Gujarat High Court
Gujarat State Civil Supplies ... vs M/S Mahakali Foods Pvt.Ltd. ( Unit 2) on 10 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11824/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025
undefined
Reserved On : 18/08/2025
Pronounced On : 10/12/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11824 of 2023
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE Sd/-
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
================================================================
GUJARAT STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD.
Versus
M/S MAHAKALI FOODS PVT.LTD. ( UNIT 2) & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR PK JANI, SR. COUNSEL WITH MR SHIVANG P JANI(8285) for the
Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR SAURABH G AMIN(2168) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MS DIMPLE A THAKER(6838) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR JK SHAH AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 3,4
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE
CAV JUDGMENT
1. The present Special Civil Application is filed praying for the following reliefs:-
"62A. YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or writ in the nature of certiorari quashing and setting aside the letter/communication dated 13.04.2023 issued by Industries Commissioner, MSME, Council, Bhopal Madhya Pradesh. (Annexure-Z).
B. That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash and set aside the proceedings initiated by Collector by way of issuing notice dated Page 1 of 38 Uploaded by KAUSHIK D. CHAUHAN(HC00197) on Wed Dec 10 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:31:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11824/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined 29.05.2023 (Annexure-2Z).
C. That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash and set aside the notice dated 29.05.2023 (Annexure-Z2) which is issued by Mamlatdar, Gandhinagar in exercise of power under Section 154 and 155 of the Gujarat Land revenue Code, 1879 and may be pleased to issue writ of certiorari, and be further pleased to quashed and set aside the proceedings in the form of notice dated 28.06.2023 (Annexure-Z5) issued under Section 200 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879.
D. Pending hearing and final disposal of this writ petition, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the operation, implementation and execution of the letter/communication issued by the respondent no.
2 dated 13.04.2023 (Annexure-Z) and the proceedings initiated by respondent no. 3, the Collector, Gandhinagar by way of notice dated 29.05.2023. (Annexure-Z2).
E. Pending hearing and final disposal of the present petition, the Hon'ble Court may be further pleased to stay the notice issued by Mamlatdar, Gandhinagar dated 29 th May, 2023 (Annexure-Z2) issued under Section 200 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879. F. Pending hearing and final disposal of this writ petition Special Civil Application, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the operation and implementation of the notice issued by the Mamlatdar, Gandhinagar. under Section 200 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879 dated 28.06.2023 (Annexure-Z5)."
2. The factual matrix giving rise to the present writ petition is that on 08.11.2010 the petitioner floated a public tender for the purchase of Toasted Defatted Soya Flour.
2.1 That on 04.12.2010 the petitioner issued Purchase Order Page 2 of 38 Uploaded by KAUSHIK D. CHAUHAN(HC00197) on Wed Dec 10 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:31:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11824/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined No. GSCSC/CGP/PDS/TDFS/1011/04/1193 for supply of 2,335.50 MT of Toasted Defatted Soya Flour and the petitioner and respondent No.1 thereafter executed an agreement on 18.12.2010 for supply of 1,524 MT for Gandhinagar District and 811.50 MT for Sabarkantha District.
2.2 That on or about 18.04.2011 four trucks laden with soya bags were intercepted by the Dewas Police (Madhya Pradesh) and a newspaper report of such seizure was published on 18.04.2011. About 1,445 bags of the seized consignment were prima facie found to belong to the petitioner. That on 13.05.2011 the petitioner lodged FIR No. 1/2011 at the CID Crime Police Station, Vadodara, alleging theft and related offences under Sections 379 and 114 IPC in respect of the consignment seized at Dewas.
2.3 That on 29.06.2011 the petitioner communicated to respondent No.1 (M/s Mahakali Foods Pvt. Ltd.) its decision to withhold all pending payments in view of the seizure and the prima facie involvement of respondent No.1 in respect of the said shipment.
Page 3 of 38 Uploaded by KAUSHIK D. CHAUHAN(HC00197) on Wed Dec 10 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:31:26 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11824/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined 2.4 That on 21.06.2012 respondent No.1 initiated proceedings before the Madhya Pradesh Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (MSME Council), Bhopal, being case No. MSMEFC/442/2012, for recovery of the outstanding amounts. 2.5 That on 25.07.2012 the Respondent's Special Civil Application (No. 8330/2012) seeking release of the withheld amounts was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat by an oral order observing that the dispute was contractual in nature and shall be more appropriately decided by appropriate forum.
2.6 That on 11.09.2014, the MSME Council (Bhopal) passed an award directing the petitioner to pay to respondent No.1 the withheld amounts (Rs. 1,99,25,940/-) and performance security (Rs. 23,36,000/-) together with interest therein, subject to the respondent's right of appeal on depositing 75% of the awarded amount.
2.7 That on 10.12.2014 the petitioner deposited 75% of the amount as directed by the MSME Council (Rs. 4,34,67,597/- inclusive of interest) in the District Court, Gandhinagar, in Page 4 of 38 Uploaded by KAUSHIK D. CHAUHAN(HC00197) on Wed Dec 10 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:31:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11824/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined compliance with the condition prescribed by the MSME Council. 2.8 That on 01.01.2015 a Revenue Recovery Certificate was purportedly issued in relation to the outstanding amount as awarded by the MSME Council.
