Gujarat High Court
M/S Brilliant Lifesciences Pvt. Ltd vs Gujarat Medical Service Corporation ... on 8 May, 2025
Author: Umesh A. Trivedi
Bench: Umesh A. Trivedi
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2235/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2235 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH A. TRIVEDI Sd/-
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
Sd/-
==================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==================================================
M/S BRILLIANT LIFESCIENCES PVT. LTD.
Versus
GUJARAT MEDICAL SERVICE CORPORATION LTD. & ANR.
==================================================
Appearance:
MR. DHARMESH DEVNANI, WITH MAYUR DHOTARE WITH
MR. KAUSTUBH SHRIVASTAV for NANAVATI ASSOCIATES(1375) for the
Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. G.H.VIRK with MR SIMRANJITSINGH H VIRK with JAGRAT SHAH
(11607) for the Respondent(s) Nos.1 & 2
==================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH A. TRIVEDI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI
MANAVENDRANATH ROY
Date : 08/05/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH A. TRIVEDI) [1] By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order dated 04.02.2025, which is at page 20 of the compilation, whereby Page 1 of 20 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 05:51:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2235/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2025 undefined petitioner is debarred from business relation with respondent - Gujarat Medical Services Corporation Limited (for short 'GMSCL') for the item code No.1013-Amlodipine Tablet IP 5 mg, for a period of 01 (one) year with effect from 02.01.2025, as also an order dated 05.02.2025 as a consequence of breach of tender condition rate contract of item code No.1013-Amlodipine Tablet IP 5 mg, which is valid up to 31.03.2026, is cancelled with immediate effect and vide order dated 11.02.2025 for non performance of contractual obligation security deposit submitted by the petitioner for the rate contract came to be forfeited .
[2] At the outset, Mr. Dharmesh Devnani learned counsel with Mr. Mayur Dhotare, learned advocate with Mr. Kaustubh Shrivastav, learned advocate for M/s Nanavati Associates for the petitioner, restricted challenge by way of this petition to the order of debarment only and seeks permission to withdraw the petition so far as relief of termination of a contract as also forfeiture of security deposit, with a liberty to avail appropriate remedy available under the law.
[3] In view thereof, permission, as sought for, is granted. This Page 2 of 20 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 05:51:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2235/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2025 undefined petition stands withdrawn so far as challenge to the order terminating contract dated 05.02.2025 as also dated 11.02.2025, whereby security deposit came to be forfeited, permitting the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy before appropriate forum. Needless to say that before the authority / Court where challenge is made to those orders may be determined in accordance with law.
[4] Hence, this petition is restricted qua the challenge to the order whereby petitioner came to be debarred from business relation with the respondent authority for the item code No.1013-Amlodipine Tablet IP 5 mg, for a period of 01 (one) year with effect from 02.01.2025.
[5] Heard Mr. Dharmesh Devnani learned counsel for M/s Nanavati Associates for the petitioner along with Mr. Mayur Dhotare, learned advocate with Mr. Kaustubh Shrivastav, learned advocate.
[6] Mr. Dharmesh Devnani, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the order passed by the respondent - authority debarring the petitioner, that too, for a period of 01 Page 3 of 20 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 05:51:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2235/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2025 undefined (one) year for the reasons mentioned in the order impugned dated 04.02.2025, is illegal and erroneous. He submitted that the whole substratum based on which order of debarment came to be passed, has gone with the subsequent event taking place, the authority could not have passed the order impugned, debarring the petitioner from business relation with the respondent. He has further submitted that as per tender condition B (8) and condition 2 of Annexure - IX of the tender document, petitioner was under an obligation to inform the office of respondent about its debarment at Madhya Pradesh Public Health Services Corporation Limited (for short 'MPPHSCL') for the item Amlodipine Tablet IP 5 mg, petitioner came to be debarred having not informed the respondent herein. However, petitioner came to be debarred by 'MPPHSCL', on the ground that Public Analyst vide his opinion dated 20.03.2024 opined that the sample drawn by Drug Inspector is not of standard quality as defined under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short 'the Act, 1940') and rules made thereunder for the reasons given below it which described that sample does not comply with IP with respect to the test for Page 4 of 20 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 05:51:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2235/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2025 undefined dissolution.
