Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: 1
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT GREATER BOMBAY
NOTICE OF MOTION N0.1233 OF 2020
IN
COMMERCIAL SUIT STAMP NO.3786 OF 2020
(CNR NO.MHCC010034192020)
Mr.Kunal Jiwarajka & Ors. ) ...Plaintiffs.
V/s.
Union Bank of India & Ors. ) ...Defendants.
CORAM: HIS HONOUR JUDGE SHRI R.V.KOKARE
DATE : 29/09/2020 (C.R.No.31)
Appearance:
Adv Nimay Dave a/w. Adv Ms. Megha Gupta for plaintiffs.
Adv Jamshed Ansari for deft nos.1 to 9.
Adv. Sahil Sayyed a/w. Adv. Niyati Merchant for deft no.10.
ORDER
This is a notice of motion taken out by the plaintiffs for
temporarily restrained to the defendants from taking any coercive
action against the plaintiffs on the basis of Letter dated 16/03/2020
issued by the defendant no.1 to the plaintiffs which is annexed
alongwith plaint at ExhibitI at page no. 167.
Brief facts of notice of motion of the plaintiffs are as under.
2 The plaintiff no.1 is the Director ( Suspended Board in view of
admission of Section 7 application under provisions of Insolvency and
Bankruptcy Code, 2016 by the Hon'ble NCLT Mumbai) of M/s JSK
Marketing Limited which is hereinafter referred to as the “Company” or
JSKML”. The plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 are the former Exdirectors and
have resigned from their Directors post on 31/03/2019 before the
company was admitted under Section 7 of IBC. The defendants are the
-- 1 of 18 --
2
consortium lenders of the Company and are the Banks constituted
under the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. The subject
matter of the present suit is the arbitrary, illegal, dishonest, wrongful
and improper act of the defendants in labeling the accounts of the
JSKML Company as “Red flagged Accounts status” and subsequently,
declaring the company's account as fraud/willful defaulter with the
malafide and dishonest intention and that also without following the
due procedure of law and totally going against the principles of Natural
Justice, which plaintiffs apprehends. The aforesaid apprehension of
arbitrary, illegal dishonest, wrongful and improper act of the defendants
for the sake of brevity and conciseness is hereinafter referred to as the
“ Impugned Action”.
3. The plaintiffs state that the JSKML Marketing Limited Company
has been incorporated on 11/09/1985 and registered at Registrar of
Companies, Mumbai under the provisions of the Companies Act 1956.
The JSKML Company was involved mainly into the business of trading
of consumer electronics, FMCG products, cameras, batteries, etc. and
was in the said business since the past more than 34 years. The JSKML
was a marketing and distribution organization serving as a link between
the manufacturer and the consumer. The JSKML Company had
branches in all major states in the country and at one point of time
covered around 1,50,000 retail outlets all over the country.
4. The plaintiffs state that the defendants have sanctioned various
facilities to the company and accordingly, the defendants have
sanctioned the credit facilities to the company only after detailed due
diligence of the promoters, directors and the Company's account and it
business over the years and only after satisfaction, have renewed the
-- 2 of 18 --
3
credit facilities from time to time. The company has been enjoying
working capital limits with its bankers for over 7 years and in the past
there have been no instances, where the company had delayed servicing
its dues to any of the banks. The defendant no. 6 advanced loan to the
company in the year 2013. Thereafter, defendants no. 1 sanctioned loan
limit of Rs. 20 crore in the year 2015, leading to multiple banking limit
of 60 crore. Furthermore, in the year 2016, consortium was formed
with enhanced lending limit of Rs. 180 crore, and further enhanced to
Rs. 280 crore in the year 2018.
5. The plaintiffs state that the customers of JSKML were having a
good financial standing for past several years and almost all the banks
including the lead bank had also supported them continuously over the
years by sanctioning substantial amount of finances. The company had
also supplied materials to these parties on credit basis after effecting
required due diligence akin to banks having extended credit facilities to
similar customers. The plaintiffs state that being the Directors of the
company, the plaintiffs have furnished guarantee in favour of the
defendants bank for the loan obtained by the company from the bank,
the plaintiffs also provided and furnished collateral securities and
guarantees to the defendants bank to the JSKML Company.
