JUDGMENT : 1. The matter is appearing for correction of typographical errors in the judgment dated 17th February, 2017. 2. The order was passed in G.A.117 of 2017. However, three other G.A. Nos., namely, G.A. No.174 of 2017, G.A. No.175 of 2017, G.A. No.176 of 2017 are wrongly mentioned in the order which needs to be deleted. 3. The other corrections required to be incorporated in the judgment dated 17th February, 2017 are:- The sixth sentence from the top at page 3 “M Companies” should read as “AM Companies” and similarly in the ninth sentence the word “affect” should be replaced by “effect” and in the last but one sentence in the same paragraph “supplied” should be replaced by “supplying”. 4. The sixth line of new paragraph from the top at page 6 “defendant No.1” should be replaced by “plaintiff No.1” and in the 13th line the words “respondent no.1” shall be replaced by “petitioner no.1”. 5. At Page 7 in the last sentence from bottom after the word “would” the word “not” should be added. 6. At Page 9 in the eleventh and fourteenth sentence of the new paragraph “respondent No.40” should be replaced by “respondent Nos.41 and 42” and in the same paragraph fourth sentence from bottom “defendant Nos.40 and 42” should be replaced by “defendant Nos.41 and 42” and also in the same sentence the word “has” shall be replaced by “have” and thereafter the phrase “agreed to enter” shall be replaced by the word “entered”. In the same page last sentence from bottom “defendant Nos.40 and 42” shall be replaced by “defendant Nos.41 and 42”. 7. The last sentence at page 17 should read as “give rise” instead of “give a rise”. 8. The first sentence of the second paragraph at page 18 should read as “Although the plaintiff during the argument” instead of “Although the plaintiff due the argument”. 9. The eleventh sentence of first paragraph at page 21 “Mou” should replaced by “MOU” and the last sentence of same paragraph should read as “although received” instead of “although required”. 10. The fifth sentence of the new paragraph from top at page 30 should read as “related to the” instead of “related tot he”. 11. Clause 16.3 at page 31 should read as “ArcelorMittal plants” instead of “rcelorMittal plants”. 12. 10. The fifth sentence of the new paragraph from top at page 30 should read as “related to the” instead of “related tot he”. 11. Clause 16.3 at page 31 should read as “ArcelorMittal plants” instead of “rcelorMittal plants”. 12. The sixth sentence of new paragraph at page 32 should read as “and if the plaintiff fails to remedy the breach the defendant would be entitled to take steps in accordance with the termination clause”. 13. The sixth sentence of the first paragraph at page 33 the word “be” should be replaced by “have”. 14. The tenth sentence from bottom at page 34 should read as “Schedule 7 to the ArcelorMittal Companies” instead of “Schedule 7 the ArcelorMittal Companies”. 15. The first sentence at page 35, the word “simple” should be replaced by “single”. 16. The fifteenth sentence from top of the new paragraph at page 39 dated “15th” should be replaced by “13th”. 17. The third sentence of new paragraph at page 40, the word “it” should be replaced by “its”. 18. The second sentence of new paragraph at page 41 the word “petitioner” should be replaced by “respondents”. 19. The tenth sentence from top at page 45 commencing with the phrase ‘In fact’ should be replaced and read as:- “In fact, under the amended clause, ArcelorMittal Companies have a right to procure directly from the suppliers if an offer or contract presented by Lindsay is not technically satisfactory or commercially competitive.” 20. The fifth sentence from bottom at page 45 “respondent” shall be replaced by “petitioner” and in the second sentence from bottom “respondent” shall be replaced by “petitioner”. In the last sentence of the same page the word “supplies” should be deleted and replaced by “suppliers”. 21. The fifth sentence from top at page 46 dated “15th” shall be replaced by “13th”. 22. There is also an error while recording the name of the appearing counsels for the parties. The name of Mr. Rajiv Lall, Advocate appeared on behalf of the respondent no.3 along with the advocates named in the order has been inadvertently left out. 23. His name shall be incorporated in the order as one of the Counsels representing the respondent no.3. 24. The name of the learned Advocate Mr. Arunabho Deb has been wrongly typed as Mr. Arunabho Das. Mr. Arunabho Deb is representing the respondent nos.41 and 42 in this proceeding. Mr. 23. His name shall be incorporated in the order as one of the Counsels representing the respondent no.3. 24. The name of the learned Advocate Mr. Arunabho Deb has been wrongly typed as Mr. Arunabho Das. Mr. Arunabho Deb is representing the respondent nos.41 and 42 in this proceeding. Mr. Debajyoti Datta Advocate represented the respondent no.39. The surname has been wrongly typed as Dutta. Mr. Pratik Ghosh represented respondent no. 40, however, he has been wrongly described as Mr. Probal Ghosh. 25. Let these corrections be incorporated in the judgment dated 17th February, 2017. The server copy shall be corrected accordingly.