2.9 That on 21.10.2015 the District Court, Gandhinagar made orders permitting withdrawal by respondent No.1 of a portion of the amount deposited and observed that the question of the withdrawal of the remaining amount would be decided at the time of hearing of the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
2.10 That on 20.08.2018 the Commercial Court, Ahmedabad (designated under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015) dismissed the petitioner's application under Section 34, and the petitioner thereafter filed First Appeal No. 3613/2019 before the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat.
2.11 That on 13.11.2019 the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat dismissed the petitioner's First Appeal, and thereafter the petitioner preferred Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Page 5 of 38 Uploaded by KAUSHIK D. CHAUHAN(HC00197) on Wed Dec 10 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:31:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11824/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
2.12 That on 27.10.2020 the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed an order in SLP (Civil) No. 12884/2020 directing that the balance 25% of the awarded amount be deposited with the Registrar of the High Court of Gujarat within four weeks and further granted liberty to respondent No.1 to withdraw the amount subject to furnishing a bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Registrar of the High Court.
2.13 That on 27.11.2020 the petitioner deposited the balance 25% amount (Rs. 1,44,80,109/-) as per the award before the Registrar of the High Court of Gujarat in compliance with judicial directions.
2.14 That on 31.10.2022, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the petitioner's Special Leave Petition on merits. 2.15 That on 10.02.2023 the petitioner communicated to the Collector, Gandhinagar and the Mamlatdar, Gandhinagar that it had complied with all judicial orders and requested closure of the revenue recovery proceedings. A copy of the said Page 6 of 38 Uploaded by KAUSHIK D. CHAUHAN(HC00197) on Wed Dec 10 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:31:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11824/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined communication is placed on record (Annexure-Y). 2.16 That the respondent No.1 addressed a communication dated 13.03.2023 to the Madhya Pradesh Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Bhopal, seeking payment of interest duly certified by its Chartered Accountant. 2.17 That the Industries Commissioner of the Madhya Pradesh on behalf of Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, relying on a certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant sent a letter dated 13.04.2023 to the Collector, Gandhinagar stating that respondent No. 1 was entitled to recover Rs. 34,89,19,321/- from the petitioner and the same may be recovered from the petitioner.
2.18 That based on this communication, the Collector, Gandhinagar intimated to the Mamlatdar, Gandhinagar to recover the said amount as land revenue from the petitioner. 2.19 That acting on the Collector's letter dated 29.05.2023, the Mamlatdar and Executive Magistrate, Gandhinagar issued a notice dated 28.06.2023 under Section 200 of the Gujarat Land Page 7 of 38 Uploaded by KAUSHIK D. CHAUHAN(HC00197) on Wed Dec 10 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:31:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11824/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined Revenue Code, 1879, directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 34,89,19,321/-, failing which attachment proceedings would take place on 13.07.2023.
2.20 That before the issuance of the notice, the petitioner had appeared before the Collector on 01.06.2023 in reference to the earlier notice dated 29.05.2023, and also submitted a detailed written representation on 16.06.2023, requesting that the proceedings be closed. These representations were also forwarded to the Mamlatdar and Executive Magistrate for consideration.
2.21 That the petitioner also made a detailed representation to the Industries Commissioner, MSME Council, Madhya Pradesh on 12.06.2023 vide letter no. GSCSC/CS/111/Mahakali Foods/MSME Order Compliance/23 /1377, explaining the entire case and clearly stating that no amount was due from the petitioner. This representation too was forwarded to the Mamlatdar and Executive Magistrate, Gandhinagar.
Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed present Special Civil Application.
Page 8 of 38 Uploaded by KAUSHIK D. CHAUHAN(HC00197) on Wed Dec 10 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:31:26 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11824/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined
3. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. P. K. Jani, appearing with learned advocate Mr. Shivang P. Jani for the petitioner, submits that the impugned letter dated 13.04.2023 issued by the Industries Commissioner on behalf of the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Madhya Pradesh, is wholly illegal, unconstitutional and de hors the provisions of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 ("MSMED Act"). It is submitted that the MSMED Act does not confer any authority upon the said respondent to issue such a communication and, therefore, the impugned action deserves to be quashed and set aside.
3.1 Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Industries Commissioner, MSME Council, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, has absolutely no power, authority or jurisdiction to direct the Collector, Gandhinagar to recover an alleged amount of Rs. 34,89,19,321/-. It is submitted that the MSMED Act does not empower the Commissioner to issue recovery instructions to any authority of another State or to act as a recovery officer, and therefore, the impugned communication is without jurisdiction and void ab initio.
