1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR MCA (Review) NO. 464/2011 IN COMPANY APPEAL NO. 2 OF 2010 IN COMPANY PETITION NO. 14 OF 2006 (M/s. Vidarbha Bottlers Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur & Ors. vs. M/s. Sharda Seals Work, Nagpur & Ors.) AND MCA (Review) NO. 465/2011 IN COMPANY APPEAL NO. 3 OF 2010 IN COMPANY PETITION NO. 12 OF 2006 (M/s. Vidarbha Bottlers Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur & Ors. vs. M/s. Chetan Traders, Nagpur & Ors.) AND MCA (Review) NO. 467/2011 IN COMPANY APPEAL NO. 4 OF 2010 IN COMPANY PETITION NO. 13 OF 2006 (M/s. Vidarbha Bottlers Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur & Ors. vs. M/s. Sharda Gum Tapes, Nagpur & Ors.) AND MCA (Review) NO. 470/2011 IN COMPANY APPEAL NO. 5 OF 2010 IN COMPANY PETITION NO. 16 OF 2006 (M/s. Vidarbha Bottlers Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur & Ors. vs. M/s. R.K. Metals & Ors.) ______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & R.K. DESHPANDE, JJ. JULY 08, 2011. Heard Shri Voditel, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Lalwani, learned counsel for respondent No. 1. The judgment delivered by this Court on 08.09.2010 in Company Appeal No. 2 of 2010 and connected appeals is sought to be reviewed by pointing out that the provisions of Section 32 of Sale of Goods Act, 1930, could not then be pressed into service. According to the learned counsel, the date of delivery of goods is not the relevant circumstance if the last bill and its date is on record. The learned counsel contends that in that event the limitation as prescribed 2 by Article 14 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963, needs to be counted from the date of that bill and if anything to the contrary like fact of delivery on some other date is to be proved, the burden is on other side. According to him, therefore, a case for review is made out as while rejecting his contention in para 5 of said judgment, this Court has found defence of limitation as raised vague, only because of absence of date of delivery of goods on record. Shri Lalwani, learned counsel for respondent No.1 states that the contention was very much open either before the Company Judge or then before the Appellate Bench. The same was not raised and now it cannot be allowed to be agitated. We find that the contentions as argued have been looked into in para 5 of judgment of this Court and thereafter a proper verdict has been reached. Ground not then raised is sought to be urged to review the same. Any circumstance permitting such ground to be raised at this stage as per law is not pointed out to us. Hence, we are not inclined to entertain these review applications. Review applications are rejected. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE *GS.