1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1859 OF 2006 M/s. Ruchi Implex ... Petitioner Vs. The Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. ... Respondent Mr. Rohit Shetty for Petitioner. Mr. Rafiq Peermohideen with Ms. Bidushi Handique i/by Paras Kuhad & Associates for R. No. 1. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. REBELLO REBELLO REBELLO & ANOOP V. MOHTA,JJ. ANOOP V. MOHTA,JJ. ANOOP V. MOHTA,JJ. DATED: SEPTEMBER 27, 2006 DATED: SEPTEMBER 27, 2006 DATED: SEPTEMBER 27, 2006 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Rule. By consent heard forthwith. . Considering the delay, really speaking there is no error in the order passed by the D.R.A.T. but purely as a measure to enable the Petitioners to show their case on merits, if any, we propose to pass the following order : . The Petitioner to deposit before D.R.A.T. sum of Rs.75 lacs within 15 days from today. If this amount is deposited, the delay in prefering the appeal stands condoned and the order dismissing the appeal stands set aside. The D.R.A.T. is then directed to dispose of the appeal on merits. 2 . If the amount is not deposited, the order of D.R.A.T. stands. . With the above observations, Rule disposed of. (ANOOP V. MOHTA,J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA,J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA,J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.)