3.2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Page 9 of 38 Uploaded by KAUSHIK D. CHAUHAN(HC00197) on Wed Dec 10 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:31:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11824/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined impugned letter dated 13.04.2023 has been issued without granting any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without following the basic principles of natural justice. No show-cause notice or prior intimation was issued before directing recovery of such a substantial amount, rendering the action arbitrary, unjust and liable to be set aside on this ground alone. 3.3 Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the Industries Commissioner has relied upon a letter dated 24.03.2023, issued by the Chartered Accountant in favour of respondent No.1 Mahakali Foods Pvt. Ltd., stating that it is entitled to recover Rs. 34,89,19,321/-. It is submitted that such a Chartered Accountant's certificate cannot constitute valid evidence and be treated as proof of any legally recoverable dues. 3.4 Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that no adjudication of the alleged claim has taken place under Section 18 of the MSMED Act. It is submitted that no recovery proceedings can be initiated. The impugned communication directing recovery is, therefore, without authority of law and liable to be quashed.
3.5 Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Page 10 of 38 Uploaded by KAUSHIK D. CHAUHAN(HC00197) on Wed Dec 10 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:31:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11824/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined Mamlatdar has wrongly invoked the provisions of the Gujarat Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1979, which have no application to the facts of the present case. It is submitted that respondent No.1 Mahakali Foods Pvt. Ltd. (Unit-II) does not fall under any category of authorities notified under the said Act and therefore no recovery could be initiated under the said provisions.
3.6 Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Mamlatdar has relied on the letter dated 13.04.2023, issued by the Industries Commissioner, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. However, such a letter was never addressed to the Mamlatdar. The impugned notices dated 29.05.2023 and 28.06.2023 do not even refer to this communication. Hence, the foundation of the recovery proceedings is erroneous and unsustainable. 3.7 Learned Senior Counsel submits that the Collector, Gandhinagar heard the petitioner on 01.06.2023 and the petitioner filed a detailed representation on 16.06.2023. It is submitted that before the Collector could take any decision, the Mamlatdar hastily issued the impugned notice dated 28.06.2023 without waiting for orders of the superior authority, thereby demonstrating undue haste and lack of jurisdiction. Page 11 of 38 Uploaded by KAUSHIK D. CHAUHAN(HC00197) on Wed Dec 10 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:31:26 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11824/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined 3.8 Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Mamlatdar acted illegally when the subject matter was sub judice before the Collector, his superior officer. Such conduct shows that the Mamlatdar had pre-decided the issue and proceeded in an arbitrary manner without authority of law. 3.9 Learned Senior Counsel submits that no Recovery Certificate has been issued by the MSME Council, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, nor has any such recovery certificate been received by the Mamlatdar from any competent State authority. In the absence of a Recovery Certificate, it is submitted that no recovery proceedings under the Gujarat Land Revenue Code can be initiated.
3.10 Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the respondent authorities themselves admit in their affidavit that no computation, determination or certification of the alleged dues has been made by any competent authority. In such circumstances, the Mamlatdar has no power to determine liability or recover any amount.
3.11 Learned Senior Counsel submits that under the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879, recovery is permissible only when the Page 12 of 38 Uploaded by KAUSHIK D. CHAUHAN(HC00197) on Wed Dec 10 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:31:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11824/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined arrears are duly determined, adjudicated and certified. Without adjudication by an authority and without fixation of liability, no notice under Sections 152 or 200 of the Code can be issued. 3.12 Learned Senior Counsel submits that recovery cannot be based on a figure calculated by the Chartered Accountant of respondent No.1. It is submitted that a private party or its accountant has no legal competence to determine liability for recovery under the Gujarat Land Revenue Code. 3.13 Learned Senior Counsel submits that the letter dated 13.04.2023 of the Industries Commissioner, Madhya Pradesh, does not constitute a Recovery Certificate under the MSMED Act, 2006, or under the Gujarat Land Revenue Code. Therefore, it cannot form the basis of coercive recovery action by the Mamlatdar.
3.14 Learned Senior Counsel further submits that, according to the petitioner, the entire amount has already been paid, and respondent No.1 is not entitled to claim compound interest under Section 16 of the MSMED Act, as it does not qualify as a small enterprise. This issue has also been raised before the MSME Council and the Industries Commissioner by the Page 13 of 38 Uploaded by KAUSHIK D. CHAUHAN(HC00197) on Wed Dec 10 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:31:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11824/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined petitioner.
3.15 Learned Senior Counsel submits that since the powers of the Collector under the MSMED Act stand delegated to the Mamlatdar, the Mamlatdar is required to exercise such powers strictly in accordance with law. In the present case, such legal requirements have been blatantly disregarded.
4. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court in Project Director, through Umashankar Singh v. National Printers
- 2023 SCC OnLine Jhar 1351, wherein it was categorically held that a petition seeking only interest--after the principal amount stands paid--is maintainable before the Facilitation Council under Section 18 of the MSMED Act, 2006. This judgment was relied upon to submit that, assuming without admitting that any interest claim survives, the only lawful remedy available to respondent No. 1 was to approach the Facilitation Council, and not to seek direct recovery through the Industries Commissioner. Thus, the action of the Industries Commissioner, which is based solely upon a Chartered Accountant's certificate, is contrary to the statutory mechanism prescribed under the MSMED Act. Page 14 of 38 Uploaded by KAUSHIK D. CHAUHAN(HC00197) on Wed Dec 10 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:31:26 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11824/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined 4.1 The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner next relied upon the judgment in Modern Industries v. Steel Authority of India Ltd., - (2010) 5 SCC 44, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while affirming the Full Bench judgment of the Guwahati High Court, held that claims relating to interest on delayed payments under the Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993 (which is pari materia with the provisions of the MSMED Act, 2006) are independently maintainable even after the principal amount has been discharged. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that any interest claim must undergo adjudication under the MSMED statutory procedure, and cannot be enforced through arbitrary recovery proceedings initiated on the basis of Chartered Accountant's certificate.
