1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION jmi B.I.F.R. CASE NO. 118 OF 1994 WITH COMPANY PETITION NO. 654 OF 1991 WITH COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 252 OF 1993 IN COMPANY PETITION NO. 413 OF 1992 WITH COMPANY PETITION NO. 294 OF 1993 WITH COMPANY PETITION NO. 377 OF 1993 WITH COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 431 OF 1993 IN COMPANY PETITION NO. 414 OF 1992 WITH COMPANY PETITION NO. 444 OF 1993 WITH COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 780 OF 1993 IN COMPANY PETITION NO. 377 OF 1993 WITH COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 800 OF 1993 IN COMPANY PETITION NO. 294 OF 1993 WITH COMPANY PETITION NO. 838 OF 1993 WITH COMPANY PETITION NO. 15 OF 1994 WITH COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 35 OF 1994 IN COMPANY PETITION NO. 15 OF 1994 WITH COMPANY APPLICATION NO.145 OF 1994 IN COMPANY PETITION NO.15 OF 1994 WITH COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 150 OF 1994 IN 2 COMPANY PETITION NO. 150 OF 1994 WITH COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 222 OF 1997 WITH COMPAN PETITION NO. 413 OF 1992 WITH COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 469 OF 1997 IN COMPANY PETITION NO. 413 OF 1992 (INDODAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED- Respondent) Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, Appearance, Court’s Orders or direction and Prothonotary’s Order. Court’s or Judge’s Orders. Ms.Neeta V. Parikh, for Respondent. .... CORAM : S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. DATE : 7TH OCTOBER 2010. 1. The learned Advocate appearing for the Respondent Company states that the scheme is sanctioned by the BIFR and Respondent Company undertakes to make payments to the Petitioners as per the directions given in the sanctioned scheme. 2. In view thereof, nothing survives in the above Petitions and all the above Company Petitions stand disposed of. All the above Company Applications are also accordingly, disposed of. [ S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. ]