RPW-16267/10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION (st) NO. 16267 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 10465 OF 2009 Vasant D. Kulkarni ..Applicant/petitioner Versus Ananda S. patil ..Respondent. Mr. Rahul Kadam for the review petitioner. Mr. V. B. Rajure for the respondent. Coram : R. V. MORE, J. Date : October 8, 2010. P. C. : 1. Today, matter is moved before this Court by way of a praecipe for speaking to the minutes in respect of the order dated 13th August 2010. Typographical errors have occurred at two places in the said order, i.e., firstly, in paragraph no.5 in line no.4th line inadvertently section “89 of BT&AL Act” is mentioned instead of section “84 of BT&AL Act”; and secondly, in last paragraph inadvertently word “revision” is mentioned in stead of “review”. Counsel for the respondent state that these are typographic errors, which may kindly be corrected. Hence, said order dated 13th August 2010 stands corrected as under : (1) In 4th line in paragraph no.5, section “89 of BT&AL Act” be read as section “84 of BT&AL Act”; (2) In paragraph no.6, the word “revision” be read as “review” (R.V. MORE, J.) srp srp