bsb IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI. CRI. CRI. APPLICATION NO. 114 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO. 114 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO. 114 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 458 OF 2008 M/s.Ramniranjan Kedia Tourism Services Pvt. Ltd. ... Applicant v/s 1. Pawan Suresh Gupta 2. State of Maharashtra ... Respondents Mr.P.R.Dave for the applicant. Mr.Aabad Ponda with Mr.Kakalia and Mrs.Priya Ponda i/by Mulla & Mulla for the respondent No.1. Mrs.A.A.Mane, A.P.P. for the respondent No.2 State. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 12TH JUNE, 2008 12TH JUNE, 2008 12TH JUNE, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. The application has been filed for recalling the order passed by this Court while admitting the petition on 12.3.2008. This prayer cannot be granted. Rule has already been issued and, therefore, there is no question of recalling that order. The only issue is, therefore, whether the stay granted by this Court should be vacated. 2. Arguments have been heard at length from the 2 parties. The main contention raised on behalf of Respondent No.1 is that he was not heard when the interim order was passed, although he was a necessary party. The other argument advanced is that the petitioners have obtained the order by playing a fraud on this Court. 3. In my opinion, there is no need to vacate the stay. Several judgments have been cited at the bar by both parties and on perusal of the judgments I do not feel that the stay granted earlier should be vacated at this stage. 4. A prayer is made for expediting the hearing of the petition and for fixing the petition for a peremptory hearing. 5. Petition expedited.