1 Comm.

SU No.07/2020

MHCC010005892020

Presented on   : 05­12­2019
         Registered on  : 14­01­2020
         Decided on      : 31.03.2022
         Duration          : Y­2, M­3, D­26

  
IN THE CITY CIVIL COURT FOR GR.BOMBAY AT MUMBAI 
COMMERCIAL SUIT NO.07 OF 2020

PRAFUL SUKANRAJ JAIN,    ]
Age ­ 46 years, Of Mumbai an adult Indian Inhabitant ]
Carrying on business as a Sole Proprietor in the  ]
name and style of Harsh Gems ]
At and from Shop No.15, 1st floor, L.K. Maket ]
Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai­400 002. ].....Plaintiff 

Vs.

PULKESH @ PHULKESH KISANLAL MAHAJAN ]
Age not known, of Mumbai carrying on business ]
as a Sole Proprietor in the name and style of ]
Divesh Exim at and from 91­J­87, Raut Estate, ]
Fanaswadi, Koliwadi, 3rd Floor, Mumbai­400 002. ].....Defendants

APPEARANCE:­
Adv.Rameshwar Totala for the plaintiff.
Adv.Asha Chetan Shah for the defendant.

                           CORAM : RAJESH A. SASNE
      ADHOC JUDGE 
                                                              (C.R.No.32)
                                               DATED : 31st March, 2022.    
 2 Comm.SU No.07/20

JUDGMENT

This  is  commercial   suit  for  recovery  of  amount  from   the

defendant. 

In brief, the plaintiff's case is as under :
2. It  is  the  case  of  the  plaintiff  that in   the  month  of  April­
2019, the defendant requested him for extending financial assistance by
way   of   business   loan   of   Rs.15,00,000/­.   Accordingly,   the   plaintiff
extended financial assistance of Rs.11,15,875/­ to the defendant. Apart
from this transaction, as the plaintiff has returned the goods purchased
from the defendant vide invoice No.2/17­18, he is entitled to recover
from   the   defendant,   an   amount   of   GST   Rs.93,476/­   paid   by   him   on
17.08.2018.   The   plaintiff   time   to   time   demanded   said   amount   of
Rs.11,15,875/­   and   Rs.93,476/­   (Total   Rs.12,09,351/­)   from   the
defendant. However, the defendant avoided to pay the same. Instead of
paying said amount, the defendant with a view to create false record,
forwarded demand notice dated 04.05.2019 demanding the amount of
invoice of the goods which are already returned by the plaintiff to the
defendant. The plaintiff by reply dated 18.05.2019, narrated true facts
and called upon the defendant to pay amount of Rs.12,09,351/­. The
defendant in spite of receipt of said reply, failed to comply with the
same.   By   notice   dated   04.06.2019,   the   defendant   again   denied   his
liability.   According   to   the   plaintiff,   the   defendant   is   liable   to   pay
Rs.12,09,351/­ to him. Hence, to recover said amount, the plaintiff has
filed this suit.  

3. The   defendants   by   written   statement   filed   at   exhibit­3,

resisted  this suit contending that the  suit is  false  and frivolous.  It is
 3 Comm.SU No.07/20

barred by the provisions of the Bombay Money Lenders Act, 1947 as
there   is   no   contention   regarding   the   plaintiff   holding   valid   money
lender's licence. The defendant denied that the plaintiff has advanced
business  loan   to   him.   It   is   further   case   of   the   defendant   that   at  the
demand of plaintiff, the defendant had sold jewellery of Rs.31,15,875/­
to the plaintiff and raised invoice No. 2/17­18 dated 02.08.2017 for the
same. The amount of GST for the same was Rs.93,476/­. The defendant
was   repeatedly   demanding     the   amount   of   invoice.   However,   the
plaintiff   including   the   amount   of   GST   has   paid   only   Rs.12,09,351/­,
leaving   behind   balance   of   Rs.20,00,000/­.   The   plaintiff   failed   to   pay
said   amount   to   the   defendant.   After   receipt   of   said   letter   dated
4.5.2019, the plaintiff sent reply dated 18.05.2019, making false story
that he has returned the goods to the defendant. He also sent false and
fabricated debit note dated 10.04.2019. He also made false story that
amount of Rs.11,15,875/­ was paid by him as loan to the defendant.
The   defendant   denied   that  the   plaintiff   has  returned  the   goods.   The
defendant denied that he requested the plaintiff for extending financial
assistance. He denied that Rs.11,15,875/­ was paid by the plaintiff to
the defendant as a loan. He denied that Rs.93,476/­ was due in respect
of GST in respect of invoice No.2/17­18. There was nothing due and
payable by the defendant to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is liable to pay
Rs.20,00,000/­ with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. to the defendant.
With these contentions the defendant prays to dismiss the suit. 

