1 rpc110 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. REVIEW PETITION NO. 1 OF 2010 IN COMPANY APPEAL NO. 51 OF 2009 IN CLB COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 102 OF 2007 IN CLB COMPANY PETITION NO. 55 OF 2006 Chetan Consultants Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus Ravi Kiran Agarwal & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. Mohit Arora with Ms. Pinky Patel i/by M/s. Desai &Diwanji for the Petitioners Mr. Atul Rajadhyaksha, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Pankaj Vernekar, Ms. Kirtida Chandarana and Mr. Nikhil Pai i/by Mr. Mahernosh Humranwala for Respondents No. 1 and 2 Mrs. Punita Arora for Respondents No. 3 to 6. CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 15 October, 2010. P.C.:- The grievance of the review petitioners is that the Court, in paragraph 18 of its judgment, has clarified that the Court has had no occasion to render any finding of fact on the effect of the MoU or on the 2 rpc110 entitlement of the appellants; but the facts set out in the earlier part of the judgment would seem to give the impression that a finding of fact was arrived at by this Court. Reading the judgment as it stands, it is evident that the decision of this Court was rendered on a question of law under Section 10-F of the Companies Act, 1956; and the proceedings were remitted back to the Company Law board for a fresh decision on the application for impleadment. In that view of the matter, this Court has already clarified that no finding of fact has been rendered by the Court. 2. In this view of the matter, no case for a review has been made out. The Review Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.