Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010083882025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1317/2025 PARTHA PRATIM GOSWAMI SON OF LATE DURGESWAR GOSWAMI, R/O HOUSE NO.-1, BYE LANE NO.- 7, LACHIT NAGAR, GUWAHATI- 781007, DISTRICT-KAMRUP VERSUS INTERNAL COMMITTEE OF YES BANK LTD REP BY ITS PRESIDING OFFICER ANMIKA NARAIN, YES BANK LTD, GROUND FLOOR, 271, CHITTA RANJAN AVENUE, KOLKATA- 700001 2:YES BANK LIMITED HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT YES BANK HOUSE WESTERN EXPRESS HIGHWAY ANAND NAGAR VAKOLA SANTA CRUZ EAST MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA - 400055 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER MR. PRASHANT KUMAR 3:SRI SANGRAM PRADHAN H. R. HEAD SUPPORT SERVICES YES BANK LTD YES BANK HOUSE WESTERN EXPRESS HIGHWAY ANAND NAGAR VAKOLA SANTA CRUZ EAST MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA - 400055. Page No.# 2/3 4:SMTI MALAVIKA BAJAJ H.R. PERSONAL (HUMAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT TEAM) YES BANK LTD MAX TOWER NOIDA OFFICE UTTAR PRADESH-110021 5:SMTI MALAVIKA BAJAJ H.R. PERSONAL (HUMAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT TEAM) YES BANK LTD MAX TOWER NOIDA OFFICE UTTAR PRADESH-11002 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N J KHATANIAR, L DAS Advocate for the Respondent : MS S SIDDIQUA, MR. A IKBAL BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER Date : 30.04.2025 Heard Ms. R. Barua, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. G. Imtiaz, learned counsel for the opposite party. 2. This interlocutory application is preferred for correction of a typographical mistake that crept in, in the order dated 07.04.2025, passed in CRP(IO) No. 89/2025. 3. Ms. Barua, learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the 4th paragraph of the order dated 07.04.2025, passed in CRP(IO) No. 89/2025, while striking off the name of the respondent No. 2, it has been observed that the name of the respondent No. 2, be struck off from the array of this petition at the cost and risk of the petitioner, but, instead of the ‘petitioner’, it ought to have been ‘respondent No. 1’. Page No.# 3/3 4. Mr. Imtiaz, learned counsel for the opposite party submits that he has no objection in the event of allowing this application. 5. Taking note of the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, it is provided that henceforth, in the 4th paragraph of the order dated 07.04.2025, passed in CRP(IO) No. 89/2025, in the place of ‘at the cost and risk of the petitioner’, it shall be read as ‘at the cost and risk of the respondent No. 1’ for all purposes. 6. In terms of above, this I.A. stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant