandeprkar with Ms. Sapna Kachure i/by T.N. Tripathi and Co. for the Respondent CORAM: SMT. RANJANA DESAI & MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATED : 10th November, 2009 P. C. 1. In this petition, the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 30.1.2008 and 26th March, 2008 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT). 2. It appears that a decree has been passed for the sum of Rs.84 lacs against the petitioners. The petitioners filed appeal against the said order. In that appeal, the petitioners filed an application for waiver of deposit, under Section 21 of the Recovery of Debts Due to the Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (RDB Act for short). By order dated 30th January, 2009, the DRAT rejected 2 the said application and directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.10 lacs within a period of eight weeks from the date of the order, failing which the appeal was to stand dismissed. A further direction was given that the amount when deposited may be invested in the name of the Register, DRAT. 3. The petitioners filed an application being Application No. 239 of 2008 praying for direction against the Recovery Officer to sell the movable and immovable property of the petitioner for the purpose of deposit. The DRAT rejected the application observing that the petitioners were directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10 lacs within a period of 8 weeks. That order had not yet been complied with, and instead, an application was filed seeking direction for sell of the movable and immovable property. The DRAT further observed that if the the petitioners want the property to be sold they can ask the Bank to sell the property but that cannot be used for the purpose of deposit under section 21 of the RDB Act. The petitioners are aggrieved by the above orders. 4. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. He submitted that the petitioners financial condition is ’ not sound. He has drawn our attention to the income tax returns 3 of the petitioners for the assessment year 2003-04, which shows the annual income of the petitioners at Rs. 54 thousand and odd. He submits that this was pointed out to the DRAT, yet the order directing the petitioners to deposit Rs.10 lacs is passed. He submits that the exercise of discretion by the DRAT is, therefore, not proper. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners have deposited in all Rs.17 lacs. However the petitioners were given a credit of Rs. 6 lacs. He submits that this again indicates that the exercise of discretion is improper and calls for interference by this Court. 5. It is not possible for us to interfere with the order passed by the DRAT. The amount of Rs.10 lacs is approximately about 12% of the decretal amount. It cannot be, therefore, called excessive. In the circumstances, we cannot say that the exercise of discretion is improper warranting our interference. 6. So far as the submission of learned counsel that in fact the petitioners have paid Rs.17 lacs as against the credit of Rs. 6 lacs is concerned, we do not want to express any opinion on this point because that would be the subject matter of the appeal before the DRAT. 4 7. Prima facie we appreciate the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that immovable property of the petitioners which according to the petitioners is approximately valued at Rs.50 lacs, should be sold so that the entire matter could be settled. We are sure that at the appropriate time, the DRAT will consider this suggestion in accordance with law. Needless to say that in that event, the petitioners will be given credit for the amount which they may deposit, as directed by the DRAT under the impugned orders. 8. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners states that the time to deposit the amount be extended by 8 weeks. In the circumstances of the case, the time to deposit the amount is extended by eight weeks. 9. The petition is disposed of in the aforestated terms. ( MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) ( RANJANA DESAI, J.)