1 (crim appln 359 of 2010) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.359 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.523 OF 2010 Subhiksha Trading Services Limited and Ors. ...Applicants /Petitioners Vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited and Anr. ...Respondents ----- Mr.Jatin P. Shah for the Applicants/Petitioners Mr.Mubin Solkar and Ms.Nikita Ajwani i/b. M/s.Rajani Associates for the Respondents Mr.A.S.Shitole -APP for the State ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 24TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 P.C. 1. This is an application for speaking to the minutes of the order dated 12th August, 2010. 2. It is submitted that there is a typographical error in paragraph 3 and instead of the date 31st December, 2009, the date 31st January, 2008 is wrongly mentioned. Secondly, it is submitted that in the same paragraph, it is wrongly mentioned that the cheque initially was deposited by the Complainant Company in its bank account maintained with HDFC Bank, Fort 2 (crim appln 359 of 2010) Banch, Mumbai and that the cheque was returned dishonoured with a bank memo dated 21.1.2009 with a endorsement  funds insufficient . It is submitted that in fact, the cheque was initially deposited at Chennai and, thereafter, it was deposited with HDFC Bank, Fort Branch, Mumbai and the cheque was returned with two bank memos. Thirdly, it is submitted that in paragraph 7 of the order, the section is wrongly mentioned as 262 instead of section 482. 3. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicants submitted that it may be clarified that the said contention in paragraph 3 is the contention of the Complainant. So far as the correction in paragraph 7, he has no objection if the said section may be substituted as section 482 instead of section 262. 4. Hence, in paragraph 7, instead of section 262 mentioned in a fifth line of the said paragraph, the said section is substituted by section 482. So far as the date is concerned in paragraph 3, the date is substituted by 31st December, 2009 instead of 31st January, 2008. Similarly, it is also further clarified that the Complainant had initially deposited the cheque in Chennai Bank and, thereafter, he had deposited the cheque with the HDFC Bank, Fort Branch, 3 (crim appln 359 of 2010) Mumbai and cheque was returned with two bank memos. It is further clarified that this is the contention of the Complainant and not of the Applicants/Petitioners. 5. Order is, accordingly, modified and application is disposed of. (V.M. KANADE J.)