[6.1] However, he has vehemently submitted that the order of debarment came to be passed by the 'MPPHSCL' on 21.06.2024 but in view of subsection (3) of Section 25 of 'the Act, 1940', petitioner notified in writing, the Inspector that it intends to adduce evidence in controversion of the report and therefore, the Drug Inspector moved the competent Court under subsection 4 of Section 25 of 'the Act, 1940', for sending another sample for test or analysis to the Central Drugs Laboratory, Kolkata which was ordered by the competent Magistrate and in view of the provisions thereof, report in writing signed by or under the authority of, the Director of Central Drugs Laboratory, Kolkata, the result thereof and such report shall be conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein. Drawing attention of the Court, he has vehemently submitted that the Director in charge Central Drugs Laboratory, Kolkata vide its report dated 13.12.2014 opined that sample confirms to IP with respect to the test for dissolution. Therefore, according to his submission, since petitioner could adduce the evidence in controversion of the report submitted by the government Page 5 of 20 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 05:51:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2235/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2025 undefined analyst and when report of Central Drugs Laboratory, Kolkata is said to be conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein, even the 'MPPHSCL' revoked the order of debarment, which was passed by it based on report of government analyst vide its order dated 03.04.2025. Therefore, he has submitted that whole basis to blacklist the petitioner so far as drug item in question having gone, it is imperative for the respondent to revoke the impugned order dated 04.02.2025 debarring the petitioner from business relation with the respondent for the item code No. 1013-Amlodipine Tablet IP 5 mg for a period of 01(one) year with effect from 02.01.2025 is required to be quashed and set aside.
[6.2] He has vehemently submitted that it is nothing but a sheer mistake in not informing the respondent herein the order of debarment passed by the 'MPPHSCL' and for such a trivial mistake, no order of debarment for the item code could have been passed by the respondent authority which brings about civil death of the petitioner for the said drug. [6.3] Relying on the decision in the case of Blue Dreamz Advertising Pvt. Ltd and Anr. Versus Kolkata Municipal Page 6 of 20 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 05:51:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2235/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2025 undefined Corporation and Ors. reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 1896, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that blacklisting will not only debar the person concerned from dealing with the concerned employer, but because of the disqualification, that dealing with other entities also is proscribed. Relying on another decision in the case of M/s Techno Prints Vs. Chhattisgarh Textbook Corporation & Anr. rendered in Civil Appeal No.236 of 2025 arising out of SLP (C) No.10042 of 2023, more particularly paragraphs 25 to 30 & 34, it is submitted that even a show cause notice pertaining to blacklisting came to be quashed by the Supreme Court as the authority, with pre-judge mind, issued such show cause notice, with a view to pass an order of blacklisting and therefore, seeking explanation by issuance of such notice is a mere ritual. Therefore, he has submitted that this petition be admitted and allowed.
[7] As against that, respondent herein filed Affidavit-In- Reply opposing the admission and allowing the petition bringing on record certain material facts which would be dealt with here later on.
Page 7 of 20 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 05:51:42 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2235/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2025 undefined [8] Mr. G.H.Virk, learned advocate for the respondent submitted that petitioner is a supplier of a drug under a rate contract with the State which in turn supplied to the various Government Hospitals throughout the State. Therefore, high standard of quality as also high standard of morality from the petitioner is expected. He has further submitted that under a tender condition, petitioner is supposed to file Annexure-IX on oath, which he has filed, obligating petitioner to disclose even during the currency of rate contract with the respondent - corporation if it is debarred / blacklisted by respondent or for failure in supply of quality drugs in future by any State / Central Government / undertaking / organization. The proforma Annexure-IX is at page 59 of the petition. Reading paragraph 2 thereof, it is submitted that petitioner filed such undertaking on oath before the authority undertaking responsibility to bring attention of the Managing Director of 'GMSCL' if tenderer will be debarred / blacklisted by the Corporation itself or for failure in supply of the quality drugs in future by any State / Central Government / undertaking / organization.