4.2 The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further relied on the judgment in Government of Maharashtra v. Shrivin Pharma Pvt. Ltd., - AP 90 of 2023 (IA NO: GA 2 of 2023), wherein it was held that the Facilitation Council cannot delegate its core adjudicatory function to a Chartered Accountant, particularly for determining interest under an award. The Court held that delegating the computation of interest to a Chartered Accountant Page 15 of 38 Uploaded by KAUSHIK D. CHAUHAN(HC00197) on Wed Dec 10 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:31:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11824/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined is impermissible under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as interest constitutes an integral part of the award. It was relied upon to contend that the Industries Commissioner could not have solely relied upon a Chartered Accountant's certificate for determining alleged dues, and any such delegation is legally unsustainable.
4.3 The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment of Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India - 2006 (8) SCC 457, wherein it was held that interest ceases to run once the decretal amount is deposited in Court. This judgment was cited to support the petitioner's submission that having deposited the awarded amount, the liability to pay further interest ought to cease.
4.4 The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment in Union of India v. MP Trading Investment Corporation Ltd. - 2016 (16) SCC 699, wherein it was held that after deposit of the decretal amount in Court, interest runs only on the amount not deposited.
4.5 The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment of Himachal Pradesh Housing and Urban Page 16 of 38 Uploaded by KAUSHIK D. CHAUHAN(HC00197) on Wed Dec 10 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:31:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11824/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined Development Authority v. Ranjit Singh Rana - 2012 AIR (SC) 1337, which deals with the principle that deposit of decretal amount in Court equates to payment.
4.6 The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment in Rama Civil India Constructions Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India - 2024 SCC Online Del 4899, which reiterates the legal principle that liability to pay interest ceases once the decretal amount stands deposited in Court. 4.7 The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment in Jay Banas Metals Pvt. Ltd. v. Taluka Land Revenue Officer - 2017 (2) GLH 213, wherein it was held that the powers of the Mamlatdar under Section 200 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code are limited to procedural functions and do not extend to seizure or confiscation. This supports the submission that the recovery notices issued by the Mamlatdar are without authority and illegal.
4.8 The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment in Seva Mandal v. State of Gujarat - 2022 (2) GLR 1311, wherein it was held that liability must be adjudicated before initiating recovery proceedings under the Gujarat Land Page 17 of 38 Uploaded by KAUSHIK D. CHAUHAN(HC00197) on Wed Dec 10 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:31:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11824/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined Revenue Code. This was submitted that the recovery notices in question are invalid in the absence of prior adjudication. 4.9 The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner relied uponthe judgment in Gupta Power Infrastructure Ltd. v. Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (W.P.C. No. 14518 of 2014, Orissa High Court), wherein it was held that the MSMED Council becomes functus officio after issuing the award, and any further claims would require separate statutory adjudication. 4.10 The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further relied upon the judgment in Anupam Industries Ltd. v. State Level Industry Facilitation Council - 2022 (0) GUJHC 65181, wherein it was held that for entitlement under the MSMED Act, the claimant must be a registered small or medium enterprise at the relevant time.
4.11 The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment in Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India - 2004 (0) AIR SC 2321 and Navinchandra N. Majithia v. State of Maharashtra - 2000 (7) SCC 640 to submit that territorial jurisdiction of the Gujarat High Court is attracted in the present case, as the venue of contract as well as prior proceedings are Page 18 of 38 Uploaded by KAUSHIK D. CHAUHAN(HC00197) on Wed Dec 10 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:31:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11824/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined situated within the State of Gujarat.
4.12 The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner thereafter relied upon the judgmetn in Asgar & Ors. v. Mohan Varma & Ors.
- 2020 (16) SCC 230 to submit that issues already decided or under challenge in appeal cannot be reopened in collateral proceedings such as revenue recovery.
4.13 The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that respondent No.1's attempt to claim additional or further interest after full payment and finality of the award is barred by the principles of res judicata, estoppel, and waiver. Reliance was placed on Asgar & Ors. v. Mohan Varma & Ors. - 2020 (16) SCC 230, where it is held that reopening settled award-related issues in collateral proceedings is impermissible. 4.14 In view of the aforesaid submissions and authorities, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the present Special Civil Application deserves to be allowed.
5. Per contra, Mr. Saurabh G. Amin, learned advocate for respondent No.1, submits that the petitioner has challenged the communication dated 13.04.2023 issued by the MSMED Council, Madhya Pradesh, which, according to respondent No.1, Page 19 of 38 Uploaded by KAUSHIK D. CHAUHAN(HC00197) on Wed Dec 10 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:31:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11824/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined is merely a communication and not an order. It is further submitted that even if the said communication is treated as a letter, it necessarily emanates from the principal Revenue Recovery Certificate (RRC) dated 31.12.2014 and previous orders, none of which have been challenged by the petitioner. Therefore, a challenge to only the consequential communication, without challenging the foundational RRC, is legally impermissible.