6. The plaintiffs state that the JSKML company started facing
financial problems. The plaintiffs state that as the realization from
debtors has been sluggish resulting in tightness in liquidity and led to a
major impact on the bottomline as well cash flows. The company could
not recover dues from its customers facing restrictions in their cash
flows. The company's operations had been under strain and the liquidity
suffered on account of various external reasons beyond control of the
-- 3 of 18 --
4
management and accordingly, the company committed defaults in
repayment of the loan granted by the financial creditors to the
company. One of the financial creditor of the JSKML Company by the
name “ Bombay sales agency”, approached the National Company Law
Tribunal, Mumbai on 16th April 2019 and filed a petition under the
provisions of Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
read with Rule 4 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Application to
Adjudicating Authority Rules, 2016 for initiating Corporate Insolvency
Resolution Process ( CIRP) against the JSKML Company. The plaintiffs
state that the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai vide an order
dated 23/09/2019 was pleased to admit the aforesaid application
thereby admitting the JSKML under the CIRP and appointing IRP.
7. The plaintiffs state that, as the realisation from debtors has been
sluggish resulting in tightness in liquidity and further the high rates of
interest and bank changes have led to a major impact on the bottom
line as well as at cash flows. The company could not recover dues from
its customers facing restrictions in their cash flows. The company had
started pursuing for recovery of claims from various clients which is
outstanding and recoverable. The company officials had met lead bank
and have appraised about the elongated working capital cycle and also
about delay in receipt of payments from debtors, which had commenced
affecting the cash flows of company. In the consortium meeting held on
26/12/2018, the company again presented to the consortium members,
the reasons and need for reassessment of the working capital limits
considering increased working capital cycles. In a consortium meeting
held on 22/01/2020, wherein the company's performance was
reviewed, all the consortium banks confirmed that the plaintiffs
company account are regular and standardized as on date.
-- 4 of 18 --
5
8. The plaintiffs state that as per the Reserve Bank of India
Guidelines in respect of Formation of JLF and the conclusion thereof,
the entire exercise finalising the CAP and sanction thereof should have
been completed within a period of 60 days from the date of Formation
of JLF. Further, the lead bank of the consortium is also entrusted with
completing the formalities in this regard. The plaintiffs state that in
spite of formation of the JLF, the timelines prescribed in RBI Guidelines
have not been adhered to and the sanctions have not been completed
within the stipulated period of 60 days by SBI. The defendants have
already declared the accounts of Company as NPA somewhere in mid of
2019. The plaintiffs state that during the period when accounts of the
Company have got irregular due to losses, number of other similar
industries have suffered losses and have got irregular and have
ultimately been classified as NPA. The plaintiffs state that neither the
plaintiffs nor the Company is fraud/willful defaulter but have been
victim of reasons beyond their control.
9. The plaintiffs state that the defendants were doing forensic audit
of the company since mid August 2019, checking upon the money trails
etc. of the company. The defendants have appointed Alvarez & Marshal
( A & M) their independent auditors providing them in details the scope
of the audit. The plaintiffs issued a letter dated 03/03/2020 to the
defendants asking about the dates and details as to when the plaintiffs
and the Company account has been declared as fraud/willful defaulters.
The defendants neither gave any reply nor informed the plaintiffs about
their apprehensions and continued with the impugned actions against
the plaintiffs and its company. The need to file the instant civil suit has
arisen because of illegal arbitrary impugned action on the part of
defendants by using the provisions, guidelines contained in Master
-- 5 of 18 --
6
Circular dated 1st July, 2016 bearing no. DBS.Co.CFMC.BC No.
1/23,04.001/201516.
10. The plaintiffs state that on 16/03/2020, the plaintiffs were
shocked to receive a letter from defendant no.1 stating that the account
of the Company has been declared as fraud and appropriate steps have
been initiated as per RBI Guidelines. However, the defendants never
convey any reason for such declaration neither did the defendants
provide any relevant documents/papers on which they have relied on
for such a severe declaration. This act of defendantbanks is a gross
violation of principle of natural justice, even more so, when the
consequences of such declaration, fraud, has the power of ruining not
only the company reputation but also jeopardizing the corporate life of
its directors i.e. plaintiffs as well as dire criminal consequences too. The
defendants have not followed the due process of law and have not
followed the Guidelines as provided under the relevant RBI Master
Circular to declare the account as Red Flagged Account or fraud/willful
defaulter in total contraventions and against the provisions and
guidelines of the Master Circular. The plaintiffs state that they have the
strong apprehension that the defendants would continue taking the
action on the basis of impugned action of declaring the plaintiffs
accounts as Red flagged and subsequently as fraud and willful
defaulter. Hence, this notice of motion.
