-1- IN IN IN THE THE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE APPELLATE APPELLATE JURISDICTION JURISDICTION JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION PETITION PETITION NO.873 OF 2008 NO.873 OF 2008 NO.873 OF 2008 IndusInd Bank Ltd. ...Petitioners v/s Union of India and ors. ...Respondents Mr Chirag Balsara i/b M/s K. Ashar and Co. for Petitioners. Mr N.R. Prajapati for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr Pratik Seksaria i/b M/s Paras Kahad and Associates for Respondent No.4. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND N.D. DESHPANDE JJ. DATE : 23RD APRIL 2008. -2- P.C. :- 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the petitioners and respondent No.4. 2. By this petition, the petitioners challenge the order dated 6th September 2007 passed by the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, New Delhi in appeal No.23 of 2006. By that order, the Appellate Authority has modified the order dated 17th November 2005 passed by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction. It is common ground before us that one of the reasons given by the Appellate Authority while modifying the order dated 17th November 2005 is that a scheme of compromise under section 391 of the companies Act is pending before the Rajasthan High Court. It is common ground that the date on which the order was made by the Appellate Authority, the scheme was not pending, it was rejected by the Rajasthan High Court but a review application was pending before the Rajasthan High Court. It is thus clear that the Appellate Authority, while making the order which is challenged in this petition proceeded on wrong assumption that the scheme of compromise in relation to respondent No.4 - company is pending before the Rajasthan High Court. In our opinion, therefore, as -3- wrong consideration has entered into the mind of the Appellate Authority in making the order impugned in this petition, it would be appropriate to remit the matter back to the appellate Authority for de novo consideration and decision in accordance with law. In our opinion, therefore, following order would meed the ends of justice. 3. The order dated 6th September 2007 passed in appeal No.23 of 2006 is set aside. The said appeal is remitted back to the Appellate Authority for decision in accordance with law. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. All contentions available to both the sides are kept open to be raised before the appellate Authority. . Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Sheristedar / Private Secretary of the Court. . Certified copy expedited. ( D.K. DESHMUKH J.) ( N.D. DESHPANDE J.)