5.1 The learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that since the main cause of action originated in the State of Madhya Pradesh, the Gujarat High Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present petition, especially when the impugned notices issued at Gandhinagar are merely ministerial in nature. It is accordingly argued that the petition is not maintainable before this Court.
5.2 The learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the notices issued under Section 200 and other provisions of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code (GLRC) are purely ministerial and consequential to the unchallenged RRC dated 31.12.2014. It is submitted that prior notices issued under Sections 152, 154, and 200 of the GLRC were also not challenged by the petitioner Page 20 of 38 Uploaded by KAUSHIK D. CHAUHAN(HC00197) on Wed Dec 10 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:31:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11824/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined and have been considered valid by Courts in earlier proceedings. It is therefore contended that the present writ petition challenging such notices is not maintainable, more so when statutory alternative remedies of appeal exist under Sections 203 and 204 of the GLRC.
5.3 The learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the interest at 27% per annum compounded monthly, as awarded by the MSMED Council has been upheld by the successive judicial proceedings culminating in the dismissal of appeals by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is thus argued that the petitioner cannot now reopen issues pertaining to MSME status, interest rate, or cessation of interest at this execution stage, as such issues are barred by the principles of res judicata and waiver. 5.4 The learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the petitioner's assertion that it never objected to disbursement stands falsified by the record, which shows that respondent No.1 had repeatedly sought disbursement and that the petitioner had filed multiple objections to the same. It is contended that the petitioner has suppressed material facts that have direct bearing on interest computation and the relief sought in the petition. Page 21 of 38 Uploaded by KAUSHIK D. CHAUHAN(HC00197) on Wed Dec 10 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:31:26 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11824/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined 5.5 The learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that Clauses 24 and 25 of the Contract, relied upon by the petitioner, pertain to contractual disputes that have already been settled. It is submitted that the present proceedings arise from execution under the Madhya Pradesh Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Rules and the GLRC, which do not fall within the scope of contractual jurisdiction clauses. Hence, reliance upon contractual clauses is misconceived.
5.6 The learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the petitioner's current challenge to MSME status, the rate of interest, and the alleged cessation of interest were either raised earlier or could have been raised in earlier proceedings. As such, the present challenge is barred by waiver, estoppel, and res judicata.
5.7 The learned counsel for respondent No.1 further submits that the deposits made by the petitioner - namely 75% before the Commercial Court and 25% before this Court - were conditional deposits made pursuant to Section 19 of the MSMED Act or subject to further judicial directions. These cannot be treated as unconditional payments under Order XXI Rule 1 of the CPC. It is therefore submitted that interest continues to run on the unpaid Page 22 of 38 Uploaded by KAUSHIK D. CHAUHAN(HC00197) on Wed Dec 10 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:31:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11824/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined balance until actual payment is made.
5.8 The learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that interest under Section 16 of the MSMED Act is mandatory and statutory in nature. Such interest begins from the appointed day and continues until actual payment, computed at three times the bank rate prevailing on the appointed day, fixed at that point and not subject to variation over time. It is argued that accepting the petitioner's contention of variable interest would run contrary to legislative intent, create uncertainty, and frustrate the Act's remedial purpose.
5.9 The learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the Council has awarded interest even on the security deposit, and this issue has already been litigated and upheld in prior proceedings. Consequently, any fresh challenge to interest on security deposits is barred by finality of adjudication. 5.10 The learned counsel for respondent No.1 further submits that the Council has already adjudicated the interest claims under Section 18 of the MSMED Act; therefore, any subsequent calculations are merely arithmetical in nature and procedural in character, not requiring fresh adjudication. It is accordingly Page 23 of 38 Uploaded by KAUSHIK D. CHAUHAN(HC00197) on Wed Dec 10 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:31:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11824/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined submitted that the petitioner's contention that a fresh reference or appeal is required for computing interest is devoid of merit and contrary to the objectives of the MSMED Act. 5.11 In view of the foregoing submissions, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the present Special Civil Application is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.
6. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 relies on judgment in P.S.L. Ramanathan Chettiar v. O.R.M. Ramanathan Chettiar - AIR 1968 SC 1047, to submit that a deposit made in court, which is not freely withdrawable by the decree-holder, does not amount to "payment" so as to stop the running of decretal interest. It is submitted that such a deposit merely places the money beyond the reach of the parties during pendency of appeal, and therefore interest continues to accrue until actual payment or withdrawal by the decree-holder.
6.1 Learned counsel for respondent No.1 further relies on judgment in Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India - 2006 (8) SCC 457, to reiterate well-established legal proposition that only an unconditional payment to the decree-holder, or an unconditional deposit made in the executing court in a manner that permits Page 24 of 38 Uploaded by KAUSHIK D. CHAUHAN(HC00197) on Wed Dec 10 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:31:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11824/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined the decree-holder to withdraw the amount, constitutes "payment" for the purpose of stopping interest. It is argued that where the deposit is conditional, or made subject to objections or court orders, such deposit cannot be treated towards satisfaction of the decree and does not halt the accrual of interest. 6.2 Learned counsel for respondent No.1 also relies on the three-Judge Bench judgment in Delhi Development Authority v. Bhai Sardarsingh & Sons - (2023) 17 SCC 671, cited by the respondents, to reaffirm that the principles laid down in Ramanathan Chettiar continue to be applied. The said judgment held that where the decree-holder is not permitted to withdraw the amounts deposited in court, such deposits do not amount to payment under Order XXI Rule 1 of the CPC, and interest continues to run. This decision is relied upon to submit that the petitioner's deposits made before various courts did not extinguish or suspend the statutory interest liability. 6.3 Learned counsel for respondent No.1 further relies on the judgment in Power Machines India Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh - 2017 (7) SCC 323, to highlight the legislative purpose underlying Rule-5 recovery under the MSMED legal framework, namely the execution of MSME awards as arrears of land Page 25 of 38 Uploaded by KAUSHIK D. CHAUHAN(HC00197) on Wed Dec 10 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:31:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11824/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined revenue. It is submitted that this provision is intended to ensure a speedy and efficacious mechanism for recovery, avoiding procedural delays, and therefore arithmetical computation and ministerial issuance of recovery notices under Rule-5 do not require fresh, elaborate adjudication.
6.4 Learned counsel for respondent No.1 also relies on the judgment in Fertilizer Corporation of India v. M/S. Coromandal Sacks Private Limited - SCC Online TS 3505 to support the interpretation that statutory interest under Section 16 of the MSMED Act can be fixed with reference to the rate prevailing on the appointed or due date. It is submitted that higher compounded interest rates fixed by the statute or by the Facilitation Council are legally sustainable and have been upheld by courts as consistent with the object of ensuring speedy, certain, and effective recovery under the MSMED Act. 6.5 Learned counsel for respondent No.1 relies on the judgment in Asgar & Ors. v. Mohan reported in 2020 (16) SCC 230, to submit that the issues which were raised or which could have been raised in earlier proceedings, including at the stage of award, appeal, and Special Leave Petition, are barred. It is submitted that the petitioner is precluded from reopening Page 26 of 38 Uploaded by KAUSHIK D. CHAUHAN(HC00197) on Wed Dec 10 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:31:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11824/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined questions regarding MSME status, interest rate, or interest computation at the execution stage, as these issues have attained finality and are barred by res judicata and constructive res judicata.
6.6 In view of the aforesaid submissions and the authorities relied upon, the learned counsel for respondent No.1, therefore, submits that the present Special Civil Application deserves to be dismissed.
7. Heard learned counsels for the parties, perused the documents and considered the submissions.
8. The facts as brought on record in the present writ petition are that by communication dated 13.03.2023, the respondent No.1 herein addressed the communication to the respondent No.2 stating that after the disposal of the Supreme Court proceedings, it was informed by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to the respondent No.1 that the petitioner had deposited Rs.4,34,67,567/- in the District Court, Gandhinagar and Rs.1,44,89,199/- in the Gujarat High Court and that the amount as per the award and the recovery certificate issued pursuant thereto stands satisfied. By the said communication, Page 27 of 38 Uploaded by KAUSHIK D. CHAUHAN(HC00197) on Wed Dec 10 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:31:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11824/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined the respondent No.1 has further stated that the petitioner corporation has admitted in the Hon'ble Supreme Court proceedings that till 27.01.2022, there was outstanding arrears of Rs. 28,63,11,546.31 ps. to be paid to the respondent No.1 and the same may be kindly realized by giving appropriate direction to the respondent No.3 Collector, Gandhinagar. Alongwith the said communication, the respondent No.1 has furnished an Interest Calculation Sheet duly certified by its Chartered Accountant. Pursuant to such receipt of communication, the Industries Commissioner on behalf of the respondent No.2 forwarded a communication dated 13.04.2023 to the respondent No.3 Collector, Gandhinagar seeking to recover the outstanding amount towards interest. It was stated in the said communication that the interest outstanding as on 31.03.2023 as duly certified by the Chartered Accountant for Rs.34,89,19,321/- is to be realized. The said communication dated 13.04.2023 is annexed as Annexure-R10 to the reply of the respondent No.1. A perusal of the communication dated 10.03.2023 issued by the Chartered Accountant (at page-407 of the petition) reveals that it is not addressed either to the respondent No.1 or to the respondent No.2. The certificate is a general certificate addressed as "TO WHOMSOEVER IT MAY Page 28 of 38 Uploaded by KAUSHIK D. CHAUHAN(HC00197) on Wed Dec 10 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:31:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11824/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined CONCERN". Alongwith the said certificate, calculation of interest from 26.12.2014 till 10.04.2023 has been calculated. The Industries Commissioner on behalf of the respondent No.2 Council has simply forwarded this communication of the respondent No.1 alongwith the calculations made by the Chartered Accountant to the respondent No.3 District Collector, Gandhinagar for realization of the same. There is no proper application made by the respondent No.1 for realization of such amount on affidavit. Neither the said communication has been placed before the respondent No.2 Council for its consideration. It seems that the Industries Commissioner on behalf of the respondent No.2 Council has unilaterally forwarded this communication to the respondent No.3 District Collector, Gandhinagar for realization of such amount as an arrears of land revenue. No recovery certificate for this amount has been issued by the respondent No.2 Council. The said action of the Industries Commissioner lacks any application of mind or adjudication by the respondent No.2 Council in respect of the amount sought to be realized.