11. The defendant nos. 1 to 9 and 10 resisted this notice of motion
taken out by the plaintiffs by filing their reply.
Brief facts of reply of the defendants are as under
12. By a letter of sanction dated 13/03/2018, the defendant no. 1 has
-- 6 of 18 --
7
advanced a loan of Rs. 50,00,00,000.00 to M/s. JSK Marketing Limited.
The repayment of the said loan was secured by creation of mortgage of
several assets. On or about 28/06/2019, the account of borrower/JSK
Marketing Limited as classified NPA and accordingly the defendant no.1
has initiated action under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002 and
issued demand notice under Sec. 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 .
Since right from the beginning, various irregularities including diversion
of funds, submission of false stock statements were observed in the
account of the Company. In the month of February 2019, the company
has shown stock and book debt worth Rs.441,35,74,920. However, in
the month of March, 2019, the company was unable to serve interest on
devolved letter of credit. This leads to two probabilities. (i) either the
stock statement submitted by the Company was false or (ii) the
Company has diverted the funds.
13. The defendants bank conducted the stock audit in the month of
June, 2019 which has shown negligible stock value. The bank has
classified the account of Red Flagged Account under the guidelines
dated 1st July, 2017 of RBI. It may be noted that one of the member
bank of the consortium has already filed original application in
Mumbai DRT for recovery of the loan due and payable by the Company.
It may be noted that two directors of the Company namely Laxmidevi
Jiwrajka and Mrs.Sakshi Kunal Jiwrajka have resigned from the board
of the Company on or about 30th March, 2020, without intimating the
Bankers.
14. The defendants further submitted that the company has also
taken loan from nearly 85 persons to the tune of Rs.22 crores and
defaulted in the repaying the amounts. Consequently, the
-- 7 of 18 --
8
lenders/investors have approached EOW which resulted in registration
of FIR No. 12 of 2020 against the company and its directors including
the present plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have filed ABA No. 648 of 2020, but
the same was rejected by an order dated 11/06/2020.
15. The Bankers have conducted forensic audit of the account of the
company which is underway and the report is likely to be available in a
week or two. Thus, considering the irregularities committed by the
company ( M/s. JSK Marketing Limited) they are liable to be declared
as fraud and their account as fraud account. This proposed action of the
bank is the consonance of RBI Guidelines dated 1st July, 2017.
16. The defendants have taken objections by submitting that the suit
as framed and filed as premature, the plaintiffs have no locus standi,
Bar under section 17 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016, non
joinder of necessary party, suit is not maintainable as commercial suits,
proper court fee is not paid, the plaint does not disclose cause of action,
the frame of the suit is improper, injunction relief as sought are barred
under Sec. 41(d) of the Specific Relief Act 1963 and etc.
17. The defendants further submitted that the defendants bank is not
declared the account of plaintiffs company as fraud and hence the
question of setting aside the same does not arise at all. The company of
the plaintiffs have taken loan with clear intention to defraud the banks.
They have defrauded various other people. Therefore, the plaintiffs
have failed to make out prima facie case, balance of convenience and
irreparable loss. The plaintiffs are not entitled for getting any relief. On
these grounds, the defendants have submitted that this notice of motion
may kindly be dismissed with costs.
-- 8 of 18 --
9
18. Upon hearing arguments of the learned counsel of both the
parties, on perusal of notes of arguments and documents produced on
record on behalf of both the sides, during the course of arguments and
in the written notes of arguments, the learned counsel on behalf of the
defendants have been raised various objection such as the suit of the
plaintiff is premature, the plaintiffs have no locus standi, the plaint
does not disclose cause of action, the suit is barred, this court has no
jurisdiction to try and decide this matter, the plaintiffs have not paid
sufficient court fees etc.
