1 rpw.187.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO.187 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3606 OF 2010 WITH REVIEW PETITION NO.188 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3608 OF 2010 M/s.Fine Indiasales Pvt.Ltd. ...Petitioners Versus State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents ...... Mr.Satish Mishra i/b Mr.Ashok M.Saraogi for Petitioners. Mr.A.I.Patel, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1. ...... CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND R.M.SAVANT, JJ. (IN CHAMBERS) DATED:- DECEMBER 9, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. Two points have been urged before us to justify these Review Petitions. Firstly, that when the matter was heard on 6th May, 2010, Mr.Saraogi who is Advocate on record was in personal difficulty and could not remain present. The matter proceeded in his absence. Moreover, the 2 rpw.187.10.sxw Advocate who appeared on instructions of Mr.Saraogi was unable to explain the matter. We do not find merits in this submission. The fact that Advocate on record was not available, can be no ground for review. The matter was argued before us on 6th May, 2010 and after hearing the Counsel who had appeared on instructions of the Advocate on record for the Petitioner, the order came to be passed. Significantly, this Review Petition is not argued by Mr.A.M.Saraogi himself, but once again, by his junior. 3. The second point urged before us is that the decision of the Apex Court in Navinchandra N.Majithia vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in AIR 2000 SC 2966 has not been taken into account. The principle expounded by the Apex Court in Navinchandra Majithia’s case (supra) has been glossed over by us. Even this submission is ill-advised. The challenge in the Writ Petition was essentially to the orders passed by the Mandaya District Forum in the State of Karnataka. The decision in Navinchandra Majithia’s case (supra) is with regard to jurisdiction of the High Court to quash criminal action instituted and pending outside the jurisdiction of the High Court. 3 rpw.187.10.sxw 4. Suffice it to observe that there is no infirmity in the view which we have already taken in our order dated 6th May, 2010, much less, any ground for review is made out. Hence, dismissed. (R.M.SAVANT, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)