ASN 1 RP-96.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION REVIEW PEETITION (L) NO.96 OF 2011 IN APPEAL NO.730 OF 2011 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1925 OF 2011 IN SUIT NO.2294 OF 2010 M.Suresh Company Private Limited. ..Petitioner. Vs. Sonata Realty Private Ltd. and ors. ..Respondents. Mr. S.U. Kamdar, Sr. Counsel along with Mr.Zal Andhyarujina, Ms. Pooja Patil, Mr. Hussain Gomji i/by Dave & Girish & Co. for the Review petitioner. Mr. S.B.Pawar with Mr. Mayur Salunke i/by S.K.Legal Associates for Respondent No.1. Mr. Simil Purohit along with Ms. Anooja Menon i/by Wadia Ghandy & Co. for Respondent No.3 CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C. J. AND SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATE : 20 DECEMBER 2011 PC: This is an application for review of our order dated 28 November 2011 passed in Appeal No.730 of 2011. ASN 2 RP-96.sxw 2 Before taking up the substantive prayer of the review petitioner, it is necessary to note that the area of the land which is mortgaged by defendant No.1 to the appellant-plaintiff which is shown at Exhibit-1 attached to the plan is 4802.10 sq. mtrs. and not 8152 sq. mtrs. which is shown in the original order dated 28 November 2011 and the same is required to be corrected as 4802.10 sq. mtrs.. 3 The learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submits that the submissions recorded in Paragraph 7 of the order that “It is undisputed fact that defendant No.1 has already repaid Rs.25 Crores to the plaintiff and that what now remains to be payable by defendant No.1 to the plaintiff would be interest which the plaintiff claims at the rate of 36% p.a. on the principal amount” is required to be modified to read as “what remains to be payable by defendant No.1 to the plaintiff would be the balance principal amount as well as interest because amount of Rs.25 Crores paid by defendant No.1 to the plaintiff is adjusted partly towards the principal amount and partly towards the interest”. 4 The learned counsel for defendant No.1 does not admit the above contention and submits that there was a settlement that Rs.25 Crores was to be paid by defendant No.1 to the appellant plaintiff in full and final settlement against the claim of the appellant plaintiff. 5 Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, without expressing any opinion on the contentions, we delete the aforesaid sentence recorded in Paragraph 7 of the order dated 28 November 2011 ASN 3 RP-96.sxw and instead the following shall be inserted in place and stead thereof:- “We make it clear that there is a dispute between the parties as to whether any further amount is payable by defendant No.1 to the appellant-plaintiff and if yes, how much amount”. Hence, the deleted sentence shall be substituted by the aforesaid sentence. 6 The Prothonotary and Sr. Master of this Court is directed to carry out the aforesaid corrections in the original order and issue fresh certified copy, if applied. 7 Review Petition is, accordingly, disposed of in the aforesaid terms. CHIEF JUSTICE ( SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J. )