1 RA No.165/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD REVIEW APPLICATION (CIVIL) NO.165 OF 2011 ,In WP/3376/2009 ARUN PUNDLIK BENDALE VERSUS SH PHARMACEUTICALS LTD ... Advocate for Petitioner : Mr.Patil Vijay Y. Advocate for Respondent : Mr.PR Katneshwarkar ***** CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 28th NOVEMBER, 2011. PER COURT : 1) Heard Mr.Patil for the Review Petitioner and Mr.Katneshwarkar for the respondent. Mr.Katneshwarkar has placed before me copies of correspondence made by the petitioner with the Respondent- pharmaceutical company dated 29.11.2010 and annexure thereto. 2) Perused the order dated 29.10.2010 passed by this Court. This order was passed by consent. It, in unequivocal terms, illustrates that the petitioner will not claim any financial benefits including gratuity, as he was to receive continuity of service. In this situation, I do not see any error in the order to re-call the same. 2 RA No.165/2011 4) The petitioner, as a respondent in the said proceeding, was consciously aware as the counsel then representing him apparently had sufficient contacts with the petitioner and then the statement was made on 29.10.2011. 5) Review Application lacks merit, dismissed. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/