Final Order 1

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: CS 1206-19 in L.C. Suit no. 450-09
1 Date : 18.11.2019
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT FOR GREATER MUMBAI
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1206 OF 2019
IN
L.C. SUIT NO. 450 OF 2009
(CNR NO.MHCC010067992019 )
Sushil Kanubhai Shah & Anr. .. Applicant /
Org. Def. 1 & 2
IN THE MATTER OF
Industrial Bhavan (Worli) Ltd. .. Plaintiff
Versus
Sushil Kanubhai Shah & Ors. .. Defendants
Appearances :
Adv.Ashok Wanwani for plaintiff present.
Defendant and his advocate absent.
Coram : His Honour Judge
Shri. A.H.Laddhad
Additional Judge
CR No. : 7
Date : 18.11.2019
ORDER
1. The defendant no. 1 has filed instant Chamber Summons for
amendment of Written Statement of defendant no. 1 and 2 and to
bring certain facts which occurred subsequent to the filing of the
Written Statement which are necessary for deciding the issue
involved in the present Suit.
-- 1 of 19 --
CS 1206-19 in L.C. Suit no. 450-09
2 Date : 18.11.2019
2. It is contended by the defendants that the plaintiff Dileep
Nevatia claiming various reliefs. They have filed their Written
Statement on 10.06.2009. The issues were framed and the
evidence of PW 1 was concluded. It is contended by the defendant
that while preparing for cross examination, their advocate asked
them to provide record and documents of the company for the
year 1973 to 1991, as the Dileep Nevatia is claiming to be director
of the plaintiff company for the aforesaid period. Therefore, it is
informed by the defendant no. 1 to their adv. that Dileep Nevatia
has stolen all documents from the custody of the then director Mr.
B.K.Nevatia. Therefore, the defendant engaged the services of the
company secretary to obtain the certified copies of record filed
before the Registrar of the Companies between 1970 to 1992. In
February 2013 the defendant received the certified copies of
incorporation certificates of plaintiff company, Annual Return,
Form No. 32, Balancesheet and list of the shareholders.
3. It is contended by the defendant that on the perusal of these
documents it is abundantly clear that neither said Dileep Nevatia
nor any of his family members owned any unit in the building
Udyog Bhavan and he was never the director of the company
between 1973 to 1991. Therefore, the defendant wanted to bring
the aforesaid fact on record by way of a amendment.
4. It is further contended by the defendant that in the year
2014 the sister and son of the said Dileep Nevatia had filed Writ
Petition No. 850 of 2006. In the aforesaid Writ Petition which was
-- 2 of 19 --
CS 1206-19 in L.C. Suit no. 450-09
3 Date : 18.11.2019
filed by Kunal Dileep Nevaita claiming to be the owners of 300
shares of the plaintiff company and entitled to use, occupy of
entire 3rd floor and half of ground floor of Eastern side of Udyog
Bhavan. In the aforesaid Writ Petition on 03.05.2006, the Hon’ble
High Court has directed the said Kunal Dileep Nevatia to file
affidavit to show how he became the owner of the units of Udyog
Bhavan. However, the plaintiff could not file the aforesaid
affidavit and subsequently, on 26.06.2006 the aforesaid Writ
Petition came to be withdrawn. Thus, the aforesaid facts goes to
show that neither Dileep Nevatia nor any of his family members
were the shareholders in the Udyog Bhavan and they were never
the director of the company therefore, the defendant wanted to
bring the aforesaid fact on record by way of amendment that the
aforesaid Writ Petition was withdrawn on count that the Kunal
Nevatia failed to file affidavit showing his ownership of 300 shares
of plaintiff company.
5. It is further contended by the defendant that in the year
2014 during cross examination in suit no. 1790 of 2010, Dileep
Nevatia produced forged and fabricated certificates claiming that
he, his wife and his son are the only shareholders of the plaintiff
company. However, before the cross examination, Dileep Nevatia
never disputed that ‘Metropolis Healthcare Limited’, ‘Gospel
Literature Service’ and ‘M/s. Rajesh Brothers’ are not the
shareholders of the plaintiff company. Therefore, the present
defendant filed suit no. 203 of 2017 before Hon’ble High Court
seeking declaration that the alleged share certificate produced by
-- 3 of 19 --
CS 1206-19 in L.C. Suit no. 450-09
4 Date : 18.11.2019
the said Dileep Nevatia are forged and fabricated. The aforesaid
suit is pending. The defendant wanted to bring the aforesaid fact
on record by way of one of the amendment.