9. Upon receipt of such communication from the Industries Commissioner on behalf of the respondent No.2 Council, the Page 29 of 38 Uploaded by KAUSHIK D. CHAUHAN(HC00197) on Wed Dec 10 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:31:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11824/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined respondent No.3 Collector, Gandhinagar by notice dated 29.05.2023 has directed the petitioner to remain present personally for payment of the said amount on 01.06.2023 at 11:00 a.m. It it further stated in the said notice that if the said amount is not paid, then appropriate procedure shall be initiated for issuing revenue recovery certificate. Immediately on the same date, the respondent No.4 Mamlatdar, Gandhinagar has also issued another notice to the petitioner under Section 200 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879 for attaching the movable and immovable assets of the petitioner corporation after a period of 7 days. Thereafter by another notice dated 28.06.2023, the respondent No.4 Mamlatdar, Gandhinagar has intimated that the movable and immovable assets of the petitioner corporation shall be attached on 13.07.2023 at 11:00 a.m.
10. From the facts and the documents placed on record, it is revealed that the present proceedings for recovery as arrears of land revenue is not initiated on the basis of any order passed by the MSME Council. The communication dated 13.03.2023 of the respondent No.1 does not seem to have been placed before the respondent No.2 Council for its consideration by the Industries Commissioner. In the present case, the respondent No.1 herein Page 30 of 38 Uploaded by KAUSHIK D. CHAUHAN(HC00197) on Wed Dec 10 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:31:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11824/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined is claiming outstanding interest on the amount as per the award passed in favour of the respondent No.1. The interest component is a part of the awarded amount and it is the case of the respondent No.1 that the amount awarded has not been paid to the respondent No.1 till date and therefore, the interest is still due on the said amount. The interest component in the present case translates into a substantial sum of money. The said interest as claimed by the respondent No.1 is seriously disputed by the petitioner herein. The communications dated 25.04.2023 and 12.06.2023 were also addressed by the petitioner to the respondent No.2 disputing the interest claim as certified by the Chartered Accountant. However, the respondent No.2 has not even taken the same into consideration or replied to the said communications of the petitioner. It was the duty of the respondent No.2 to adjudicate the outstanding interest as claimed by the respondent No.1 herein by due application of mind accompanied with cogent reasons. More so when Section 16 of the MSMED Act provides for award of rate of interest and makes the purchaser liable for payment of compound interest. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the amount as awarded by the Arbitral Tribunal and in terms of the recovery certificate dated 31.12.2014 has been deposited by the petitioner before the Page 31 of 38 Uploaded by KAUSHIK D. CHAUHAN(HC00197) on Wed Dec 10 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:31:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11824/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined District Court as well as High Court. Further, there is a communication from the respondent No.3 Collector, Gandhinagar stating that the amount in terms of the revenue recovery certificate dated 31.12.2014 has been deposited. The respondent No.1 has thereafter initiated this claim of non- payment of interest on the basis of the written submissions which came to be filed by the petitioner in the proceedings before the Apex Court.
11. In the considered opinion of this Court, the respondent No.2 Council had an onerous responsibility of adjudicating the application preferred by the respondent No.1 for payment of interest which according to it was due and payable. The stand of the respondent No.1 is that till the amount as per the award and which is purported to have been deposited in the District Court as well as in the High Court is received by the respondent No.1, the petitioner herein is liable to pay the interest on the awarded amount as per the award. It is the case of the respondent No.1 that even though the amount as per the award has been deposited partly in the District Court as well as High Court, the same has yet not been received by him and therefore, he is entitled for the payment of interest on the awarded amount till Page 32 of 38 Uploaded by KAUSHIK D. CHAUHAN(HC00197) on Wed Dec 10 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:31:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11824/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined its actual receipt by the respondent No.1. Thus, it is clear that the final amount of interest as claimed by the respondent No.1 is still not quantified by the respondent No.2 Council. The respondent No.2 ought to have decided the application of the respondent No.1 by proper adjudication of the same and by coming to a considered decision on the specific amount of interest which the petitioner may have to pay to the respondent No.1 as per the award dated 11.09.2014. Despite the said claim, the respondent No.2 Council has simply forwarded the certified statement issued by the Chartered Accountant as a Post Office without any application of mind. The respondent No.2 has not performed its important part of adjudication to come to a conclusion and quantify the amount payable by the petitioner since the payment of interest is inseparable part of the award. The communication dated 13.03.2023 for recovery issued by the respondent No.1 is based upon the calculation made by the Chartered Accountant and blind acceptance of the same is not permissible in law as the respondent No.2 Council was obligated to adjudicate the said claim of the respondent No.1 by following principles of natural justice and was required to hear the petitioner since the post-award interest becomes part and parcel of the "sum awarded". The respondent No.2 Council could not Page 33 of 38 Uploaded by KAUSHIK D. CHAUHAN(HC00197) on Wed Dec 10 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:31:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11824/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined have abdicated its task of decision making by adopting the certified statement as issued by the Chartered Accountant in toto without even passing any order. If such a course of action is to be approved, then it would undermine the very object of the MSMED Act and the legislative intent in enacting it.