[8.1] He has further submitted that despite the petitioner Page 8 of 20 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 05:51:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2235/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2025 undefined is blacklisted by an order dated 21.06.2024 because of the sample drawn from the bulk supplied by the petitioner to 'MPPHSCL', which is found to be not of standard quality, as defined under 'the Act, 1940' and rules thereunder, and does not comply with IP with regard to test for dissolution, therefore, according to his submission, the petitioner was under a legal obligation to bring it to the attention of the Managing Director about order of blacklisting being passed for failure in supply of quality drugs to 'MPPHSCL'. Immediately, said order of blacklisting was communicated through E-mail to the petitioner on that very day, which is not being denied by the learned advocate for the petitioner.
[8.2] Mr. G.H.Virk, learned advocate for the respondent submitted that petitioner failed to make said disclosure for a period of more than three months (91 days). During this period of 91 days, 'GMSCL' placed two purchase orders and amount of those purchase orders is referred to in the affidavit in reply at para-12 thereof. Therefore, according to his submission, by that time petitioner supplied 93,13,200 tablets, amounting to Rs.10,01,355.26 ps. as per the rate contract. Therefore, Page 9 of 20 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 05:51:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2235/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2025 undefined according to his submission, a blacklisted petitioner supplied to 'GMSCL' more than 93 lakhs tablets valued at more than Rs.10 lakhs and in doing so, defrauded the 'GMSCL'. He has further submitted that even examination of the very said sample of drug by Central Drugs Laboratory, Kolkata which has said that sample confirms to IP with respect to the test for dissolution, is of no consequence because the said report is dated 13.12.2024 whereas order of blacklisting passed by 'MPPHSCL' on 21.06.2024 which was supposed to be intimated or brought to the attention of Managing Director, as undertaken on oath as a part of tender condition which petitioner failed. Thus, the obligation to bring to the attention of Managing Director of 'GMSCL' consequently as per tender condition mentioned in clauses B(8)&(9) provided different penal actions, over and above that debarment for one year for non-disclosure of blacklisting / debarment in tender as per format Annexure-IX, is also provided for. He has further submitted that presuming that forfeiture / recovery of EMD or SD or risk purchase or any other penal actions, though provided for debarment of the petitioner as a consequence of failure to bring it to the notice of the Page 10 of 20 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 05:51:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2235/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2025 undefined Managing Director of 'GMSCL', an order of debarment is provided for and which is passed by the authority, which requires no interference by this Court as it is not penal in nature but it is because of deliberate failure to obey their own undertaking not intimating the respondent herein which led to passing of an order of debarment.
[8.3] He has further submitted that based on report of Central Drugs Laboratory, Kolkata, even if 'MPPHSCL' revoked their order of debarment vide order dated 03.04.2025, is also inconsequential as order of debarment passed by the respondent authority is not based on only order of debarment passed by 'MPPHSCL'. It is because of failure to intimate as per the terms of tender and an undertaking on oath given by the petitioner, as a consequence order of debarment which was provided in the terms of tender, order came to be passed. Therefore, he has submitted that the only challenge now restricted by the petitioner should also fail on these grounds. Therefore, he has submitted that this petition be also rejected. [9] Having heard the learned advocates for the appearing parties and going through the memo of petition, Page 11 of 20 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 05:51:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2235/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2025 undefined further / additional affidavit filed by the petitioner as also affidavit in reply filed by the respondent herein, though 3 different prayers were made challenging 3 different orders, since petitioner has restricted in this petition only challenge to the debarment order, we propose to deal with the said issue here as under based on material before us in this petition. [10] There is no dispute that pursuant to Tender Notice No.GMSCL/D-10/2022-23, petitioner filed its bid for item code No.1013 Amlodipine Tablets IP 5 mg. The bid for the said item of the petitioner accepted by the respondent No.1 and acceptance letter dated 11.03.2024 came to be issued. Pursuant thereto, petitioner signed an agreement with the respondent - corporation on 18.03.2024 and accepted the contract on the terms and conditions set out in the said tender document. In furtherance thereof, petitioner also signed and submitted guarantee bond dated 19.03.2024 (security deposit) which is a bank guarantee for Rs.3,46,000/-. Pursuant thereto, respondent