6. It is further contended by the defendant that they have
already filed order dated 29.06.1998 passed by the Hon’ble High
Court in Notice of Motion 152 of 1997 in suit no. 3598 of 1997
wherein the Hon’ble High Court have passed the restrainment
order against the Dileep Nevatia for using the Shashideep, 5/A,
Worli Seaface, as residential address for any other purpose than
the residence. In the year 2014, it is learnt to the defendant that
the said Dileep Nevatia has filed Appeal No. 690 of 1998 before
Hon’ble High Court which was came to be dismissed on
18.07.2007. The aforesaid order is challenged by the Dileep
Nevatia by the Hon’ble Apex Court by way of SLP No. 14765 of
2007 which was also came to be dismissed by order dated
31.08.2018. Therefore, the defendant wanted to bring the
aforesaid fact on record by way of one of the amendment.
7. It is also contended by the defendant that he has obtained
the Certified copy of the Registrar of company on 21.10.2015 and
03.08.2018 which shows that said Dileep Nevatia nor his wife, his
children are the directors of the plaintiff company. The Change in
the constitution of directorship of plaintiff is not challenged and
the present suit has become infructuous. Therefore, the defendant
wanted to bring the aforesaid fact on record by way of one of the
amendment.
-- 4 of 19 --
CS 1206-19 in L.C. Suit no. 450-09
5 Date : 18.11.2019
8. It is further contended by the defendant that M/s. V.K.Desai
Hospital, a Partnership Firm was the owner of one Unit of the
Ground Floor and entire firm of the building “Udyog Bhavan”. The
defendant no. 1 and 2 were put in possession of the said premises
as the partner of M/s. Dr. V.K.Desai Hospital. Names were duly
recorded in the 300 shares certificate of the plaintiff company
having distinctive no. 18 to 20, 256 to 353, 354 to 402, 851 to 950
and 951 to 1000. Thereafter on 01.12.2002, the name of said
partnership firm was changed to ‘Metropolis Health Services’. On
04.07.2003 the said partnership firm was converted into Private
Limited Company viz. ‘Metropolis Health Services India Pvt. Ltd.’
On 01.03.2006, the status of ‘Metropolis Heath Services India Pvt.
Ltd.’ was again changed to ‘Metropolis Health Services India Ltd.’
On 30.01.2009, ‘Metropolis Heath Service India Ltd.” got
amalgamated into its wholly owned subsidiary viz. ‘Pathnet India
Pvt. Ltd.’ through a scheme of amalgamation which was duly
sanctioned by Hon’ble High Court. On 01.07.2009, the status of
‘Pathnet India Pvt. Ltd.’ was changed to ‘Pathnet India Ltd.’ On
23.09.2009, the name of ‘Pathnet India Ltd’. was changed to
‘Metropolis Health Care Services Ltd.’ On 25.10.2010, the plaintiff
has transferred 300 shares held by them in the name of ‘Metropolis
Health Care Services Ltd.’ with prior permission of Board of
Directors of the plaintiff company. Therefore, the defendant
wanted to bring the aforesaid fact on record by way of one of the
amendment.
-- 5 of 19 --
CS 1206-19 in L.C. Suit no. 450-09
6 Date : 18.11.2019
9. It is contended by the defendant that in para no. 9(II) of
their Written Statement, they have stated that defendant no. 1 and
2 were appointed as director of plaintiff company on 24.08.2002.
But, the manner in which these defendants were appointed is not
been stated. Therefore, they wanted to provide explanation in the
present Written Statement by way of one of the amendment in the
Written Statement.
10 It is further contended by the defendants that by way of
Chamber Summons, the facts and documents which are sought to
be brought on record were not within the knowledge of the
defendants at the time of filing of the written Statement in the
present suit and they came to their knowledge in the year 2013
and 2014.
11. It is further contended by the plaintiff that filing of suit no.
2032 of 2017 by defendant no. 1 to 4 herein before Hon’ble High
Court is pending for adjudication and there is no necessity for once
again reagitating the aforesaid issue in the present suit. Therefore,
the aforesaid amendment can not be allowed.