12. Under the MSMED Act, the unpaid amount as per the award is liable to be recovered as arrears of land revenue, it is, therefore, imperative that such an amount which is liable to be recovered as arrears of land revenue must undergo the process of adjudication for quantification and fixation of the liability to pay. Once the liability to pay is fixed in an adjudicatory process, thereafter it is the duty of the adjudicatory body to quantify such an amount which is liable to be recovered as arrears of land revenue. Once such adjudication takes place and liability is fixed and the amount is quantified, only thereafter the provisions of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879 could be invoked and the requisite amount can be recovered as arrears of land revenue. In the present case, no such process has been done.
13. It is further observed from the notice of the respondent No.3 dated 29.05.2023 which states that if the amount as forwarded by the respondent No.2 Council is not paid, then the Page 34 of 38 Uploaded by KAUSHIK D. CHAUHAN(HC00197) on Wed Dec 10 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:31:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11824/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined process for issuance of revenue recovery certificate would be undertaken. However, thereafter the Mamlatdar, Gandhinagar has straight away issued a notice for attachment with revenue recovery certificate being issued for the said amount. It was imperative upon the revenue authorities before issuing the notices to the petitioner that it had arrived at a satisfaction that there was a passing of a substantive order and quantification of proper amount after appropriate adjudication. The respondent Nos.3 and 4 could not have straight away issued notices under the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879 after receipt of the letter from the respondent No.2 and take further steps without any substantive order for such recovery.
14. In the considered opinion of this Court, the certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant in respect of the amount payable by the petitioner towards the interest awarded as per the award dated 11.09.2014 is not a conclusive evidence. It may be the base of a claim by the respondent No.1. Such claim ought to have been properly adjudicated by the respondent No.2 by providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the petitioner who has seriously disputed the payment of interest as claimed after the satisfaction of the amount as awarded. The respondent Page 35 of 38 Uploaded by KAUSHIK D. CHAUHAN(HC00197) on Wed Dec 10 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:31:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11824/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined No.2 was under an obligation to issue notice to the petitioner, adjudicate the claim of the respondent No.1 and finalize the liability, if any, and thereafter quantify the exact amount of interest which was liable to be paid by the petitioner if at all.
15. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court has no option but to hold that the communication dated 13.04.2023 issued by the respondent No.2 as well as the impugned notices issued by the respondent Nos.3 and 4 towards recovery as arrears of land revenue have been issued without following any due procedure as established by law. In the present case, approximately an amount of Rs.34,89,19,321/- is sought to be recovered from the petitioner towards non-payment of interest on the principal amount as per the award. The petitioner has raised a dispute as regards the amount due and recoverable. Therefore, without adjudication of the same, the respondent No.2 could not have straight away proceeded to recover the amount as arrears of land revenue without following due procedure of law and in breach of principles of natural justice.
The present procedure adopted by the respondent No.2 is dehors the procedure of law as well as in breach of the principle Page 36 of 38 Uploaded by KAUSHIK D. CHAUHAN(HC00197) on Wed Dec 10 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:31:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11824/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined of natural justice and therefore, is liable to be quashed and set aside.
16. For the aforesaid reasons and observations, the impugned letter/communication dated 13.04.2023 issued by the respondent No.2 and the Notices dated 29.05.2023 and 28.06.2023 are quashed and set aside. The respondent No.2 Council is directed to adjudicate and decide afresh the claim of the respondent No.1 being communication dated 13.03.2023 by adopting appropriate adjudicatory process and in consonance with the principles of natural justice after giving due and effective hearing to the petitioner herein and thereafter passing a reasoned order.
17. In view of remand, all the contentions raised in the present writ petition by the petitioner as well as the respondent No.1 are kept open to be agitated before the respondent No.2 Council in the fresh adjudication.
18. It is clarified that this Court has not gone into the merits of the claim raised by the respondent No.1 and no opinion is expressed thereon. The claim of the respondent No.1 shall be decided on its own merits and in accordance with law by the Page 37 of 38 Uploaded by KAUSHIK D. CHAUHAN(HC00197) on Wed Dec 10 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:31:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11824/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined respondent No.2.
The present Special Civil Application is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.) After pronouncement of the judgment, Mr. Saurabh G. Amin, learned advocate for the respondent No.1 prays for stay of the judgment for a period of six weeks so as to enable the respondent No.1 to approach the higher forum.
The request is rejected.
Sd/-
(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.) KAUSHIK D. CHAUHAN Page 38 of 38 Uploaded by KAUSHIK D. CHAUHAN(HC00197) on Wed Dec 10 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:31:26 IST 2025