Judgment : R. Sudhakar, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners to quash the order dated 10.9.2013 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, in I.A. No.167/2012 in AIR No.1104/2010. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. 3. This case has got a chequered history. The 1st petitioner in this case – a partnership firm, availed loan from the 1st respondent bank in the year 1993 by executing certain loan documents. Due to recession in economy and fall in business and other family feud, the 1st petitioner was not in a position to repay the respondent Bank and, therefore, on 14.3.1997, the bank filed O.A. No.162/1997 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal – II, Chennai (for short 'Tribunal'). On 6.10.97, written statement was filed and, thereafter, O.A. No.167/97 was renumbered as O.A. No.359/07, which came to be decreed on 28.10.09 and a recovery certificate in DRC No.139/09 dated 29.12.09 was issued for a sum of Rs.13,03,88,658.95. It also included interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of default till date of certificate with quarterly rest. As against this decree, passed in O.A. No.359/07, the petitioner herein filed an appeal before the 3rd respondent herein with a petition for condonation of delay and the same was dismissed. The petitioner, thereafter, filed a civil revision petition, which was allowed and the application for condonation of delay was allowed and the Court directed the 3rd respondent – Appellate Tribunal to take up the application for waiver together with the appeal. The 3rd respondent passed an order dated 13.6.12 in I.A No.167/12 directing the petitioner to deposit 50% of the dues instead of 75% towards pre-deposit for the purpose of entertaining the appeal. The petitioner was directed to deposit Rs.6,35,64,463.61 on or before 16.7.12. That order came to be challenged in W.P. No.19119/12 and this Court, by order dated 21.8.12, in exercise of discretionary power under Section 21 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks & Financial Institutions Act (for short 'RDDB & FI Act'), held that the 3rd respondent had not given sufficient reasons to justify the order of pre-deposit. However, this Court felt that there was no need to remand the matter and, therefore, modified the order to the effect that the petitioner should deposit 25% of the amount as pre-deposit. However, this Court felt that there was no need to remand the matter and, therefore, modified the order to the effect that the petitioner should deposit 25% of the amount as pre-deposit. The relevant portion of the order reads as under :- “9. A reading of the orders of the third respondent does not indicate anything on consideration of both questions, except observing that 'the interest of the petitioners cannot outweigh the interest of the bank, which had lent out public money'. In our opinion, though the third respondent, which has discretionary power and which should be exercised, has not done so, especially when the petitioners made a specific plea in the affidavits filed in support of the waiver applications, we are not inclined to set aside and remit the matters for fresh consideration before the third respondent for the simple reason that the amount due from the petitioners is from the year 1997. 10. Earlier, there are a number of litigations and for that purpose, the first respondent bank is unable to recover money. That apart, as on date, the secured asset has also been sold in favour of the second respondent in all the cases and the sale certificate issued in favour of the second respondent herein is also put in issue before the Tribunal at the instance of the petitioners herein. In almost all the three cases, the total amount due as on 20.11.2010 works out approximately to Rs.21 Crores and the petitioners had closed their business and have also appealed to the third respondent questioning the quantum of interest as well. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that the petitioners are prepared to deposit the entire loan amount claimed by the first respondent bank towards principal alone and the interest at the rate of 18.5%. 12. Having regard to the above facts, we have considered it appropriate to reduce the condition of pre-deposit only to an extent of 25% so as to enable the petitioners to work out their remedy before the third respondent herein. That apart, the amount that has been realised by the first respondent bank by sale of the secured asset is less than the amount, which could be deposited by the petitioners pursuant to the orders of this Court to the extent of 25%. 13. That apart, the amount that has been realised by the first respondent bank by sale of the secured asset is less than the amount, which could be deposited by the petitioners pursuant to the orders of this Court to the extent of 25%. 13. In view of the above, the writ petitions are disposed of modifying that portion of the amounts of pre-deposit ordered by the third respondent from 50% to 25% in each of the writ petitions. As the third respondent directed the petitioners to make pre-deposit on or before 16.7.2012, we permit the petitioners to make pre-deposit in each of the writ petitions on or before 14.9.2012 and in the event the said condition of pre-deposit to the extent of 25% is not complied within on or before 14.9.2012, the first respondent bank is entitled to proceed further. No costs. Consequently, the above MPs are closed. 4. The order came to be challenged before the Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed the following order :- “Leave granted. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to dispose of these appeals with a direction to the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) to reconsider the condition of pre-deposit on the basis of paragraph 9 of the High Court judgment. The direction of the High Court to make pre-deposit to the extent of 25% is set aside. The appeals are, accordingly, disposed of.” 5. Thereafter, the matter went to the 3rd respondent, who passed an order in AIR No.1104/10. In the proceedings dated 10.9.13, the Appellate Tribunal, after considering the case pleaded by the petitioner for grant of total waiver and taking note of the rate of interest as per the contract and other attendant circumstances, formulated three issues :- “15. Therefore the following points arise for consideration in this petition :- i) Whether the borrowing made by the petitioners @ 24% p.a. would entitle the petitioners to seek a total waiver of pre-deposit under Section 21 of the RDDB & FI Act? ii) Whether the fact that the petitioners' business ended up in a loss would entitle the petitioners to a complete waiver of the pre-deposit under Section 21 of the RDDB & FI Act? iii) Whether the petitioners have made out a case for a total waiver of the pre-deposit under Section 21 of the RDDB & FI Act?” 6. ii) Whether the fact that the petitioners' business ended up in a loss would entitle the petitioners to a complete waiver of the pre-deposit under Section 21 of the RDDB & FI Act? iii) Whether the petitioners have made out a case for a total waiver of the pre-deposit under Section 21 of the RDDB & FI Act?” 6. On issue No.1, the Appellate Tribunal came to the conclusion that 24% interest was as per the agreement and further the rate of interest applied on the loan would have no bearing on the quantum of pre-deposit in this case as it is covered by a valid contract. On this prima facie reasoning, issue No.1 was answered against the petitioners. 7. On issue No.2, the Appellate Tribunal, based on para-8 of the affidavit filed in support of the application, held that the petitioners themselves have indicated that they are going to raise funds and settle the matter through one-time settlement scheme. If the petitioners are capable of raising such an amount for settlement of the claim, which is far higher, there is no justification for granting total waiver of pre-deposit in terms of Section 21 of the RDDB & FI Act. Accordingly, issue No.2 was answered. 8. Insofar as issue No.3 is concerned, taking note of the total liability of Rs.16.67 Crores and the further realisation of Rs.3.70 Crores and Rs.21 Lakhs, the total liability stood at Rs.12.71 Crores as on 20.11.2010, reasoned that such a huge amount could not be allowed to be remain unpaid for more than 20 years. The Appellate Tribunal came to the conclusion that the petitioner has not shown just cause for grant of total waiver and answered issue No.3 accordingly. 9. The Appellate Tribunal also took note of the fact that the statute, while it provides for pre-deposit of 75% as pre-condition for entertaining the appeal, taking note of the above factors, and the sums already paid, was inclined to order pre-deposit of 50% of the amount as on 20.11.10. It is to be noticed that three years have passed from that date and, therefore, further sums would have accrued by then. According to us, we find no further justification for the petitioners to seek waiver, except pleading that the interest is high, which admittedly, is based on the contract. There appears to be no justifiable reason seeking waiver of pre-deposit. 10. According to us, we find no further justification for the petitioners to seek waiver, except pleading that the interest is high, which admittedly, is based on the contract. There appears to be no justifiable reason seeking waiver of pre-deposit. 10. No doubt, it is to be noticed that waiver is a discretion and the Appellate Tribunal has exercised its discretion by giving good and sufficient reasons on the three issues that has been raised and addressed. In the earlier round of litigation, the Court found that no reasons were given in support of the order granting waiver of pre-deposit. 11. The Court in exercise of power under Art. 226 of the Constitution is testing the order of the Appellate Tribunal as to whether it is a judicious order supported by reasons and whether relevant matters have been considered. In this case, the Appellate Tribunal has considered the claim of the petitioner for grant of waiver and has framed issues that has to be considered and given reasons in support of the order. Therefore, this Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Art. 226 is not inclined to overturn the same as there is no serious error pointed out by the petitioner. Relevant issues have been addressed and reasoned order is passed. Furthermore, it is an interlocutory proceeding and, therefore, elaborate reasoning and in-depth consideration is not required. If the claim of the petitioner has been considered by the Appellate Tribunal and supported by good and sufficient reasons, which we do find, we are inclined to accept the order. 12. In the present case, we find that the Tribunal has considered the merits of the petitioners claim, which apparently is only with regard to the rate of interest and none other. It is also to be noticed, in the earlier round of litigation, the Division Bench has observed in para-11 that the petitioners are willing to deposit the entire loan amount with interest at 18.5%, which amount itself will be substantial. If such is the statement on record, we find no reason to treat the order of the Appellate Tribunal, directing pre-deposit of 50% as in any way erroneous or unreasonable, we are not inclined to show indulgence to the petitioner to fight the battle at the pre-deposit stage, round after round. No other plea except the above was argued. 13. If such is the statement on record, we find no reason to treat the order of the Appellate Tribunal, directing pre-deposit of 50% as in any way erroneous or unreasonable, we are not inclined to show indulgence to the petitioner to fight the battle at the pre-deposit stage, round after round. No other plea except the above was argued. 13. For the reasons aforesaid, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal and we find no merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.