:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. O.O.C.J. O.O.C.J. CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 830 OF 2005 CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 830 OF 2005 CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 830 OF 2005 IN IN IN REVIEW PETITION (L) NO. 27 OF 2005 REVIEW PETITION (L) NO. 27 OF 2005 REVIEW PETITION (L) NO. 27 OF 2005 IN IN IN CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1144 OF 2003 CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1144 OF 2003 CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1144 OF 2003 IN IN IN EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 254 OF 2003 EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 254 OF 2003 EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 254 OF 2003 IN IN IN ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 159 OF 2003 ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 159 OF 2003 ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 159 OF 2003 Eureka Forbes Ltd ....App/Petnr (Orig.Plffs.) vs. Surya Morphy Richards Ltd ....Resp no.1 (Orig.Defnd) AND BANK OF INDIA ....Resp no.2 (Orig.App) Rahul Chitnis i/b. Shreerang Shrimani for the plffs. Swati Deshpande i/b. M.S. Bodhanwala for the Resps. CORAM: S.U. KAMDAR, J. :2: DATE : 29TH AUGUST, 2005. P.C. :. 1. By consent of the parties matter chamber summons is taken on board and called out for hearing. Chamber Summons is made absoulute. Delay in filing Review Petition is condoned. 2. The present Review Petition is filed on the ground that the order dated 22.2.2005 erroneosuly records that there is a receovery certificate issued in favour of the applciant bank. It is contended that infact there is no recovery certificate is issued and therefore the order required to be reviewed and correction is required to be made. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the review petitiopner is factually incorrect. Ex.C to the Review Petition is the consent terms dated 31.3.2005 filed by the Respondents in the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Para-7 and 9 reads as under : :3: 7. Recovery certificate to be drawn up and issued accordingly without any futher directions from the Hon’ble Tribunal. 9. Recovery Officer of this Hon’ble Tribunal to act on Certified copy of this order " 3. In view of the aforesaid it is clear that the recovery certificate has been issued by the Debt Recovery Tribunal in favour of the bank. Merely because the same is yet not drawn up and thus yet not availaible or the certified copy is yet not received by the bank does not entitled the petitioner to file the present review petition for review of my order. I thus do not find any ground of review of my order and accordingly I dismiss the Review Petition. sd/- ************