Karnataka High Court
Embio Limited vs Director General Of Foreign Trade on 8 January, 2016
Bench: N.K.Patil, R.B Budihal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2016,
: PRESENT :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. PATIL
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
REVIEW PETITION NO. 586 OF 2015
Between:
Embio Limited,
(Formerly M/s. Emmellen Biotech
Pharmaceuticals Ltd.),
Having its registered office at 501
Sentinel, Hiranandani Gardens,
Powai, Mumbai-400 076.
Represented by its Company Secretary,
Sri Chirag Vora, S/o. Late Arvind C. Vora,
Aged about 30 years,
Working at 501 Sentinel, Hiranandani Gardens,
Powai, Mumbai-400 076.
... Petitioner
(By Shri. Manu Kulkarni,
for Shri. Sunayana Basu Mallik, Advocate)
And:
1. Director General of Foreign Trade,
Ministry of Commerce & Industry,
Department of Commerce,
ECA-1, Udyog Bhavan,
New Delhi-110 001.
2
2. Additional Director General of Foreign Trade,
Ministry of Commerce & Industry,
Department of Commerce,
ECA-1, Udyog Bhavan, New Delhi-110 001.
3. Joint Director General Foreign Trade,
6th Floor C & E Wings,
Kendriya Sadan, Koramangala 2nd Block,
Bengaluru-560 034.
... Respondents
****
This Review Petition is filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of
Civil Procedure Code, praying to review the judgment dated
13/12/2013, passed in W.A. No.1229/2010 (GM-RES), on
the file of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore.
This Review Petition coming on for Orders, this day,
N.K.Patil J., made the following:
ORDER
This Review Petition is filed by review petitioner for review of the Judgment dated 13th December 2013, passed in W.A. No.1229/2010 (GM-RES), by this Court.
2. Though this petition is posted for non compliance of office objections, we have heard the learned counsel appearing for petitioner and gone through the prayer and the grounds urged in this petition.
3
3. After perusal of the entire material available on file, it emerges that the review petition has been filed in the month of September 2015 and at that stage, office had raised as many as six objections and none of them are complied with till date.
4. However, in the interest of justice and equity, we have perused the judgment under review and after perusal of the same, we do not find any error apparent on the face of the same nor the review petitioner has made out a good ground for interference, for the reason that the impugned judgment has been passed on the basis of the submission of the learned counsel appearing for both the parties. Hence, we do not find any justification to consider the relief sought in this review petition. Accordingly, the review petition filed by petitioner stands dismissed as devoid of merits.
SD/-
JUDGE SD/-
JUDGE BMV*