Gujarat High Court
Sintex Industries Limited Yarn ... vs State Of Gujarat on 20 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14968/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14968 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
Yes
==========================================================
SINTEX INDUSTRIES LIMITED YARN DIVISION
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS MEGHA JANI SENIOR COUNSEL WITH MS KRISHA M
BHIMANI(12795) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR NIKUNJ KANARA AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Date : 20/04/2026
JUDGMENT
1. Present petition is filed by the petitioner under Articles 14 and 226 of the Constitution of India r/w the provision under Section 3, 39 and 53 of the Gujarat Stamp Act, 1958 seeking below mentioned relief/s:-
"7 (A) that the Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari and/or mandamus or a writ in the nature of certiorari and/or mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction (1) quashing and setting aside order dated 11.06.2024 Page 1 of 17 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 03:03:56 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14968/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026 undefined passed by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, State of Gujarat in Appeal No.35 of 2024 (at Annexure A) confirming order dated 01.12.2023 passed by the Collector and Additional Superintendent of Stamps, Gandhinagar, Gujarat in Case No. Stamp/Vigilance/419/2022/41311 (at Annexure B);
(ii) commanding the Respondents the refund the amount of Rs. 1,74,05,200/- paid by the Petitioner with interest at the rate of 15% p. a. from the date of its deposit till payment;
(B) that pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to stay order dated 11.06.2024 passed by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, State of Gujarat in Appeal No.35 of 2024 (at Annexure A) and order dated 01.12.2023 passed by the Collector and Additional Superintendent of Stamps, Gandhinagar, Gujarat in Case No. Stamp/Vigilance/419/2022/41311 (at Annexure B); (C) For costs (D) For such other and further reliefs as the circumstances may require."
2. The facts giving rise to present petition are that the demand for stamp duty in the present petition pertains to two instruments. The first is a Supplemental Facility and Hypothecation Deed dated 16.05.2018, executed in continuation of an earlier Deed of Hypothecation dated 01.06.2017. Under the original deed, RBL Bank Limited had sanctioned credit facilities up to Rs. 280 crores, comprising primarily non-fund-based facilities with a sub- limit of Rs. 50 crores as fund-based facilities. Appropriate stamp duty of Rs. 8,00,000/- was duly paid on the original deed. The supplemental deed merely modified the sub- limit by increasing the fund-based facility from Rs. 50 Page 2 of 17 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 03:03:56 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14968/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026 undefined crores to Rs. 280 crores, without altering the total sanctioned amount. Stamp duty of Rs. 400/- was paid on this supplemental deed. However, the authorities treated it as a fresh instrument and demanded deficit stamp duty of Rs. 7,99,600/-.
2.1 The second instrument is a Deed of Hypothecation dated 14.12.2018 executed in favour of Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank PJSC, creating a subordinate charge over the hypothecated assets. The deed only recognized prior charges of existing secured creditors and did not create any fresh charge in their favour. Stamp duty of Rs. 500/- was paid on this instrument. Nevertheless, the authorities treated it as creating separate charges in favour of all existing secured creditors and raised a demand of Rs. 71,99,500/- as deficit stamp duty.
2.2 Meanwhile, insolvency proceedings were initiated against the Petitioner in 2021 under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and a resolution plan came to be approved on 10.02.2023. The approved plan expressly provided that all claims, including statutory dues and contingent liabilities not forming part of the resolution plan, would stand extinguished. No claim towards deficit stamp duty was filed during the insolvency process.
2.3 Despite this, the stamp authorities initiated proceedings in June 2023 by issuing notices for recovery Page 3 of 17 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 03:03:56 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14968/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026 undefined of alleged deficit stamp duty and penalty. The Petitioner responded, contending that such claims stood extinguished upon approval of the resolution plan. However, the Collector, by order dated 01.12.2023, confirmed a total demand of Rs. 1,59,98,200/- including penalty. The appeal filed by the Petitioner was dismissed on 11.06.2024. The Petitioner deposited the statutory pre-deposit as well as the remaining demanded amount under protest.
