Aidek Tourism Services Pvt. Ltd. And ANR. v. Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd.

kvm 1/2 43-RP46.15

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO. 46 OF 2015 IN ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 629 OF 2009 Aidek Tourism Services Private Limited & Anr.

..... Review Petitioners

IN THE MATTER OF

Aidek Tourism Services Private Limited & Anr.

..... Petitioners

VERSUS

Aditya Birla Nuvo Limited ..... Respondent Mr.M.S.Bhandari, i/b. Ms.Pranjali Bhandari for the Petitioners. Mr.J.P.Sen, Senior Advocate, a/w. Mr.Cyrus Bharucha, Ms.Bhavna Singh, Mr.Paresh Patkar, i/b. Mulla & Mulla & C.B.C. for the Respondent. CORAM :

R.D. DHANUKA, J.

DATED :

6th JULY, 2015 P.C.

By this petition, the petitioners seek recall of the orders dated 8th April, 2015 and 17th April, 2015 passed by this court thereby rejecting the arbitration petition filed by the petitioners and correcting some of the typographical errors in the order dated 8th April, 2015.

2.

A perusal of the review petition indicates that the review petitioners have filed this petition basically on the ground that the respondent had mislead this court in passing the said order dated 8th April, 2015 on various issues which are raised in the review petition and also on the ground that some of the submissions

kvm 2/2 43-RP46.15 made by the petitioners across the bar are not considered by this court while passing order on 8th April, 2015.

3.

Insofar as the submission of the review petitioners that the respondent has mislead this court in coming to various conclusion in the said order and judgment dated 8th April, 2015 is concerned, in my view this court has passed a detailed order and judgment on 8th April, 2015 after considering the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for both the parties. This court was not mislead by the respondent as canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 4.

Insofar as second ground raised in the review petition that some of the issues raised by the petitioners are not considered by this court in the said order and judgment dated 8th April, 2015 is considered, whatever submissions were advanced by the petitioners through their learned counsel before this court at the time of detailed hearing, have been duly considered by this court in the said order and judgment dated 8th April, 2015. Insofar as order dated 17th April, 2015 is concerned, this court has corrected some of the inadvertent typographical errors pointed out by the respondent.

5.

In my view there is no error apparent on the face of the judgment. No case is made out for recall of the order and judgment dated 8th April, 2015 and clarified by order dated 17th April, 2015. Petition is devoid of merits and is dismissed. [R.D. DHANUKA, J.]