1 group ttm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8868 OF 2010 Union of India and Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. Ashok Kumar Gangaram .. Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO.7855 OF 2010 Union of India and Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. Ramesh Chandra Sharma .. Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO.7856 OF 2010 Union of India and Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. Balakram Makhanlal Chopra .. Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO.7857 OF 2010 Union of India and Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. 2 group Krishnakumar Kanhaiyyalal .. Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO.7858 OF 2010 Union of India and Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. Rajendra Prasad B. Dayal .. Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO.7859 OF 2010 Union of India and Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. Sachidanand B. Chaturvedi .. Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO.7887 OF 2010 Union of India and Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. Nanhooram Mataprasad Sharma .. Respondent Mr.Suresh Kumar with Mr.T.J.Pandian for the petitioners Ms.Rashi Deshpande for the respondent 3 group CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE: 28TH JANUARY, 2011 P.C. 1. Rule returnable forthwith. 2. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 3. Admittedly, the order which is impugned in this petition was referred to a larger bench of the C.A.T. Delhi Bench. The larger bench decision is dated 4.01.2011. The larger bench has taken a view different from the one taken by the C.A.T., Mumbai in the order impugned in this petition. 4. In these circumstances, in our opinion, it would be appropriate to set aside the order of the C.A.T. impugned in this petition and remit the original application back to the C.A.T. for hearing afresh and decision in accordance with law. 5. Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. (K.K. TATED, J) (D.K. DESHMUKH, J)