1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION (ST) NO.22499 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.345 OF 2011 Venkatakrishnan Narayan Iyer and others Petitioners versus Dr.Ramesh P. Ranka Respondent Mr.P.S.Dani a/w S.S.Kanetkar for petitioners. Mr.Vishwajeet Sawant i/by ALMT Legal for respondent. CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR AND R.Y.GANOO, JJ. DATE : 16th September 2011 PC : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. By way of present application it is argued that the position stated in order dated 13th June 2011 is incorrect. In that, the appellant had not consented for depositing amount of Rs.1.50 crores. The counsel for the appellant had only prayed for time to deposit the said amount and not with regard to the merits of the direction in paragraph 2. We are unable to accept this submission. When the matter was argued on 13th June 2011, we had observed during the course of hearing that the appellant cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate. On one hand he has accepted the amount of Rs.76.00 lakhs under the same transaction from the respondent as back as in the year 2006, which amount he has been enjoying all this time. In that view of the matter, we had observed that the appellant would be liable to not only bring back that amount but also interest earned thereon for the relevant period at the commercial rate at least @ 18% p.a.. We, therefore, 2 rounded of the amount to Rs.1.50 crores. As the submissions were advanced, we understood the counsel for the appellant having agreed to deposit the said amount to show the bona fides of the appellant. But he wanted more time to do so. That request was negatived and the time specified in paragraph 3 of four weeks was granted to the appellant. Suffice it to observe that the statement, as recorded in paragraph 3, cannot be construed as limited to the appellant requesting time to deposit. Paragraphs 2 and 3, if read together, depicts correct position that the appellant had agreed to deposit the amount before us. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that since the appellant is not in a position to deposit interest component as suggested by the Court, he would be denuded of his right to appeal because the order dated 13th June 2011 would be construed as one passed by consent of the appellants. As observed above, the statement of fact noted in the said order is correct. In the event of non compliance of the assurance, what further order ought to be passed, is a matter which will have to be addressed by the appropriate Court. As a matter of fact, even in paragraph 2 of the order dated 13th June 2011 it is noted that if the appellant fails to deposit the amount within the specified time, the Court may consider of passing appropriate order as it deems fit on the next date of hearing. The parties are free to pursue their options as may be advised. 3. In view of the above, the review application is disposed of. (R.Y.GANOO, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.) 3 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.268 OF 2011 IN REVIEW PETITION (ST) NO.22499 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.345 OF 2011 Venkatakrishnan Narayan Iyer and others Applicants versus Dr.Ramesh P. Ranka Respondent Mr.P.S.Dani a/w S.S.Kanetkar for applicants. Mr.Vishwajeet Sawant i/by ALMT Legal for respondent. CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR AND R.Y.GANOO, JJ. DATE : 16th September 2011 PC : 1. Learned counsel for the respondent in all fairness submits that since the delay is only of 38 days, as is stated in the application, the review be considered on merits. Accordingly, Civil Application No.268 of 2011 is allowed. Review Petition be registered and numbered. (R.Y.GANOO, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)