ORDER :

1. The Court: This memorandum of review is a manifestation of displeasure of the applicants over the judgement passed in APO No.128 of 2021 together with APO No.129 of 2021 by which the appeals in application being APO No.128 of 2021 with IA GA No.1 of 2021 and APO No.129 of 2021 with IA GA No.1 of 2021 were allowed and consequent thereupon interim order passed on July 17, 2019 was restored and the interim order passed at the time of admission of appeal on 30th April, 2021 was confirmed.

2. It is contended that certain material facts, though recorded in the judgement, might not have been considered by the Hon’ble Court while passing the judgement under review and such non-consideration of material facts warrants the review of the judgement in order to maintain the judicial propriety. It is further contended that this Court while considering the merit of the appeal did not appreciate the fact that the ledger of the applicant was used to be maintained by the vendor/TCL, the opposite party herein which perhaps escaped the attention of this Court and as such it was observed:- “This is in fact a claim for an unpaid vendor for the remaining part of the consideration amount receivable for the goods sold and supplied.”

3. It is averred by the applicant that the observation of this Court that “At the time of admission of appeal on 30th April, 2021 the earlier interim order was restored and is still in force.” whereas order dated April 30, 2021 would suggest that an undertaking was given by the learned Advocate appearing for the respondents not to deal with their properties for a limited period which however, was extended from time to time but no specific interim order was ever passed or ever restored to that effect by the Hon’ble Division Bench.

4. According to the applicants, the observation of this Court is that “The documents relied upon by the appellants were part of the record of the interlocutory proceedings. The respondents in the affidavits have not come out with any material document to contradict the findings arrived by KPMG and later BDO during forensic audit” whereas the attachment to the email dated 4th June, 2018 that had been sent by the Opposite party on their own to the applicants attaching their system generated (SAP generated) ledger till 30th March, 2018 would show that the basic contention of the opposite party was infructuous ab-initio. The same were produced along with the affidavits but seems to have escaped the notice or attention of this Court.

5. It is further contention of the applicants that this Court had no reasons to observe that the reports of KPMG and BDO would show that the respondents had knowledge of their irregular transaction and they were consulted before the reports were prepared. Such observation is far from being correct inasmuch as the opposite party could not produce a single document to substantiate the facts that the applicants were ever consulted by KPMG or BDO.

6. According to the applicants, this Court though recorded at two places that the applicant/respondents had produced and relied upon the email communication dated June 4, 2018, issued by the appellant which discloses the total actual position in respect of three districts and wherefrom it would appear that after considering the entire accounts a sum of Rs.3.30 crores was receivable by the applicants/respondents, but such emails seems for all practical purposes were not considered by this Court while passing the judgement. According to the applicants, this Court failed to appreciate the fact that the credit note extended on June 4, 2018 pertains to 31st March, 2018 for 2017-18 fiscal year.

7. Such tabular statement relied upon by this Court had neither been referred to in the report of BDO nor had ever been enumerated by the opposite party. Therefore, according to the applicants non consideration of such essential facts have produced an erroneous finding.

8. The learned Counsel however, in all fairness has submitted that the