IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5329 OF 2008 M/s. Rakhi Ispat Alloyed (India) Ltd. and others ... Petitioners Vs Central Bank of India .. Respondent Mr. P.M. Pradhan for the petitioners. Mr. T.N. Tripathi i/by M/s. T.N. Tripathi & Co. for the respondent. CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & A.P. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 4TH AUGUST , 2008 P.C. Decree was passed for a sum of Rs.8.45 crores against the present petitioners. Aggrieved from that order, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Mumbai being Appeal No.454 of 2006. Alongwith this, the petitioners have filed an application being M.A. No.949 of 2006 under section 21 of the Recovery of Debts Due to the Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 for waiver of deposit/ deduction of the advance of deposit as contemplated under section 21 of the Act. This application came to be dismissed vide order dated 11th April, 2008 vide which it came to be partly allowed and injunction order was issued against the applicants but at the same time it was directed that on deposit of an amount of Rs.40 lacs only within a period of 10 weeks from the date of that order, the appeal could be heard on merits and in default thereto, the same could be dismissed. The petitioners question the legality and propriety of this order in the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. The discretion vested in the Tribunal under section 21 of the Act is to be exercised in accordance with the settled principles of law. Initially, it is obligatory on the applicants before the Tribunal to deposit 75% of the decretal amount before it can claim the hearing of the appeal. However, proviso to section 21 contemplates that for the reasons to be recorded, the Appellate Tribunal would waive and/or reduce the amount to be deposited that is waiver entirely or reduction of the 75% of the decretal amount. This discretion has been adequately exercised in the facts and circumstances of the present case in asmuch as out of the recovery of the amount of Rs.8.45 crores the appellants have been asked to deposit only Rs.40 lacs. With regard to the dispute on merits, the counsel appearing for the respondents has relied upon the letter dated 2nd May, 2006 written by the present petitioners to the respondents wherein they had claimed the benefit of one time settlement scheme and agreed to pay Rs.2,55,51,25/- for the total debt due on that day being Rs.8,19,77,053/-. It will not be proper for us to deal with the merits in greater detail to avoid prejudice to the rights and contentions of either side. Appeal is pending before the Tribunal. Suffice it to note that after passing of the order impugned in the present writ petition, the appellants on two different occasions asked for extension of time and extension was granted by the Tribunal by its order dated 20th June, 2008. However, same request was further declined by the Tribunal by order dated 18th July, 2008. 3. For the reasons afore-recorded, we see no reason to interfere in this petition and the same is dismissed. The petitioners make request before this court that they should be given some time to deposit the amount of Rs.40 lacs. However, the learned counsel for the respondents states that appeal of the petitioners has already been dismissed. Be that as it may, if the petitioners deposits Rs.40 lacs and then make application for hearing of the appeal on merits then we expect the Tribunal to hear the appeal on merits. Such application would be considered only if the petitioners file the same within two weeks from today. Writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. CHIEF JUSTICE A.P. DESHPANDE, J.