1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 634 OF 2009 IN COMPANY PETITION NO.960 OF 2008 Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. ..Petitioner V/s. Earnest Business Services Pvt.Ltd. ..Respondent/Applicant. WITH COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 635 OF 2009 IN COMPANY PETITION NO.959 OF 2008 Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. ..Petitioner V/s. John Frank Shipping Services Ltd. ..Respondent/Applicant. WITH COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 639 OF 2009 IN COMPANY PETITION NO.1176 OF 2001 Indian Link Chain Mfg. Ltd. ..Petitioner V/s. Navinon Ltd. ..Respondent. And 2 Mr.Bipin M.Patel. ..Applicant. Mr.Anand Grover i/b. Bharucha & Partners for applicant in CA Nos. 634/09 & 635/09. Mr.Birendra Saraf a/w Nikhil Rajani i/b. V. Deshpande & Co. for respondent in CA Nos. 634/09 & 635/09. Mr.Rajiv Jadhav i/b. Yatin R. Shah for applicant in CA No.639/09. Mr.M.Chandanamuthu, Dy. O.L.. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR, J DATED :- JUNE 11, 2009. P.C.: 1. By consent Applications are made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) . 2. Insofar as prayer clause (c) is concerned, I find substance in the stand taken by the Petitioner that the question of giving inspection of DRT proceedings does not arise as the Applicant is admittedly party to the said proceedings. Accordingly, it is made clear that the Applicant would be free to take inspection of record other than DRT proceedings, which the Petitioner has relied upon in the present Petition. If the Applicant so 3 desires may indicate the details of those documents so that the Petitioner can provide inspection of such documents. Inspection be completed within two weeks from today. 3. Applications disposed of on the above terms. Main petitions be now listed on 10th July, 2009. (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J)