IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 923 OF 2008 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 515 OF 2005 1. M/s. Josh Electronics Pvt. Ltd. and ors. .. Applicants Vs. 1. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation and anr. .. Respondents AND 1. M/s. Josh Electronics Pvt. Ltd. .. Applicant WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 924 OF 2008 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 515 OF 2005 1. M/s. Josh Electronics Pvt. Ltd. and ors. .. Appellants Vs. 1. Maharashtra Industrial Development and anr. .. Respondents AND 1. Josh Appliances Pvt. Ltd. .. Applicant Mr. A.M. Kulkarni for applicant in both the applications. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE,J. B.H. MARLAPALLE,J. B.H. MARLAPALLE,J. Date Date Date : September 23, 2008. : September 23, 2008. : September 23, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Mr. Kulkarni, the learned counsel, appears for the applicants and the applications pray for recall of the order passed by me on 20/3/2007 thereby disposing Second Appeal No. 515 of 2005 as withdrawn. 2. One Mr. Nitin Joshi (appellant no.3 originally) and claiming to be the Director of appellant nos.1 and 2 - companies had addressed a letter dated 23/2/2007 to the Deputy Chief Executive Officer of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation i.e. respondent no.1 in the Second Appeal. Mr. P.M. Joshi the learned counsel appearing for the appellant no.1-Company had placed on record a copy of the said letter and stated that he had instructions to withdraw the appeal and he prayed for leave accordingly. Leave was granted and appeal was disposed as withdrawn. 3. Mr. Kulkarni the learned counsel for the applicants who are the original appellants now disputes the authenticity of the letter dated 23/2/2007 and prays for restoration of Second Appeal No. 515 of 2005 by recalling the order passed by me on 20/3/2007 so that appeal is decided on merits. The record shows that the Second Appeal was filed by three appellants and Mr. P.M. Joshi filed his VP for appellant no.1-company whereas Mr. A.M. Kulkarni had filed his VP for appellant no.2-Company. Mr. A.M. Kulkarni also filed a separate VP for appellant no.1. Similarly the VP filed by Mr. P.M. Joshi was for both the appellants i.e. appellant nos.1 and 2. At no point of time Mr. P.M. Joshi had withdrawn his VP and, therefore, in the order under review the appellants were shown to be represented by Mr. P.M. Joshi as well as Mr. A.M. Kulkarni. The letter dated 23/2/2007 was brought on record by Mr. Joshi appearing as the Advocate for appellant nos.1 and 2. 4. Under these circumstances, there is no case made out to recall the order dated 23/2/2007 and the applicants’ remedy may be somewhere else and more particularly when it is not in dispute that the said letter was placed on record by the Advocate representing the appellant-companies. 5. Hence, the applications are rejected summarily. (B.H. (B.H. (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) Marlapalle,J.) Marlapalle,J.)