19. During the course of arguments, the learned counsels for the
defendant bank have argued that the plaintiffs have filed the present
suit on presumption that the respective defendants have already
declared the account of M/s. JSK Marketing Limited as fraud. It is not
the fact that the defendants have not declared fraud to M/s.JSK
Marketing Limited or to the plaintiffs. As a matter of fact, the defendant
no. 1 has only classified the account as Red Flagged (RAF) Account.
Therefore, the present suit and notice of motion are not maintainable.
20. On perusal of the pleadings of the plaintiffs, it appears to me that
in the present suit and notice of motion have challenged letter dated
16/03/2020, issued by the defendant no.1 bank to the plaintiffs which
is at Exh.I alongwith plaint at page no. 167. On scrutiny of the said
letter under challenge it appears that, it has mentioned in the said letter
that the steps has been taken according to the RBI Master Direction on
fraud. It is admitted fact that the defendant no.1 bank has classified the
account as Red Flagged. It is the allegation of the plaintiffs that the
defendants have been taken steps for declaring fraud and classified to
-- 9 of 18 --
10
the JSK Marketing Account as Red Flagged without giving opportunity
for hearing to the plaintiffs. Therefore, the plaintiffs have apprehension
that in hurriedly the defendants bank will initiate criminal action
against the plaintiffs. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion
that the plaintiffs have right to challenge any action taken by the
defendants. Therefore, the present suit and notice of motion are not
premature and the cause of action arose for filing the present suit.
21. The learned counsels on behalf of the defendants have argued
that in the present suit, the plaintiffs have not made party to the
Company of JSK Marketing Limited which is necessary party in the
present suit and they have filed the present suit without adding the
Company. Therefore, the present suit is not maintainable. The learned
counsel on behalf of the defendants have relied on the Judgement of
the Supreme Court of India in Innoventive Industries Ltd. V/s. ICICI
Bank and Ors., reported in MANU/SC/1063/2017, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has observed in para no 11 of the Judgement that once
an insolvency professional is appointed to manage the company, the
erstwhile directors who are no longer in management, obviously,
cannot maintain an appeal on behalf of the company.
22. A perusal of the observations held in the above citations it
appears to me that with due respect the ratio held in above citations is
not applicable to the present case in my hand due to differ of facts and
circumstances. In the present case in my hand, the plaintiffs are the
Directors as well as Guarantors of the loan amount granted by the
defendants bank to the JSK Marketing Ltd.
-- 10 of 18 --
11
23. The learned counsels on behalf of the defendants have argued
that the present suit is not tenable in view of provisions of Section 9 of
the Civil Procedure Code. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf
of the plaintiffs that this is a suit for declaration against the action
initiated by the defendant no.1. The plaintiffs are challenging the virus
of action taken by defendant no.1 and therefore, suit will lie as per
Section 9 of Civil Procedure Code.
24. Section 9 of C.P.C. deals with jurisdiction of the Civil Courts and
bar thereon. It says that Court is empowered to try all Civil suits unless
barred by law. It is settled legal position is that Civil Court has every
jurisdiction to try the suit. No doubt, Civil Court cannot try and
entertain the suit which are expressly or implied barred. Here, plaintiffs
are seeking declaration against the action of defendant no. 1. The action
levelled by defendant no.1 is based on Master Circular issued under
R.B.I. Guidelines. Therefore, in my opinion, nothing will bar from
presenting such grievance before Civil Court. As such, I am of the
opinion that Civil Court has every jurisdiction to try and entertain such
nature of suit. Therefore, there is no any force for argument of the
learned counsels on behalf of the defendants for saying that this Court
has no jurisdiction to entertain and decided this suit in view of Section
9 of Civil Procedure Code.
25. The learned counsel on behalf of the defendants have argued that
in view of provision of Section 41(d) of the Specific Relief Act,
injunction cannot be granted. I have gone through Section 41 of
Specific Relief Act. It is regarding “ injunction when refused ”. As per
Sub Section (d) injunction cannot be granted to restrain any person
from instituting or prosecuting any proceeding or any criminal matter.
