/v^ HIGIiuOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Review Petition No. 16 of 2010 Petitioners 1. 2. 4. 6. M/s. ABSMeials Ltd. Company registered under Provlsions of Companies Act, 1936 Registered Office at: Plot No.129, 130 and 138 Light Industrial Area, Bhilai- C G Through its Director, Sunil Agrawal, S/o. Late Shri Bengali La! Agrawa!, aged adult, Reisent of : Piot No.10, Old Nehru Nagar, Bhilai, District Durg C G Presently at Central jait, Durg M/s.ABS'SteelsLtd., Company registered under Provisions of Companies Act, 1956 Registered Office at: Piot N0.137-A Light industriai Area, Bhiiai- CG Through its Director, Anil Agrawal, S/o. Late Shri Bengali Lai Agrawal, aged adult, Reisent of : Plot No.10, Otd Nehru Nagar, Bhiiai, District Durg C G Presently at Centrat jail, Durg iWs. DM Engineering Ud., Company registered under Provisions of Companies Act, 1956 Registered Office at: Plot No.129,130 and 138 Light Industrial Area, Bhi!a"- C G Through its Director, Vijay Agrawat, S/o. Late Shri Bengali Lal Agrawal, aged adult, Reisent of : Plot No.10, 0!d Nehru Nagar, Bhilai, District Durg C G Presently at Cenfral jail, Durg Anit Agrawaf S/o.Late Shri Bengali Lal Agrawal, aged adult, Resident of: Plot No.10, 0!d Nehru Nagar, Bhilai, dist Durg C G Presentty at Centra! Jaii Durg Sunii Agrawal S/o.Late Shri Bengali Lal Agrawal, aged adult, Resident of: Plot No.10, Otd Nehru Nagar, Bhilai, dist Durg C G Presentiy at Centrai Jaii Durg Vijay Agrawa! S/o.Late Shri Bengaii Lal Agrawal, aged adult, Rssident of: Plot No.10, Old Nehru Nagar, Bhiiai, dist Durg C G Presently at Central Jail Durg Vs. ^ Respondents 1. The Authorised Officer, Punjab Nationsi Bank, Cireie Office, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Punjab Nationa! Bank, Through its Chief Manager C'svic Centre Branch, Bh'tai, District ; Durg (C.G.) Present: Shri Ankit Singhal, counsel for the petitioners. Sjnale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Dhirendra Mishra. J ORAL ORDER (03.05.2010) -(. The pstitioners have preferred this application for review of order dated r 20.10.2009, passed in Writ Petition (C) No.5929/2009. 2. Limited prayer of iearned counsel for the petitioners is ttiat while dismissing the petition in limine, it has been obsen/ed in paragraph 8 and 9 ofthe order that the grievance of the petitioners that ttie bank initiated recovery proceedings without proper service of the notice upon the petitioner is without any basis. Leamed-counsel for the petitioners submits that if the aforesaid obser/ation is allowed to remain, the same shall affect the appeal of the petitioners pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunat. 3. Heard. 4. It is ctarified that the Debts Recovery Tribunat shall decide the matter without being influced by any of the observations made in the aforesaid order under review. 5. With this observation, the instant petition is disposed of. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge Bini