1 mss RPW+..138 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE REVIEW PETITION NO. 138 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 8826 OF 2004 TATA METALIKS LIMITED .. PETITIONER Vs. ARTI DURGARAM GAVANDI & ORS. RESPONDENTS Mr. A. V. Bukhari i/b B. V. Bukhari for the petitioner Mr. Mayuresh Nagale with V. M. Parkar for R-1. Mr. Mihir Desai for respondent 4 CORAM: SMT. RANJANA DESAI & DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ. DATED: 27/1/2011 P.C. By our judgment and order dated 6/10/2008, we disposed of Writ Petition No. 8826 of 2004 by making the petition absolute in terms of prayer clause (b). We had directed the management (the review petitioner) to enquire into the complaint lodged by the original petitioner (the 1st respondent herein) against the 3rd respondent of 2 mss RPW+..138 sexual harassment in accordance with the guidelines and norms laid down by the Supreme Court in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SC 3011. 2. The present review petition is filed for review of our judgment and order dated 6/10/2008 on the ground that the 3rd respondent was at the relevant time employed in Usha Ispat Ltd. It was contended by the review petitioner that it has only purchased the assets of the Redi plant of Usha Ispat and is not successor-in-interest of Usha Ispat nor has it taken over any liabilities of Usha Ispat. It was contended that, therefore, the review petitioner is not liable to hold enquiry as directed by this court. 3. Having regard to the objection raised by the review petitioner, we had directed Maharashtra State Commission for Women to hold the enquiry and accordingly enquiry has been held and report has been submitted. Hence our order has been complied with. The review petition, therefore, does not survive and is disposed of as such. (SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.) (DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.)