-- 11 of 18 --
12
No doubt, in such case injunction cannot be granted. However, here the
circumstances are some what different. Plaintiffs are challenged letter
dated 16/03/2020 issued by the defendant no.1 is not as per procedure
laid down in Master Circular. Plaintiffs are challenging the virus of the
action taken by the defendant no.1. In such circumstances, if said
decision is not taken in accordance with the procedure laid down, then
the aggrieved party has every right to ask for injunction. So, the bar as
mentioned in Section 41(d) of Specific Relief Act is not applicable here.
26. The learned counsel on behalf of the defendants have argued that
the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has jurisdiction to
entertain or dispose of any application or proceeding or any claim made
by or against the Corporate Debtor. Section 63 r/w. Section 231 of the
Insolvency Code, no Civil Court or authority has jurisdiction to entertain
any Civil Suit or proceedings in respect of any matter with respect to
which the NCLT as jurisdiction. As against this, the learned counsel for
the plaintiffs has argued that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain
and decide the present suit filed on behalf of the plaintiffs.
27. I have gone through Section 17 of the I.B.Code 2016. Said
chapter is regarding Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). As
per said section, after appointment of Interim Resolution Professional
(IRP) the management of affairs of corporate debtor vest in (IRP). So
also the power of directors, partners and guarantors stand suspended.
So also as per section 231 of said Code no Civil Court have jurisdiction
in respect of any matter in which the adjudicating authority is
empowered by or under, this court to pass any order and no injunction
shall be granted by court in respect of any action taken in pursuance of
order passed by adjudicating authority. So on going through above
-- 12 of 18 --
13
sections and more particularly section 231 of I.B.Code there is a bar in
respect of matter within the jurisdiction of adjudicating authority i.e.
NCLT. So also there is bar to pass injunction order in respect of any
action taken by said authority.
28. It is an admitted position on record that defendant has
approached before NCLT, DRT and also started recovery proceeding
under the SARFAESI and other available Acts. Since beginning it is
made clear by Ld. Counsel for plaintiffs that plaintiffs are not against
the recover proceedings nor by way of this suit plaintiffs are challenging
or restraining the recover proceeding. No doubt, plaintiffs are not
challenging the recovery proceedings nor challenging the proceedings
which is pending before NCLT. Here, plaintiffs being suspended
directors are challenging the red flag and the notice issued by
defendant no. 1 bank to the plaintiff dated 16/03/2020 issued by the
defendant no. 1 without following the procedure given in Master
Circular. Therefore, in my opinion the bar as contemplated under
section 231 of I.B Code will not apply here and so the present suit and
notice of motion filed on behalf of the plaintiffs are maintainable.
29. The learned counsel for the defendants argued that the plaintiffs
have filed the present suit as a commercial suit which is not
maintainable and cause of action shows in the plaint does not fit within
the ambit of commercial dispute which is defined under Section 2(c) of
the Commercial Court Act 2015. Thus, the suit is not maintainable as
Commercial Suit. As against this, the learned counsel on behalf of the
plaintiffs has argued that the present suit is maintainable in view of
Section 2(c) of the Commercial Court Act 2015. I have reproduced the
definition 2(c) of the Commercial Court Act 2015 “ the Commercial
-- 13 of 18 --
14
dispute means a dispute arising out of (i) ordinary transaction of
merchants, bankers, financiers and traders such as those relating to
mercantile documents, including enforcement and interpretation of
such documents. From the definition contained in 2(c) (i), it is clear
that ordinary transactions of bankers and financier are covered in the
definitions. The definition is all inclusive which is reflected from use of
words “ such as those relating to mercantile documents including
enforcement and interpretation of such documents ”. The definition
makes it clear that the documents which are connected with the
transaction of bankers and financiers are covered. In the present case,
the action of defendants in classifying the JSK's account as RFA is based
on Master Circular which is applicable to all the accounts where under
the defendants have lent money in ordinary course of their transaction.
Thus, the action of classification as RFA by the defendant is
maintainable as a Commercial Suit.
30. The learned counsel for the defendants have argued that the
present suit is not maintainable as a commercial suit and therefore, the
plaint ought to be rejected on this ground alone. The learned counsels
in their submissions relied on the following Judgements.
(i) Bank of India V/s. Gupta Coak India Pvt. Limited & Anr. in
the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, in Civil
Revision Application No. 97/2017. In this Judgement, the objection
raised before the Hon'ble High Court was that the suit should be treated
as Commercial Suit and not an ordinary suit, but the Hon'ble High
Court held that the suit of the present nature cannot be a Commercial
Suit.