- corporation placed an order for supply of item code No.1013 Amlodipine Tablets IP 5 mg from time to time and the petitioner has supplied the same. While filing bid, petitioner was aware Page 12 of 20 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 05:51:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2235/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2025 undefined about terms and conditions mentioned in a tender document, more particularly, clauses B (8) & (9), which provides for eligibility criteria along with certain obligations on the bidders as they are supposed to file undertaking on oath as per format Annexure-IX to bring it to the notice of the Managing Director of 'GMSCL' about tenderer being debarred or blacklisted due to failure in supply of quality of quoted drugs during the tender validity or during validity of the rate contract by any State / Central Government or its Drug's Procurement Agency, which petitioner miserably failed. There is also no dispute that based on report of Public Analyst for the very same drug, for which petitioner is having rate contract with the respondent - corporation, 'MPPHSCL' passed an order dated 21.06.2024 debarring the petitioner as sample was found to be not of standard quality, as defined under 'the Act, 1940' and the Rules thereunder. Not only he failed to intimate as per his own undertaking on oath given to the respondent -corporation, it continued to supply the very same drug to the respondent - corporation, which were distributed in Government Hospitals throughout the State. If such prompt intimation, as obligated Page 13 of 20 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 05:51:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2235/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2025 undefined upon the petitioner, is made, respondent -corporation could have stopped procuring such drug for the time being. Non- disclosure / non-intimation has earned petitioner nearly Rs.10 lakhs which otherwise it would not have and that appears to be the reason for not intimating as soon as he came to know about order of blacklisting by 'MPPHSCL', despite its undertaking on oath to the respondent -corporation in format Annexure-IX. For failure to fulfill that obligation, consequence is provided in the tender condition itself to which petitioner is aware and with open eye, filed that Annexure-IX on oath, debarring it for a period of 1 year for such failure. The action of debarment is taken against the petitioner not for supplying drug, not confirming to the standard prescribed under 'the Act, 1940', but its failure to intimate or bring it to the notice of the Managing Director of 'GMSCL' about passing of an order of debarment by 'MPPHSCL' as per its undertaking as one of the tender condition. Therefore, even if sample is again sent to the Central Drugs Laboratory, Kolkata, as provided under the provisions of 'the Act 1940' and the Rules, and its outcome is diametrically opposite to that of conclusion of Public Analyst, Indore, it will Page 14 of 20 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 05:51:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2235/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2025 undefined make no difference so far as passing an order of debarment by the respondent - corporation as it was for failure to intimate passing of such debarment order by any other corporation during the validity or continuance of rate contract with the respondent. Thus, revocation of the order of blacklisting passed by 'MPPHSCL' based on report of Central Drugs Laboratory, Kolkata as it had passed order of debarment only on the ground that Drug was not of standard quality as reported by Public Analyst and it was found to be of standard quality by report of Central Drugs Laboratory, Kolkata on a sample again being sent by the petitioner intending to adduce evidence in controversion of the report of the Public Analyst. Thus, revocation of order of blacklisting by 'MPPHSCL' has nothing to do with either the order passed by the respondent - authority or it is out of question to revoke the said order based on such eventuality. [11] Even respondent - authority has not passed an order of debarment immediately on having come to know about passing of such order passed by 'MPPHSCL' which was suppressed by the petitioner but a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner providing him an opportunity before passing an Page 15 of 20 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 05:51:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2235/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2025 undefined order of debarment even as provided under the terms of tender condition. It was also provided personal hearing on 22.10.2024 where representative of the petitioner, who is none other than General Manager (Finance & Accounts) of petitioner company, who affirmed the petition vide reply dated 22.10.2024 in a hearing in writing, informed the respondent corporation that due to oversight they had not informed 'GMSCL' about the debarment order passed by 'MPPHSCL'. On the contrary, in a reply to the debarment notice issued by the respondent, it was claimed that they have already challenged the report of Central Drugs Laboratory, Kolkata producing the document for reference. However, fact remains that there is an admission by the authorized person who affirmed the petition and who remained present and submitted in writing reply to the show cause notice during the course of hearing, admitted that due to oversight respondent -corporation was not informed about the debarment order passed by other authority. Therefore, impugned order of debarment passed by the respondent authority based on failure of the petitioner to intimate about debarment order passed by other authority which is admitted by Page 16 of 20 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 05:51:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2235/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2025 undefined the person who affirmed this petition has also in writing submitted reply during the course of personal hearing afforded to the petitioner before passing an order of debarment, admitted such lapses. Thus, fact remains that as a consequence of the terms of tender for failure to fulfill their obligations undertaken by the petitioner on oath by Annexure-IX annexed with the bid, intimating the respondent herein about order of debarment passed by other authority, has led to passing of the impugned order of debarment for item code No.1013- Amlodipine Tablet IP 5 mg.
