hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1750 OF 2009 Shri. Rajkumar Seth ... Petitioner Versus Union of India ... Respondent Mr. Shirish Gupte with Mr. Madhu M. Patel for Petitioner. Mr. A.M. Sethna for Respondents. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & A.M. KHANWILKAR, JJ. DATED : OCTOBER 08, 2009 P.C. Rule. Heard forthwith. The Petitioner was called upon to deposit 2% of the penalty. The Petitioner applied for modification that was rejected. Ultimately Petitioner could not deposit the said amount and consequently appeal was dismissed against which the present writ petition. It was the contention of the Petitioner that sum of Rs. 19 lacs. has been seized from him and that can be adjusted towards the penalty amount and that be treated as pre deposit. It was submitted that considering his old age, and the business has been closed, the Petitioner has no means and there was no liquidated cash and as such it was not possible for him to make the amount of pre deposit. This did not find favour with the learned tribunal. After hearing the parties and considering that other co-noticees have been discharged and further fact that the appeal was dismissed for the failure of payment of pre-deposit that may indicate the financial hardship that the Petitioner is facing. In the light of that the following order : Petitioner to deposit within four months from today sum of Rs. 5 lacs. Before the tribunal. The order of pre-deposit accordingly modified. If such amount is deposited, the order of the tribunal dismissing the appeal is set aside. On failure to deposit the order of tribunal stands confirmed. Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to cots. In the meantime recovery proceedings stands stayed. We make it clear that it will be open to the respondent to proceed to recover but not to sell any property which may be attached in the course of recovery proceedings without the permission of the court. (A.M. KHANWILKAR,J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.)