HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION DEFECTIVE No. - 32 of 2022 Court No. - 1 HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. (C. M. Application No. 3 of 2022) 1. Heard Shri Y.S. Lohit, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Service upon opposite party no. 5 in the application for review is not sufficient as per report dated 29.04.2025 of the Registrar concerned. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the opposite party no. 1- Company in the review application has been sold and has been purchased by the proposed opposite party no. 5. 4. On being asked to demonstrate as to what is proof that the opposite party no. 1- M/s Vespa Car Company Limited has been sold and it had been purchased by the proposed opposite party no. 5. All that has been placed before us is a news item and reference to a document dated 06.04.2022, however, on its perusal, there is nothing to show that opposite party no. 1- Company was sold of in favour of S.G. Corporate Mobility Private Limited. In fact, it refers to some permission having been granted to it by the National Company Law Tribunal vide order dated 23.03.2018 which is not on record. In fact, that very document says that the opposite party no. 1- Vespa Car Company Limited has been closed for the last 25- 30 years. Material is not sufficient before us to implead the proposed Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Yadukul Shiromani Srivastava (Y.S.Lohit) Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Rajendra Prasad And 16 Others (In Wric 1003295 Of 2008) .....Applicant(s) M/S Vespa Car Company Ltd. Salon,Raebareli Thru. Its Manager P And A And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) opposite party no. 5. 5. The application for impleadment is rejected. Order on Review Application 6. The Court has perused the order dated 28.11.2018 passed in Writ Petition No. 2495 (M/S) of 2008; Ram Karan and ors. Vs. M/s Vespa Car Company Limited and Ors. and connected matters. 7. Review application has been filed on 28.04.2022 that is more than three and half years later, however, considering the explanation that earlier it was filed in 2019 as per prevailing practice and only subsequently the fresh number has been allotted, the delay in filing the review application is condoned. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the applicant seeking review the Court does not find any ground which may persuade this Court to review the judgment dated 28.11.2018. The fact is that the award dated 23.01.2008 was not under challenge in the said writ petitions bearing Writ Petition No. 2495 (M/S) of 2008, Writ Petition No. 3295 (M/S) of 2008 and Writ Petition No. 1003 (M/S) of 2013. Only a writ of mandamus was sought. The employer had challenged the award which was dismissed for the reasons mentioned therein. There is no error in the judgment. 9. Accordingly, the application for review is dismissed. August 28, 2025 R.K.P. CMRAD No. 32 of 2022 2 (Rajan Roy,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAJ KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench