1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION jmi B.I.F.R. CASE NO. 116 OF 1994 WITH COMPANY PETITION NO. 347 OF 1992 WITH COMPANY PETITION NO. 439 OF 1992 WITH COMPANY PETITION NO. 20 OF 1993 WITH COMPANY PETITION NO. 21 OF 1993 WITH COMPANY PETITION NO. 376 OF 1993 WITH COMPANY PETITION NO. 416 OF 1993 WITH COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 779 OF 1993 IN COMPANY PETITION NO. 376 OF 1993 WITH COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 797 OF 1993 IN COMPANY PETITION NO. 20 OF 1993 WITH COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 837 OF 1993 IN COMPANY PETITION NO. 293 OF 1993 WITH COMPANY PETITION NO. 16 OF 1994 WITH COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 36 OF 1994 IN COMPANY PETITION NO. 10 OF 1994 WITH COMPANY APPLICATION NO.146 OF 1994 IN COMPANY PETITION NO.16 OF 1994 ALOGWITH COMPANY APPLICATION NOS. 35 OF 1994 WITH COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 149 OF 1994 WITH 2 COMPAN PETITION NO. 289 OF 1994 WITH COMPANY PETITION NO. 398 OF 1994 WITH COMPANY PETITION NO. 457 OF 1994 WITH COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 470 OF 1997 IN COMPANY PETITION NO. 415 OF 1992 (FOREMOST INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LIMITED- Respondent) Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, Appearance, Court’s Orders or direction and Prothonotary’s Order. Court’s or Judge’s Orders. Ms.Neeta V. Parikh, for Respondent. .... CORAM : S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. DATE : 7TH OCTOBER 2010. 1. The learned Advocate appearing for the Respondent Company states that the scheme is sanctioned by the BIFR and Respondent Company undertakes to make payments to the Petitioners as per the directions given in the sanctioned scheme. 2. In view thereof, nothing survives in the above Petitions and all the above Company Petitions stand disposed of. All the above Company Applications are also accordingly, disposed of. [ S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. ]