IMMIX TRADE PRIVATE LTD Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter had originally come up on 9 th June,2020 when I had passed an order issuing Rule and granted interim reliefs as more particularly set out in paragraph 6 of the said order.

(2.) Today, the matter has been moved for seeking a modification of this order and more particularly paragraph one thereof. The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has brought to my attention that it is incorrectly recorded that a copy of the praecipe, informing that the matter was listed on 9th June, 2020, was served upon respondent Nos.4 and 5. This fact is incorrect and he had informed the learned advocates for respondent No.4 by telephone and not served a copy of the praecipe. This is the correction that is sought.

(3.) Today, when the matter is called out, respondent Nos.4 and 5 are represented through different advocates. The learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.4 has stated before me that it is correct that respondent No.4 was not served with a copy of the praecipe. The learned advocate for respondent No.5 has also stated the same.