12. It is further contended that the issue in respect of transfer of
300 shares alleged to be transferred by the plaintiff company in
the name of ‘Metropolis Health Care Service Ltd’. with prior
permission of Board of Directors of plaintiff company is already
decided in the suit no. 2125 of 2005 against the defendants vide,
order dated 13.02.2009. The defendants filed first appeal no. 521
-- 6 of 19 --
CS 1206-19 in L.C. Suit no. 450-09
7 Date : 18.11.2019
of 2010 before the Hon’ble High Court and no interim relief is
granted in favour of the present defendants.
13. It is further contended that the Execution Application No.
369 of 2011 is pending in respect of aforesaid judgment and order
dated 13.02.2009 passed in suit no. 2125 of 2005. Therefore, it is
contended by the plaintiff that proposed amendment sought by the
defendants are already in issue, some already are decided and
others are pending in the proceedings intersay between the
parties. Therefore, two or more parallel proceedings can not be
allowed to continue at the same time. On these grounds, also the
plaintiff prayed for dismissal of the Chamber Summons.
14. The plaintiff in support of his submission relied on the
judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court passed in Writ Petition
No. 11494 of 2018 in case of Vinod Gargi V/s. Neeta Vinod
Gargi wherein Hon’ble Single Bench of Bombay High Court
reiterated the principal of Order 6 Rule 17 and dismissed the
appeal on the ground that there is absolutely no explaination as to
why leave was not applied for prior to the commencement of trial
and there was no explaination as to why leave is applied for
almost one year after the conclusion of the evidence. Thus,
Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the aforesaid case, held that there
is no compliance of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil
Procedure.
-- 7 of 19 --
CS 1206-19 in L.C. Suit no. 450-09
8 Date : 18.11.2019
15. The plaintiff in order to buttress his argument relied on case
law judgment of Apex Court reported in AIR 2009 SC Page 1433
in case of Vidyabhai & Ors. V/s. Padmalata & Ors in which the
Hon’ble Apex Court laid down when the trial commences. In the
aforesaid judgment again the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated the
principal of Order 6 Rule 17, contending that no application for
the amendment shall be allowed after commencement of the trial
unless inspite of the due diligence the matter could not be raised
before the commencement of the trial.
16. The plaintiff further relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex
Court reported in (2006) 6 SCC 498 in case of Baladev Singh &
Ors. V/s. Manohar Singh & Ors., in which the Hon’ble Apex court
made a distinction between the plaint and amendment of Written
Statement. The Hon’ble Apex court held that in case of
amendment in the Written Statement the defendant can raise
inconsistent plea but that may not permitted in the amendment in
the plaint.
17. It is further contended by the defendants that present
amendment are crucial and necessary for determining the dispute
between the parties. It is further contended that the evidence of
plaintiff and the defendants are not concluded and if amendment
is allowed, no prejudice would be caused to Dileep Nevatia who
would be entitled to crossexamine the defendant. In the event, if
the defendants are not allowed to amend their Written Statement,
great harm and prejudice would cause to the defendants, on the
-- 8 of 19 --
CS 1206-19 in L.C. Suit no. 450-09
9 Date : 18.11.2019
other hand, no prejudice would be caused to the said Dileep
Nevatia. Hence, the defendants prayed for allowing present
Chamber Summons.
18. Per contra Dileep Nevatia, who claimed to be authorised
Director of the plaintiff company, opposed the Chamber Summons
by filing his reply. It is contended by the Dileep Nevatia that on
22.07.2009, the defendant no. 1 and 2 filed their common Written
Statement below Exh.7 and defendant no. 3 and 4 filed their
Written Statement below Exh. 8 and 9 respectively. Defendant no.
5 filed his Written Statement below Exh.10 on 11.08.2009. On
11.02.2011, this Court framed the issues and on 05.12.2011
additional issues were framed. On 13.03.2012, PW 1 has filed his
Examination in Chief below Exh. 29 alongwith documents which
were marked as Exh. 15 to 82, 82A and 82B. On 20.12.2012, the
advocate of defendants started cross examination of PW 1 and till
20.11.2014, PW 1 was under Crossexamination.
19. It is further contended that on 07.08.2018 by consent of both
the side, joint application below Exh. 90 was filed and it was
decided to conduct trial of the present suit on day to day basis.
