FARAD FARAD FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. CONTINUATION SHEET NO. CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE. APPELLATE SIDE. APPELLATE SIDE. CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1063 OF 2002 APPLICATION NO. 1063 OF 2002 APPLICATION NO. 1063 OF 2002 IN IN IN REVIEW REVIEW REVIEW PETITION ST. NO. 35810 OF 2001. PETITION ST. NO. 35810 OF 2001. PETITION ST. NO. 35810 OF 2001. IN IN IN WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 558 OF 1990 PETITION NO. 558 OF 1990 PETITION NO. 558 OF 1990 ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- ---------------- Office Notes, Office Memorada Court‘s or Judge‘s orders or directions and Orders. Registrar‘s orders. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Shri G.H.Hegade for the petitioner. Shri R.R.Salvi for the respondent CORAM; CORAM; CORAM; V.G.PALSHIKAR & V.G.PALSHIKAR & V.G.PALSHIKAR & A.M.KHANWILKAR, A.M.KHANWILKAR, A.M.KHANWILKAR, JJ. JJ. JJ. DTAED: DTAED: DTAED: 21ST MARCH,2006 21ST MARCH,2006 21ST MARCH,2006. P.C. 1. For reasons mentioned in the Civil Application, delay in filing the Review Petition is condoned. 2. Heard the learned counsel on merit of the Review Petition. The contention is that the interpretation put by us on Rule 7 of the Disciplinary and Appeal Rules is incorrect. That takes away the discretion of the Corporation to impose major penalty on a person not covered by items mentioned in the proviso. 3. The judgment is very clear. We have pointed out what is the meaning of Rule 7. If that meaning is not acceptable or according to the Corporation is incorrect, the remedy is elsewhere. The Review Petition is therefore dismissed. ...