1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.372 OF 2004 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.778 OF 2004 IN SUIT NO.233 OF 2004 AND NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1703 OF 2004 Severn Trent Water Purification Inc. ...Appellant Vs. 1.Chloro Controls India Pvt.Ltd. and others. ...Respondents. --- Mr.Ajit Anekar with Ms.Kamini Ahuja i/b. Shrawan Shah, for Appellant. Mr.D.D.Madan with Naval Agarwal i/b. M/s.B.Munim & Co., for Respondents. --- CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & A.A.SAYED, JJ. DATED: 11th February,2009. P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for both the sides. Perused the record. The learned Single 2 Judge has given elaborate reasons in support of the findings that have been recorded. The learned Counsel appearing for appellant has not been able to show anything which would persuade us to take different view. The learned Counsel relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case “Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. & another Vs. Verma Transport Co., (2006)7 Supreme Court Cases 275”. In that case, we do not find that the Supreme Court has taken any view different from the one which was taken by the Supreme Court in the Judgment in the case “Sukanya Holdings (P) Ltd. Vs. Jayesh H.Pandya & another, (2003)5 Supreme Court Cases 531”, which has been followed by the learned Single Judge. Appeal, therefore, has no substance. It is rejected. Notice of motion no.1703 of 2004 is also disposed of. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (A.A.SAYED,J.) ---