Thus, It is contended that on 11.02.2011 when the Court framed
the issues, the trial has been commenced and defendant after a
period of 8 years is seeking to amend their Written Statement
without even giving any reason for extraordinary delay of 8 years
caused in filing aforesaid application. Therefore, it is contended
that as per Order 6 Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, the party
-- 9 of 19 --
CS 1206-19 in L.C. Suit no. 450-09
10 Date : 18.11.2019
can not claimed amendment in their pleading after
commencement of the trial, unless Court comes to the conclusion
that inspite of the due diligence, the parties could not have raised
the matter before commencement of the trial. The Courts
jurisdiction to allow such amendment is taken away unless
condition precedent there to is satisfied that it comes to conclusion
that inspite of due diligence the parties could not have raised the
matter before the commencement of the trial.
20. It is further contended that the Hon’ble Apex Court in its
several verdict held that it is primary duty of Court to decide as to
whether such amendment is necessary to decide the real dispute
between the parties. Only if such condition is fullfill the
amendment is to be allowed. Thus, it is contended that Courts
power under Order 6 Rule 17 is restricted. It puts an embargo on
excise of its jurisdiction. Thus, unless the jurisdictional fact as
envisaged under Order 6 Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure is
found to be existing, the court will have no jurisdiction at all to
allow the amendment in the plaint.
21. It is further contended by the said Dileep Nevatia that, as per
Order 6 Rule 17, the party claiming amendments as to plead and
established with in respect of due diligence that party could not
have raised the matter before commencement of trial. However,
the defendant in their affidavit in support of the Chamber
Summons did not give any explaination as to why such leave was
not applied for prior to the commencement of the trial. In fact,
-- 10 of 19 --
CS 1206-19 in L.C. Suit no. 450-09
11 Date : 18.11.2019
there is no explaination at all given as to why leave is applied for
after 8 years from the commencement of trial.
22. Heard both the sides. Perused Chamber Summons, reply as
well as pleadings of the parties. The plaintiff filed instant suit
praying for grant of permanent order of injunction restraining the
defendants by themselves and / or through their servants or agents
from in any manner acting upon, relying upon the documents filed
by the defendants with the Registrar of the Company in the month
of January 2016 and other documents which they have filed before
Registrar of the Company, allegedly on behalf of the plaintiff
company.
23. It is contended by the plaintiff that in the year 1965 his
father B.K.Nevatia has incorporated Pvt. Ltd. Company under the
name and style ‘Industrial Bhavan (Worli Pvt. Ltd.)’ which was
subsequently converted into Public Limited Company. At the
relevant time his father namely B.K.Nevatia was the Chairman of
the plaintiff company. His father has obtained the lease of plot no.
250D, Scheme No. 52, Worli Estate vide, Lease Deed dated
09.11.1970.
24. It is contended by the plaintiff that B.K. Nevatia and his
family members were having complete control over the plaintiff
company. The said Dileep Nevatia became the director of the
plaintiff company from earlies 1970, when it forms Pvt. Ltd.
Company and also when it converted into Public Ltd. Company.
-- 11 of 19 --
CS 1206-19 in L.C. Suit no. 450-09
12 Date : 18.11.2019
He was the Director in the company from 16.07.1973 to
13.08.1981. He was once again appointed as the director of the
company on 03.10.2002. The defendant no. 1 and 2 were
appointed as director from 24.08.2000. However, due to the mis
conduct on the part of defendant no. 1 and 2, they were removed
from the directorship by special Board of Meeting held on
17.06.2003 and since then defendant no. 1 and 2 were not
directors of the company. However, inspite of the aforesaid facts,
the defendant opened Bank Account at UTI Bank under erstwhile
name of plaintiff company i.e. ‘Industrial Pvt. Ltd.’ and claiming
themselves to be directors of said defunct company. The
defendant submitted forged and fabricated documents to the UTI
bank Ltd. Such Account opening form signed by the defendant no.
1 to 4. as directors of erstwhile company, purported extract of
Minutes of Meeting dated 14.12.2004, purported extract of
Resolution dated 15.03.2001 and purported Certificate dated
10.01.2005 of Chartered Accountant certifying that defendant no.
1 to 4 are directors of the plaintiff company.
25. It is further contended that UTI Bank Ltd. by relying upon
the aforesaid forged documents open a Bank Account in the name
of erstwhile company. The defendant further obtained the huge
loan by mortgaging the plaintiff company’s property.
