1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION (L) NO. 63 OF 2007 REVIEW PETITION (L) NO. 63 OF 2007 REVIEW PETITION (L) NO. 63 OF 2007 IN IN IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1626 OF 2006 WRIT PETITION NO. 1626 OF 2006 WRIT PETITION NO. 1626 OF 2006 WITH WITH WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 563 OF 2007 NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 563 OF 2007 NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 563 OF 2007 New Era Alkoloids & Exports Ltd., .. Petitioner. vs. Bombay Stock Exchange Limited. .. .. .. Respondent. Mr. S.U. Kamdar i/by V. Chandrashekar for Petitioner. Dr. Poornima Advani wtih R.A. Lokhande i/by M/s. The Law Point for Respondent No. 1. CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE: 25th JANUARY, 2008. DATE: 25th JANUARY, 2008. DATE: 25th JANUARY, 2008. (IN CHAMBER AT 2.45 P.M.) (IN CHAMBER AT 2.45 P.M.) (IN CHAMBER AT 2.45 P.M.) P.C. . Heard. 2. This review application has been filed as the applicant was aggrieved by the order passed by the 2 Bombay Stock Exchange Ltd., which came to be challenged before this Court in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 where the learned counsel for the petitioner withdrew the petition with liberty to take such steps including filing of review application in accordance with law and that is how this application has been filed. 3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that they are left without a remedy as the Stock Exchange is insisting upon the petitioner to come with fresh issue and thereafter they will consider their case for inlisting the security. 4. On this issue, our order dated 1.3.2007 is quite clear which clearly indicates that the petitioner can approach the competent authority as provided under Guideline 18 of the SEBI (Delisting of Security) Guidelines, 2007. We do not think that there is any error apparent on the face of record so as to review our original order in the matter and in so far as the grievance of the petitioner that the Stock Exchange is insisting upon the petitioner to come up with the fresh issue is concerned i.e. besides the issue which was duly considered by this Court and our further order dated 4.6.2007 which was passed on the petitioners moving this court for speaking to the minutes, covered the issue which is now raised relating to initial public offer. As such, the application is rejected. 3 5. In view of the rejection of the review application, the notice of motion no. 563 of 2007 does not survive. The same stands dismissed. (J.N. Patel, J.) (J.N. Patel, J.) (J.N. Patel, J.) (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.) (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.) (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.)