1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.438 OF 2009 Rasiklal Modi & Anr. ...Petitioners. v. State Bank of India & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.Simil Purohit i/by M/s.Bagla Dandekar & Co. adv. For the Petitioners. CORAM : F.I.REBELLO & J.H. BHATIA, JJ. DATED : 13th January , 2010. P.C. 1 Petitioners herein were guarantors for the loan and the order came to be passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal whereby the defendant nos.1 to 6 were jointly and severally held liable to pay sum of Rs.73,02,375.71 paise with future interest @ 15% p.a. from 1st January, 1986 till the realisation of the amount. 2 The learned counsel was asked whether the principal debtor has preferred the appeal. We are informed that principal debtor has not preferred the appeal. Even assuming that the guarantors can independently prefer the appeal, the learned Tribunal at the time of considering the waiver of deposit was pleased to direct a sum of Rs.10 2 lacs. The matter again came up before the Appellate Tribunal on 19.9.2008 for extention of time. The learned Appellate Tribunal in view of the fact that appeals were dismissed for non-compliance of the order dated 18.7.2008 held that question of extending the time would not arise. 3 Some others guarantors also preferred an appeal in which the learned Tribunal was pleased to grant the stay for the reasons set out in the order dated 14.8.2008. The learned Appellate Tribunal noted there that when the first guarantee was given, the appellant in appeal no. 228/05 was a minor and has signed at the instance of the paternal uncle, who is appellant in Appeal No.40 of 2005. The said appellant in Appeal No.40 of 2005 is one of the petitioners before this Court. The learned Appellate Tribunal then noted that considering these circumstances and that appellant at the time of second guarantee was hardly 21 and half years old and noting that she was not supposed to look after the family business, waived the deposit. Relying on this, the learned counsel submits that petitioners herein also ought to have been granted waiver of deposit. 4 In the instant case, liability of the petitioners is joint and several alongwith the principal debtor. There is an order against the petitioners herein in the sum of Rs.75 lacs alongwith interest. The 3 learned Tribunal directed deposit of only 10 lacs. The learned counsel was given opportunity whether now they are willing to deposit 10 lacs in that event time can be granted. The learned counsel did not avail of this opportunity. 5 In our opinion, the order does not suffer from an error of law apparent on the face of the record. No interference is called for. Petition stands rejected. (J.H. BHATIA,J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.)