[12] Reliance placed on the decision in the case of Blue Dreamz Advertising Pvt. Ltd and Anr. (supra) is of no help to the petitioner as action of blacklisting in that case was initiated for breach of terms of contract where even penalty is even provided for. There were disputes / issues between the parties to be resolved by the Arbitrator and that clause was invoked by the appellant therein and therefore, authority could not have initiated order of blacklisting based on that issue when it was pending adjudication before the Arbitrator. Not only that, as noticed by the Supreme Court, in that case, the day on which Page 17 of 20 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 05:51:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2235/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2025 undefined appeal before it was determined, the Arbitrator had already declared its award which went in favour of the appellant therein. In that circumstances, the decision was rendered by the Supreme Court which is not available in the present case. [12.1] Therefore, here in the present case blacklisting is not resorted to for a bonafide dispute for ordinary breach of contract. But it is resorted to for the failure of fulfilling the obligation on oath accepted by the petitioner to intimate about order of blacklisting for non-supply of quality drug by other corporation to the Managing Director, 'GMSCL', as term of tender condition itself.
[13] Another decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Techno Prints (supra) where show cause notice issued for blacklisting came to be quashed on the facts stated therein and no such facts obtained in the present case as it was and it is not even at the stage of show cause notice, for anything to be explained, an opportunity was available to the petitioner which he admitted to explain but in view of his own admission, it incurred an order of blacklisting. Therefore, decision in the case of M/s Techno Prints (supra) cannot be pressed into service Page 18 of 20 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 05:51:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2235/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2025 undefined by the petitioner.
[14] We have not gone into the issue whether on intimation about the report of Public Analyst holding that the drug to be not of standard quality, whether intention is disclosed by the petitioner, as provided under 'the Act, 1940' to adduce evidence in controversion of the report of Public Analyst by sending the sample to the Central Drugs Laboratory, Kolkata, within time or not? At the same time, proceedings filed before the Magistrate for undertaking that exercise, whether would be permissible as there is no prosecution for the same either contemplated by that authority which may require the proposed accused to adduce evidence in controversion of the report of the Public Analyst. Be that as it may, since report of Central Drugs Laboratory, Kolkata which is the conclusive evidence about quality of drugs supplied to 'MPPHSCL' has nothing to do with the order of debarment passed by the respondent -corporation, even if we don't doubt the exercise undertaken by the petitioner before Madhya Pradesh Court for sending the sample as it did not bear the proceedings number in each and every orders, even presuming it to be correct and it may be correct, it pales Page 19 of 20 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 05:51:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2235/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2025 undefined into insignificance. Thus, we see no reason to interfere with the order of debarment passed by the respondent - authority as high standard of moral is expected from a manufacturer of a drug which is used in treating patient with blood pressure / hyper tension and it has not intimated despite obligated because of an undertaking submitted while filing its bid for loss of few lakhs of rupees.
[15] Hence, this petition fails and it is hereby rejected with no order as to costs.
(UMESH A. TRIVEDI, J.) (CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J.) Lalji Desai Page 20 of 20 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 05:51:42 IST 2025