APPW.351,352,353,354,355,356 - 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 351 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No. 858 OF 2007 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 352 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No. 854 OF 2007 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 353 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No. 859 OF 2007 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 354 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No. 855 OF 2007 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 355 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No. 857 OF 2007 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 356 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No. 856 OF 2007 Mizuho Corporate Bank Ltd. ...Applicants Vs. State Bank of India & Ors. ...Respondents *** APPW.351,352,353,354,355,356 - 2 - Ms. Revati Mohite Dere, for the Applicants. Mr. P. S. Hingorani, APP for the Respondent No.1. Mr. Sanjiv Punalekar, for Respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4. Mr. Sameer Choudankar, the authorized representative of Respondent No.5-Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. *** CORAM: V. M. KANADE J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 28, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and respondent Nos. 2 to 4. The representative of respondent No.5 is present in the Court. These criminal applications are filed for restoration of the writ petitions which were dismissed for non prosecution, for non supply of spare copies by the orders dated 13th April, 2009. 2. The writ petitions were admitted on 29th June, 2007 and an interim stay was granted by this Court. Thereafter the matters came on board on 2nd February, 2009 and a conditional order was passed, directing the applicants to issue fresh notice to the unserved respondent. It is case of the applicant herein that since respondent Nos. 2 to 4 put in their appears through their advocate, spare copies were not supplied and so far as respondent No.5 is concerned, he was a formal respondent, supporting the applicants. Respondent No.5 put in their appearance APPW.351,352,353,354,355,356 - 3 - before the date, which was given for compliance of the order dated 13th April, 2009. It is therefore, submitted that the said petitions could not have been dismissed for non-compliance of the orders, since all respondents were duly served. 3. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 to 4 vehemently opposed the applications for restoration. He submits that if the conditional orders were complied, it was duty of the applicants to point out this fact to the Court and they should have applied for modification of the conditional order. In my view, for the reasons stated in the applications, this is a fit case where the order dated 2nd April, 2009 can be recalled and are accordingly, recalled. The writ petitions are restored to the files. So also the interim orders are also restored. . All the criminal applications are accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clause (b) and (c). The writ petitions be listed for final hearing on 15-10-2010. [ V. M. KANADE J.]