2.4 In view of the above facts the petitioner has preferred present petition seeking above mentioned relief/s.
3. Heard Ms. Megha Jani, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Krisha Bhimani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Nikunj Kanara, learned AGP appearing for the respondent authorities.
4. Ms. Megha Jani, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that company proceedings were initiated before the competent authority, wherein the Registrar of Companies had forwarded documents pertaining to the registration of hypothecation for verification. A list of companies was also provided to respondent No. 3. On that basis, respondent No. 3 conducted an inquiry and subsequently issued a notice, Page 4 of 17 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 03:03:56 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14968/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026 undefined initiating proceedings under Section 7(3) read with Sections 33 and 39(1)(b) of the Stamp Act. It was further submitted that the respondents proceeded with the matter and passed the impugned order.
4.1 Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the said order was challenged before the Appellate Authority (respondent No. 2) by way of an appeal under Section 53(1) of the Gujarat Stamp Act; however, the same is ab initio illegal and contrary to settled principles of law. Therefore, it is urged that the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside.
4.2 Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent No.2, issued a letter to the petitioner to produce the relevant documentary evidence, as provided under Section 68(2) of the Gujarat Stamp Act. It is further submitted that the company was before National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad, in company petition being CP(IB) 848/NCLT/AHM/2019.
4.3 Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Insolvency Application filed by the financial creditor, namely Invesco Asset Management (India) Pvt. Ltd. under Section 7 of the Code for Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of the Corporate Debtor was admitted on 6.4.2021, that is much Page 5 of 17 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 03:03:56 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14968/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026 undefined prior to the letter written by the Registrar of the Companies to the Stamp Duty Authority. She has submitted that one Mr. Pinakin. M. Shah was appointed as Interim Resolution Professional (IRP). Thereafter IRP made a public announcement in Form A on 10.4.2021, and collated claims and constituted CoC of 28 Financial Creditors, which is prior to the date of inquiry conducted by respondent No.3. Ms. Jani, learned counsel submits that on basis of the letter written by the ROC and in view of the settled legal principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Ghansham Mishra and Sons Pvt. Ltd. through the Authorised Signatory v. Edelweiss Assets Reconstruction Company Ltd. through the Director and others reported in (2021) 9 SCC 657, and subsequent decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the impugned action of the Respondent No. 3, which is confirmed by the Appellate Authority, that is respondent No.2 is ab initio illegal, bad in law, and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.
4.4 Ms. Megha Jani, learned Senior Counsel further submitted that once a resolution plan is approved by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the claims as provided in the resolution plan stand frozen and become binding on the corporate debtor and its employees, members, creditors, including the State Government, any local authority, and Page 6 of 17 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 03:03:56 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14968/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026 undefined other stakeholders. It was submitted that even the Tax Department ceases to be a creditor, and its rights stand extinguished as on the date of approval of the resolution plan. Therefore, in the present case, since the resolution plan was sanctioned prior to the initiation of the action by the respondent, such action is unsustainable in law. She has submitted that the initiation of action by the respondent authority itself is bad in law, and therefore, on the basis of the letter of the ROC and the enquiry conducted by respondent No. 3, the demand of deficit stamp duty raised is not legal and valid, which has subsequently been confirmed by respondent No. 2 without even going into the aspect agitated by the petitioner before the respondents. Therefore, the impugned orders under challenge deserves to be quashed and set aside.
4.5 Over and above the contention raised in the Memo of Petition, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner urges that the petition deserve to be allowed, and the impugned orders passed by Respondent No. 3, confirmed by No.2, deserve to be quashed and set aside, and the Petitioner is entitled to get the refund of the amount.
5. On the other hand, Mr.Nikunj Kanara, learned AGP for respondents, has vehemently opposed the petition and contended that the notice issued under Section 68(2) of the Gujarat Stamp Act, was not replied by the Petitioner.
Page 7 of 17 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 03:03:56 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14968/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026 undefined He has submitted that the Petitioner did not produce any documentary evidence before the Authority, and therefore, while exercising the jurisdiction vested, the respondents have rightly passed the orders, and there is no illegality or any malafide on the part of the Respondents.
