1 pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORIDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO. 322 OF 2009 IN COMPANY PETITION NO. 742 OF 2004 Supreme Telecommunications Ltd. .. Appellant Vs. Smt. Vimala Sukhveer Kothari .. Respondent Mr. V.P. Vaze for appellant. Mr. Sohanraj Chopda for respondent. Ms. Aruna Pai for Official Liquidator. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & C. L. PANGARKAR, JJ. January 27, 2010. P.C. The learned counsel for the appellant states that the parties have settled the dispute regarding the recovery of money and the learned counsel for the respondent admits that the settlement terms have been signed between the parties. Hence, the appeal is disposed as withdrawn. 2 We have also noted the undertaking made by Shri Vaze, the learned counsel for the appellant – Company that the costs to be incurred by the Official Liquidator shall be reimbursed by the appellant – Company. The appellant shall issue advertisement in Free Press Journal and Loksatta, advertising that the matter has been settled and the order of widening up of the appellant – company passed on 12/11/2008 in Company Petition No. 742 of 2004 shall stand set aside after a period of two weeks, if no claims are received by the Official Liquidator from the creditors of the appellant within a period of 14 days from the date of advertisement. In addition, the appellant – company to reimburse to the Official Liquidator towards the costs/charges and expenses, if any, already incurred. (C. L. PANGARKAR, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)