1 IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION REVIEW REVIEW REVIEW PETITION NO. 2 OF 2005 PETITION NO. 2 OF 2005 PETITION NO. 2 OF 2005 IN IN IN COMPANY COMPANY COMPANY PETITION NO.168 OF 1991 PETITION NO.168 OF 1991 PETITION NO.168 OF 1991 Khosla Metal Powders P. Ltd .. Petitioner vs Sanghvi Onkarmnal Ratanlal & Com... Respondents Mr.Nitin Thakkar with Mr G.C.Mohanty for Petr. Mr.Mehta i.b Mehta & Co for Respondents CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR, J : A.M.KHANWILKAR, J : A.M.KHANWILKAR, J DATE: DATE: DATE: 20th October, 2005 20th October, 2005 20th October, 2005 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. The parties have arrived at an amicable settlement. The same is reduced into writing in the form of consent terms. As the Company Petition is already disposed of by directing winding up of the company, the appropriate course is to allow the review petition and restore the Company Petition to 2 its original number so that the consent terms can be taken on record in the Company Petition and that the petition can be disposed as withdrawn after the proposed withdrawal is duly advertised. This course is adopted as no claim has been received in the registry either to support or oppose the prayer for winding up of the petitioner company. Accordingly, the Review Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). 2. In view of this order, Company Petition is made returnable on 17th November, 2005. Counsel for the company assures that the proposed withdrawal will be duly advertised before that date. A.M.Khanwilkar, A.M.Khanwilkar, A.M.Khanwilkar, J J J