1 hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 559 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1196 OF 2007 M/s.Siddhartha Tubes Limited ... Petitioner Versus The Industrial Development Bank Ltd and Ors. .. Respondents Mr. Milind Sathe, Sr. Counsel with Ms. Jyoti Singh i/by Sheikh Yusuf Ali for Petitioner. Mr. Darhan Mehta i/by Dhruva Liladhar & Co. for R. No. 1. Mr. Simil Purohit with Mr. F. Sayed with Mr. Khedekar i/by M.K. Ambalal & Co. for R. No. 2. Ms. Pragna Thakkar i/by Pragna Thakkar & Co. for R. Nos. 3 to 5. CORAM: F.I. REBELLO, & CORAM: F.I. REBELLO, & CORAM: F.I. REBELLO, & R.S. MOHITE, JJ. R.S. MOHITE, JJ. R.S. MOHITE, JJ. DATED: DECEMBER 01, 2008 DATED: DECEMBER 01, 2008 DATED: DECEMBER 01, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. . On 21st July, 2008 this court recorded as under : "Further, the Petitioner has already arranged for seven crores of rupees and would put in additional four crores of rupees before the next date and deposit the same in this court." 2 . The matter was adjourned to 21st August, 2008. On that date, the sum set out was not deposited. There is some dispute as to whether the amount should be seven crores plus Rupees four crores or only four crores of rupees. On behalf of the Petitioner the learned counsel draws our attention to the summary record of the proceedings of Monitoring Committee meeting of CDR dated 23.12.2006. At Para 5 it is noted that as per the CDR package, promoters were to infuse Rs.11.66 crores in the company and the promoters informed that they have already infused 7 cores. Para 2 of our order dated 21.7.2008, prima facie does not indicate that 7 cores have been infused. Even assuming that to be so, the balance of 4 cores have not been deposited in this court. The matter then come up before this court on 21.11.2008. We have noted that as on date the Petitioners were due and owing to various banks including I.D.B.I. sum of Rs.145 crores and no amount was deposited during the pendency of these proceedings and therefore, we had directed that the Petitioners to show their bona fides to deposit sum of Rs. 50 cores on or before 28.11.2008. When the matter comes up for hearing on behalf of the Petitioner the learned counsel submits 3 that they are not in a position to deposit the moneys and accordingly they have taken out the present motion whereby they have prayed that the order dated 21.11.2008 be recalled and similarly the order dated 21.7.2008 also be recalled. On behalf of the Petitioner the learned counsel contends that the amount due is not Rs.145 Crores but the same is Rs. 80 Crores and on behalf of the Respondent I.D.B.I. it is submitted that the amount due is Rs.185 crores. . In our opinion, this is nothing but dispute between the parties based on agreements arrived at. If there be any breach, that will be breach of contract between the parties and extra ordinary jurisdiction of this court normally cannot be invoked for that purpose though this court is not precluded from exercising its extra ordinary jurisdiction, in a fit case provided the parties show their bona fides. . In our opinion, considering our past orders and failure to comply with them, this will not be a fit case for us to recall our orders and consequently motion filed for recalling the order is dismissed. 4 (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.)