26. The defendants resisted the claim of the plaintiff by filing
their Written Statement. It is contended by the defendants that
they are the directors of the plaintiff company and the alleged act
-- 12 of 19 --
CS 1206-19 in L.C. Suit no. 450-09
13 Date : 18.11.2019
has been committed in their capacity as a director of plaintiff
company. Therefore, they prayed for the dismissal of the suit.
27. On the basis of the rival submission of the parties, my
Predecessor on 11.02.2011 framed following issues :
1. Does plaintiff prove that suit is properly filed and verifed by
authorized person ?
2. Whether Civil Court has jurisdiction to grant the relif in view
of the provisions of Company Law ?
3. Does plaintiff prove that the then Directors of company
Dileep Nevatia was authorised to call the meeting and
resolution dated 17.06.2003 is legal and valid ?
4. Does plaintiff prove that defendants have prepared and
forged false documents Exh.S. to Z to the plaint ?
5. Do defendants prove that to discharge statutory liability they
have opened bank accounts, as alleged?
6. Does plaintiff prove that defendants have fraudulently
mortgaged property of plaintiff’s company without
authority?
7. Do defendants prove legality and validity of resolution dated
03.01.2004 for removal of Karan Nevatia?
8. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs claimed ?
9. What order and costs ?
28. It is well settled law that as per order 6 Rule 17 of Code of
Civil Procedure, no application for the amendment shall be
-- 13 of 19 --
CS 1206-19 in L.C. Suit no. 450-09
14 Date : 18.11.2019
allowed after the commencement of trial unless the court comes to
the conclusion that inspite of due diligence, the party could not
have raised the matter before commencement of the trial. The
amendment can be allowed if that goes to the root of the matter
and were necessary to decide the dispute between the parties.
Thus, in the present case, after going through the pleadings of the
parties and issue framed by my Predecessor, it appears that there
is a dispute in respect of directorship of the plaintiff company.
Both the parties are claiming themselves to be directors of the
plaintiff company.
29. The defendant no. 1 and 2 seeking amendment and to bring
certain documents on record, firstly, in respect of filing of certain
documents which they claimed that in February 2013, it was
received by them after appointing Company Secretary. It is
contended by the defendants that those documents shows that
during period from 16.07.1973 to 13.08.1991 neither Dileep
Nevatia nor his family members were the directors of the
company. Therefore, defendants seeking to place those documents
on record.
30. In my view, those documents are necessary to decide the
claim of plaintiff that he was director of the plaintiff company
between 1973 to 1991. Hence, the amendment in respect of
placing on record, the documents which has been stated by the
defendants in the para no. 4 of the Affidavit can be permitted to be
filed on record.
-- 14 of 19 --
CS 1206-19 in L.C. Suit no. 450-09
15 Date : 18.11.2019
31. The defendants in its para no. 5 of the Affidavit is seeking to
place on record, the order passed by Hon’ble High Court in Writ
Petition No. 850 of 2006 whereby the Kunal Dileep Nevatia was
directed to file the Affidavit in respect of ownership of 300 shares
of the plaintiff company. However, the aforesaid suit came to be
withdrawn by the said Kunal Dileep Nevatia. In my view, this
issue goes to root of the matter. The aforesaid fact is also
necessary to brought on record for deciding the dispute between
parties. Therefore, in my view, the defendant seeking amendment
in para no. 5 in respect of pleading of the Writ Petition No. 850 of
2006 needs to be allowed.
32. The defendants further seeking to bring filing of suit no. 203
of 2017 filed by them alleging that Dileep Nevatia has committed
forgery and fabrication of the documents. In my view, the
aforesaid suit was filed by the defendants themselves. The
aforesaid fact could have been brought on record by them in
earlier point of time. The aforesaid suit is pending for the
adjudication before the Hon’ble High Court. There is no
connection between the relief prayed in the aforesaid suit and the
present dispute between the parties. Hence, it can not be allowed.
Therefore, in my view, the proposed amendment sought by the
defendants in para no. 6 in respect of suit no. 203 of 2017 needs to
be rejected.