5.1 Mr. Kanara, learned AGP has submitted that on the contrary, Petitioner intentionally not produced documentary evidence as demanded by the Authority under Section 68(2) of the Act and therefore, Respondent No. 3 issued a notice to the Petitioner for deficit stamp duty exercising the jurisdiction under Section 39(1) of the Act. He has submitted that the Respondents are not aware of the proceedings pending before the National Company Law Tribunal, NCLT, under the provision of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
5.2 Mr. Kanara, learned AGP has submitted that the Petitioner has not even brought to the notice of the Respondents the said fact and therefore, there is no question that the Respondents have not taken into consideration the order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal.
5.3 Mr. Kanara, learned AGP for the respondents has further contended that the proceedings initiated by the Respondents much earlier to the order passed by the Page 8 of 17 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 03:03:56 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14968/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026 undefined National Company Law Tribunal, however, he was not in position to controvert the fact that before passing any final order, the order of appointing the Interim Resolution Professional, IRP, was already submitted before the Authority, and it was brought to the notice of the Respondents. Mr. Kanara, learned AGP has emphasized upon the provision of Section 34 of the Act and pressed into service that the Petitioner is bound by the same. The said Section 34 of the Stamp Act reads as under:-
"Section-34 Instruments not duly stamped in admissible in evidence etc. "No instrument chargeable with duty (not being an instrument referred to in sub-section(1) of section 32A0,) shall be admitted in evidence for any purpose by any person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence, or shall be acted upon, registered or authenticated by any such person or by any public officer unless such instruments is duly stamped:"
Provided that-
A. "Any such instrument not being instrument chargeable with a duty of twenty naye paise and less shall, subject to all just exceptions, be admitted in evidence on payment of the duty with which the same is chargeable, or in the case of an instrument insufficiently stamped, of the amount required to make up such duty, together with a penalty of five rupees, or, when ten times the amount of the proper duty or deficient portion thereof exceeds five rupees, of a sum equal to ten times such duty or portion;"
5.4 In view of the above, Mr. Kanara, learned AGP for the respondents urges before the Court that present petition Page 9 of 17 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 03:03:56 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14968/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026 undefined may not be entertained and the same may be dismissed.
5.5 Mr. Kanara, learned AGP for respondent has referred and relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Hindustan Liver and others v. State of Maharashtra reported in 2004 9 SCC 2, and in the case of The Govt. of Uttar Pradesh v. Raja Mohammad Amir Ahmad Khan reported in AIR 1961 SUPREME COURT 787 and submitted that in view of the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cited decision, present petition may be dismissed.
6. I have perused the relevant material and documents produced on record of the petition. I have also gone through the record of the petition.
7. The issue involved in the present petition is whether the respondents are justified in claiming any deficit stamp duty from the petitioner when Resolution plan was sanctioned by NCLT prior to passing the final order.
8. It appears from the record that in the company petition filed by the petitioner, the Resolution Professional had preferred an IA wherein an order was passed, which was brought to the notice of the respondent authority by the petitioner; however, the respondents, without taking the same into consideration, passed the impugned order, which is the subject matter of the present petition.Page 10 of 17 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 03:03:56 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14968/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026 undefined
9. At this stage, it is appropriate to refer the questions arise for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ghanashyam Mishra (supra) which read as under:-
"2.1. (i) As to whether any creditor including the Central Government, State Government or any local authority is bound by the resolution plan once it is approved by an adjudicating authority under sub-section (1) of Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as "the I&B Code")?
2.2. (ii) As to whether the amendment to Section 31 by Section 7 of Act 26 of 2019 is clarificatory/declaratory or substantive in nature?