(ii) In the Judgement of Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No
75/1962 in MANU/SC/0227/1963 in Raizada Topandas and Ors.
-- 14 of 18 --
15
V/s Gorakhram Gokalchand. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that
the plaint can be returned for presentation before appropriate court
when a court lacks territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction but not when it
lacks inherent jurisdiction. Thus, this Hon'ble Court lacks inherent
jurisdiction and cannot and ought not to grant any relief. The Court
ought to reject the plaint entirely forthwith.
31. I have gone through the above citations with due respect the
ratio held in above citations are not applicable to the present case in my
hand. In the present case the nature of the suit is a Commercial Suit and
not an ordinary Suit.
32. The learned counsel on behalf of defendants have argued that the
plaintiffs have not paid sufficient court fees. It regard to this objection
of the defendants regarding court fees, the plaintiffs have submitted
that they have paid court fees accordingly. However, the plaintiffs are
ready to pay the deficient court fees, if any, as adjudicated by the court.
Therefore, I am of the opinion that at this stage for deciding this notice
of motion does not require to give findings about the court fees while
the plaintiffs have submitted that the plaintiffs shall pay the deficient
court fees, if any, as adjudicated by the court.
33. The learned counsel on behalf of the plaintiffs has argued that the
defendant no.1 has classified to the account of the JSKMLplaintiff as
Red Flagged and received a letter dated 16/03/2020 which is at Exh.I
of the plaint without following Master Circular and therefore, the
defendants have not followed the principles of natural justice.
34. The learned counsel on behalf of the plaintiffs has relied on
-- 15 of 18 --
16
Judgement reported in MANU/PH/1231/2017, in the case of Oswal
Apparels Private Limited and Ors. Vs. State Bank of India, Ludhiana
and Ors., the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that “ It
is also settled principle of law that the documents that are relied upon
by any authority in arriving at a conclusion must be made available to
the affected party to conform to the principles of natural justice. That
apart, the petitioners ought to have been afforded adequate opportunity
to present their case in its correct perspective.” In this judgement the
Hon'ble Court clearly states that not just an opportunity of being heard
is mandated under principles of natural justice but also, documents
which are relied upon by the authority should be made available to the
affected party.
35. It appears from the contention of the plaintiffs that the JSKML
Company started facing financial problems. The realization from
debtors of the company has been sluggish resulting in tightness in
liquidity and led to a major impact on the bottomline as well cash
flows. The company could not recover dues from its customers facing
restrictions in their cash flows. The plaintiffs have filed various suit for
recovery of amount against companies debtors.
36. It is contended by the learned counsels for the defendants that
plaintiffs may repay the loan, thereafter no action will be initiated
against the plaintiffs. It appears that the defendants bank has initiated
the action for recovery of the loan under the grab of Master Circular.
37. Considering wide scope of Master Circular, the balance of
convenience lies in favour of plaintiffs. Obviously, irreparable loss will
be caused to the plaintiffs, if the court refuse to grant injunction as
-- 16 of 18 --
17
prayed. Hence, the order.
ORDER
1. The Notice of Motion No. 1233/2020 is allowed.
2. The defendants bank personally or through its representatives are
restrained from taking coercive action against plaintiffs on account of
red flag or fraud account, based on master circular. Defendants or their
representatives are restrained from branding the plaintiffs as fraud and
publishing the name of plaintiffs as fraud till final disposal of the suit.
3. It is needless to say that defendants are at liberty to proceed against
the plaintiffs regarding recovery proceedings, attachment, sale of
attachment property to recover the defaulted loan.
4. Cost in cause.
5. Notice of Motion No. 1233/20 is disposed off accordingly.
Dtd: 29/09/2020. Judge
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr.Mumbai.
-- 17 of 18 --
18
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGEMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
03/10/2020 2.00p.m. Mrs. V.V.Malgaonkar
Name of the Judge H.H.J.Shri R.V.KOKARE (C.R.31)
Date of Pronouncement of
Judgement/Order
29/09/2020
Judgement/order signed by P.O on 03/10/2020
Judgement/order uploaded on 03/10/2020
-- 18 of 18 --