-- 15 of 19 --
CS 1206-19 in L.C. Suit no. 450-09
16 Date : 18.11.2019
33. The defendant in its para no. 7 seeking to file documents in
respect of injunction order passed by Hon’ble High Court in Notice
of Motion No. 152 of 1997 in suit no. 3598 of 1997 by which the
Dileep Nevatia was restrained from using “Shashideep, 5A, Worli
Seaface, Mumbai” address for any other purpose than as a
residential address against which he has preferred the Appeal
before Hon’ble High Court as well as Supreme Court. In my view,
the aforesaid fact are not at all related with the fact in issue
between the parties in the present suit. Hence, the proposed
amendment can not be allowed. Hence, it is rejected.
34. In para no. 8, the defendants seeking to file certified copy
received from ROC on 21.10.2015 and 03.08.2018 showing that
neither Dileep Nevatia, his wife and children are the director of the
company. The aforesaid documents can be allowed to file on
record as same goes to the root of the matter and necessary to
adjudicate upon the dispute between the parties. Hence, I allow
the amendment in respect of para no. 8 of the Affidavit.
35. As far as regarding, proposed amendment mentioned in para
no. 9. It is contended by the defendants that they have stated in
para no. 9 (II) in the Written Statement that they became director
of the plaintiff company on 24.08.2002 but they failed to explain
the manner in which they are appointed as a directors and they are
holding 300 shares in the plaintiff company. Therefore, they
wanted to incorporate the pleadings in respect of the same.
-- 16 of 19 --
CS 1206-19 in L.C. Suit no. 450-09
17 Date : 18.11.2019
36. The plaintiff opposed the said amendment on the ground
that the issue in respect of the aforesaid para is already decided in
suit no. 2125 of 2005 and therefore, there is no need of such
amendment. The plaintiff also annexed the copy of order dated
13.02.2009 passed by the C.R. No. 1 in the suit no. 2125 of 2005.
The aforesaid suit is filed by the present plaintiff against the
present defendants, for injunction restraining them from creating
third party interest in the suit property. The issue in the aforesaid
suit was that, it is alleged by the plaintiff that defendants have
violated the terms and conditions of the Agreement and
constructed the structure which was ordered to be demolished.
Therefore, their 300 shares needs to be forfeited.
37. In the aforesaid suit the issue in respect of forfeiture was
answered in negative. On perusal of the entire judgment, I could
not find substance with objection of the plaintiff that issue in
respect of proposed amendment is contended in para no. 9 are
already decided in the suit no. 2125 of 2005. In my view, the said
issue is totally different from dispute between the parties.
38. It is not in dispute that the defendants in para no. 9(II) is
claimed to be the directors of plaintiff company since 24.08.2002.
By way of proposed amendment as mentioned in para no. 9,
defendant wanted to explain the manner in which they become the
directors. Hence, in my view, the aforesaid amendment can be
allowed as it does not change the nature of the suit nor they bring
any new fact on the record. The aforesaid fact is necessary to
-- 17 of 19 --
CS 1206-19 in L.C. Suit no. 450-09
18 Date : 18.11.2019
decide the dispute between the parties. Hence, the aforesaid
amendment in respect of para no. 9 can be allowed. Thus, in view
of the aforesaid discussion, in my view, the defendant can be
allowed to file the documents on record and to carry out necessary
amendment contended in para no. 4, 5, 8 and 9 and proposed
amendment contending in para no. 6 and 7 are hereby specifically
rejected. Thus, I proceed to pass the following order :
ORDER
1. The Chamber Summons No. 1206 of 2019 is hereby partly
allowed.
2. Defendants are permitted to carry out necessary amendment
set out in para no. 4, 5, 8 and 9.
3. The defendants to bear cost of present Chamber Summons.
4. The Chamber Summons No. 1206 of 2019 is disposed off
accordingly.
(A.H.Laddhad)
Additional Judge
Bombay City Civil Court
Dated : 18.11.2019 Greater Bombay.
Dictated on : 18.11.2019
Typed on : 18.11.2019
Draft Submitted on : 25.11.2019
Checked on : 27.11.2019
Signed on : 27.11.2019
-- 18 of 19 --
CS 1206-19 in L.C. Suit no. 450-09
19 Date : 18.11.2019
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
27/11/2019 at 4.45 p.m. (Ms. V.V.Sawant)
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court room
no.)
Shri A.H.LADDHAD
(C.R. No.7)
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT/ ORDER
18/11/2019
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P.O.
on
27/11/2019
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on 27/11/2019
-- 19 of 19 --