2.3. (iii) As to whether after approval of resolution plan by the adjudicating authority a creditor including the Central Government, State Government or any local authority is entitled to initiate any proceedings for recovery of any of the dues from the corporate debtor, which are not a part of the resolution plan approved by the adjudicating authority"
10. In light of the above questions referred in the petition, Hon'ble Apex Court has decided the petition and observed as under:
"93. As discussed hereinabove, one of the principal objects of I&B Code is, providing for revival of the Corporate Debtor and to make it a going concern. I&B Code is a complete Code in itself. Upon admission of petition under Section 7, there are various important duties and functions entrusted to RP and CoC. RP is required to issue a publication inviting claims from all the stakeholders. He is required to collate the said information and submit necessary details in the information memorandum. The resolution applicants submit their plans on the basis of the details provided in the information memorandum. The resolution plans Page 11 of 17 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 03:03:56 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14968/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026 undefined undergo deep scrutiny by RP as well as CoC. In the negotiations that may be held between CoC and the resolution applicant, various modifications may be made so as to ensure, that while paying part of the dues of financial creditors as well as operational creditors and other stakeholders, the Corporate Debtor is revived and is made an on¬going concern. After CoC approves the plan, the Adjudicating Authority is required to arrive at a subjective satisfaction, that the plan conforms to the requirements as are provided in sub¬section (2) of Section 30 of the I&B Code. Only thereafter, the Adjudicating Authority can grant its approval to the plan. It is at this stage, that the plan becomes binding on Corporate Debtor, its employees, members, creditors, guarantors and other stakeholders involved in the resolution Plan. The legislative intent behind this is, to freeze all the claims so that the resolution applicant starts on a clean slate and is not flung with any surprise claims. If that is permitted, the very calculations on the basis of which the resolution applicant submits its plans, would go haywire and the plan would be unworkable.
94. We have no hesitation to say, that the word "other stakeholders" would squarely cover the Central Government, any State Government or any local authorities. The legislature, noticing that on account of obvious omission, certain tax authorities were not abiding by the mandate of I&B Code and continuing with the proceedings, has brought out the 2019 amendment so as to cure the said mischief. We therefore hold, that the 2019 amendment is declaratory and clarificatory in nature and therefore retrospective in operation.98. It is a cardinal principle of law, that a statute has to be read as a whole. Harmonious construction of sub¬ section (10) of Section 3 of the I&B Code read with sub¬ sections (20) and (21) of Section 5 thereof would reveal, that even a claim in respect of dues arising under any law for the time being in force and payable to the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority would come within the ambit of 'operational debt'. The Central Government, any State Government or any local authority to whom an operational debt is owed would come within the ambit of 'operational Page 12 of 17 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 03:03:56 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14968/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026 undefined creditor' as defined under sub¬section (20) of Section 5 of the I&B Code. Consequently, a person to whom a debt is owed would be covered by the definition of 'creditor' as defined under sub¬section (10) of Section 3 of the I&B Code. As such, even without the 2019 amendment, the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority to whom a debt is owed, including the statutory dues, would be covered by the term 'creditor' and in any case, by the term 'other stakeholders' as provided in sub¬ section (1) of Section 31 of the I&B Code.
101. Therefore, in our considered view, the aforesaid provisions leave no manner of doubt to hold, that the 2019 amendment is declaratory and clarificatory in nature. We also hold, that even if 2019 amendment was not effected, still in light of the view taken by us, the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority 35 2018 SCC OnLine Cal. 142 would be bound by the resolution plan, once it is approved by the Adjudicating Authority (i.e. NCLT).
CONCLUSION
102. In the result, we answer the questions framed by us as under:
(i) That once a resolution plan is duly approved by the Adjudicating Authority under sub¬ section (1) of Section 31, the claims as provided in the resolution plan shall stand frozen and will be binding on the Corporate Debtor and its employees, members, creditors, including the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority, guarantors and other stakeholders. On the date of approval of resolution plan by the Adjudicating Authority, all such claims, which are not a part of resolution plan, shall stand extinguished and no person will be entitled to initiate or continue any proceedings in respect to a claim, which is not part of the resolution plan;
(ii) 2019 amendment to Section 31 of the I&B Code is clarificatory and declaratory in nature and therefore will Page 13 of 17 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 03:03:56 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14968/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026 undefined be effective from the date on which I&B Code has come into effect;
(iii) Consequently all the dues including the statutory dues owed to the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority, if not part of the resolution plan, shall stand extinguished and no proceedings in respect of such dues for the period prior to the date on which the Adjudicating Authority grants its approval under Section 31 could be continued."
