1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. WRIT PETITION NO.153 OF 2009 Vijay R. Hingorani ..Petitioner. Vs. Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd. And another ..Respondents. .... Mr. V.P. Sreejith i/b Sreeji & Lal for the Petitioner. Mr. Sanjay Udeshi i/b M/s. Sanjay Udeshi & Co. for the Respondents. .... CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. & MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. 21st March, 2009. P.C. : 1. Action has been initiated by the Respondents under Section 13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The Petitioner moved an application before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal under Section 18. The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal has directed the Petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.7.5 lacs within a period of eight weeks by its order dated 2nd September, 2008. That order has been called into question in these proceedings. 2. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner urged that as a matter 2 of fact no security interest has been created in favour of the Respondents and it has been so observed prima facie in an order dated 22nd July, 2008 passed by a Learned Single Judge of this Court in Notice of Motion 2927 of 2007 in Suit No.986 of 2004. The order of the Learned Single Judge on which reliance has been placed was passed on a Notice of Motion taken out by the Petitioner in the aforesaid suit. The relief that was claimed in the Motion was that pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit instituted by the Respondents, the loan agreement of 11th October, 1996 be impounded and be sent to the Superintendent / Collector of Stamps for adjudication in accordance with the provisions of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958. It was in the context of that application, that the Learned Single Judge observed that the document of 11th October, 1996 was not an agreement for deposit of title deeds but was a loan agreement simplicitor which was to be secured by the mortgage of the property thereafter. Whether or not there is a valid mortgage by deposit of title deeds so as to create a security interest in favour of the Respondents, would be adjudicated upon by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal in the course of the appeal that has been filed by 3 the Petitioner under Section 18. At this stage, it would neither be proper nor appropriate for the Court to render a final or conclusive determination of that question. Insofar as the impugned order is concerned, it merely directs the Petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.7.50 lacs. The Tribunal noted that though the amount which was claimed in the notice which was sent in October 2003 was Rs.16.55 lacs, according to the Respondents, the amount due as of date is in the vicinity of Rs.30 lacs. Even if the case of the Petitioner were to be considered, viz. that the amount due was approximately Rs.3 lacs considering the interest that would have accrued thereon, the quantum of deposit directed by the Tribunal cannot be regarded as inappropriate. The exercise of its judicial discretion by the Tribunal in the circumstances does not warrant interference under Article 226. The Petition is dismissed. However, time to deposit in compliance with the order of the Tribunal is extended by a further period of six weeks. DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. Mrs. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.