1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION NO.405 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2933 OF 2005 (Indo Rama Synthetics (I) Ltd. vs. Union of India and others) ___________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : D.D. SINHA AND SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, JJ. DATED : JANUARY 22, 2008 Heard Shri Ghate, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Choube, learned Counsel for the respondent no.1, and Shri Mehadia, learned Counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3. Civil Application No.405/2008 is moved by the petitioner for disposal of the petition. Shri Ghate, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that cause of action involved in the petition is identical to one involved in Writ Petition No. 3267/2005, which was disposed of by this Court vide 2 order dated 18.12.2007 in the light of decision of the Supreme Court. The learned Counsel states that present petition may kindly be disposed of in view of aforesaid order dated 18.12.2007 passed by this Court. Shri Mehadia, learned Counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3, does not dispute factual and legal aspect of the matter. However, the learned Counsel submits that entitlement of the petitioner for grant of excess amount paid by the petitioner on and above “notified price” to the respondent no.3 W.C.L. is from the date of interim order, i.e. 21.6.2005. It is contended that except this change, petition can be disposed of in terms of decision of the Supreme Court as well as order dated 18.12.2007 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.3267/2005. Shri Choube, learned Counsel for the respondent no.1, does not dispute factual and legal aspect of the matter. In the circumstances, Writ Petition No. 2933/2005 is disposed of for the reasons stated in order dated 18.12.2007 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 3 3267/2005, which is based on the decision of the Supreme Court except change in date of entitlement of the petitioner for excess amount paid by the petitioner on or above the notified price to the respondent no.3, which is 21.6.2005. The civil application is also disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE khj