11. Recently, the Hon'ble Apex Court had an occasion to deal with the similar issue in the case of Ujaas Energy Ltd. vs. West Bengal Power Development Corporation Ltd. reported in 2026 SCC OnLine 453, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ghanashyam Mishra (supra) and observed as under:-
"9. The CIRP is a time-bound, creditor-driven statutory mechanism incorporated under the IBC to resolve the corporate distress of a corporate debtor as a going concern.
10. Section 31(1) of the IBC provides the effect of approval of a resolution plan. It reads as follows:
31. Approval of resolution plan.--
(1) If the Adjudicating Authority is satisfied that the resolution plan as approved by the committee of creditors under sub-section (4) of section 30 meets the requirements as referred to in sub-section (2) of section 30, it shall by order approve the resolution plan which shall be binding on the corporate debtor and its employees, members, creditors, including the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority to whom a debt in respect of the payment of dues arising under any law for the time being in force, such as authorities to whom statutory dues are owed, Page 14 of 17 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 03:03:56 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14968/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026 undefined guarantors and other stakeholders involved in the resolution plan. Provided that the Adjudicating Authority shall, before passing an order for approval of resolution plan under this sub-section, satisfy that the resolution plan has provisions for its effective implementation...
(emphasis ours)
11. The terms of Section 31(1) are clear. The effect of the said provision is that the plan's terms are binding, as they stand, and it attaches finality to the resolution plan. Terms of the plan are to be read strictly, given the binding nature and extinguishment of claims not part of it which aligns with the resolution objective of the IBC.
12. In Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons (P) Ltd. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd.11, this Court speaking through the Chief Justice reiterated this principle thus:
102.1. That once a resolution plan is duly approved by the adjudicating authority under sub-section (1) of Section 31, the claims as provided in the resolution plan shall stand frozen and will be binding on the corporate debtor and its employees, members, creditors, including the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority, guarantors and other stakeholders. On the date of approval of resolution plan by the adjudicating authority, all such claims, which are not a part of resolution plan, shall stand extinguished and no person will be entitled to initiate or continue any proceedings in respect to a claim, which is not part of the resolution plan."
(emphasis ours)
12. In view of the above facts and observations by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above cited cases and considering the fact that the claim made by the respondent authority is of period prior to sanction of Resolution plan, that it is not part of Resolution plan sanctioned by NCLT, which was brought to the notice of Page 15 of 17 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 03:03:56 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14968/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026 undefined the respondent authorities by the petitioner; however, the respondent authorities, without taking the same into consideration, passed the impugned order, I am of the opinion that present petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned action of the respondent authorities deserves to be quashed and set aside.
13. For the foregoing reasons the petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute. The order 11.6.2024 passed by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, State of Gujarat in Appeal No.35 of 2024 confirming order dated 1.12.2023 passed by the Collector and Additional Superintendent of Stamps, Gandhinagar, in case No. Stamp / Vigilance / 419 / 2022 / 41311 is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent authorities are directed to refund the amount of Rs.1,74,05,200/- to the petitioner with interest @ rate of 15% p.a. from the date of its deposit till payment within period of three moths from the date of receipt of copy of present order, after verifying the bank details of the petitioner through RTGS/NEFT only.
14. At this stage Mr. Nikunj Kanara, learned AGP has requested to stay the order.
15. The request made by Mr. Kanara, learned AGP for the respondent authorities, is objected to by Ms. Jani, learned counsel for the petitioner, by submitting that since 2022 the amount has already been lying with the Page 16 of 17 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 03:03:56 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14968/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026 undefined respondent authorities and almost four years have passed; therefore, the said request may not be considered.
16. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the request made by Mr. Kanara, learned AGP for the respondent authorities is hereby rejected.
Sd/-
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) SURESH SOLANKI Page 17 of 17 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 03:03:56 IST 2026