4. Heard   the   learned   Advocates   for   the   plaintiff   and   the

defendant. Issues framed at exhibit­7 are reproduced herein below for
my consideration, to which I record my findings thereon with reasons as
follows:
 4 Comm.SU No.07/20

ISSUES FINDINGS
1. Whether   the   plaintiff   proves   that,   he   has
advanced   business   loan   of   Rs.11,15,875/­   to No
the defendant ?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that, in respect of
return of goods to the defendant, the plaintiff
No
is entitled to recover an amount of Rs.93,476/­
from the defendant in respect of GST. 
3. Whether   the   defendant   failed   to   pay   the No
aforesaid due amount to the plaintiff ?
4. Whether the suit is maintainable in view of Bar Yes
of the provisions of The Money Lenders Act ?
5. What order and decree ? Suit is dismissed.

REASONS
AS TO ISSUE NO.4 :
5. It   is   the   contention   of   the   defendant   that   the   plaintiff
alleges   lending   of   money   to   the   defendant   and   as   there   is   no   valid
Money lending licence, suit is barred under the provisions of Bombay
Money Lenders Act, 1947. In fact, said objection is in view of Section 13
of  the  Maharashtra   Money   Lending   (Regulation)   Act,  2014   (in  short
“The Money Lenders Act”). 

6. Section 13 of the Money Lenders Act reads as follows: 
Section 13 : Suits by money lenders not holding licence ­
(1) No court shall pass a decree in favour of a money­lender in
any suit unless the court is satisfied that at the time when the
loan or any part thereof, to which the suit relates was lent, the
money­lender held a valid licence, and if the court is satisfied
that   the   money­lender   did   not   hold   a   valid   licence,   it   shall
dismiss the suit.
(2) xxxx.
 5 Comm.SU No.07/20

7. Admittedly the plaintiff has no money lender's licence and
there is also no case that the plaintiff is a money lender. Not every loan
is   axiomatically   a   money   lending   transaction   for   the   purpose   of   the
Money   Lenders   Act.   Only   doing   the   business   of   money   lending   can
attracts the provision of the Money Lending Act. What is prohibited is
doing the business of money lending without licence. Therefore, every
instance   of  money  lending  without  licence   cannot  be  money  lending
business /transaction under the Money Lenders Act. To constitute the
business of money lending, a single isolated instance does not constitute
and even several isolated instances do not, constitute the business of
money lending. A loan recovery action is not barred, merely because
there   is   a   loan.   The   crucial   aspect   to   determine   the   money   lending
transaction to attract the said bar is that the transaction must be out of
business   of   money   lending.   Therefore,   what   is   prohibited   is   doing
money lending business without licence and only in such cases on the
date of making advance of loan, if there is no money lending licence,
then the suit for recovery of such amount, is not maintainable.

8. In case before me, there are no series of transaction to held
that the plaintiff was carrying business of money lending. It is clear case
of   the   plaintiff   that   on   the   demand   of   the   defendant   for   loan   of
Rs.15,00,000/­,   the   plaintiff   has   advanced   loan   of   Rs.11,15,875/­   by
RTGS. This transaction cannot be termed as business of money lending
and therefore, in my view there is no bar of Section 13 of the Money
Lending Act.

9. For the aforesaid observations, I rely on the judgment of
the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of  Ganga Taro Vazirani Vs.
 6 Comm.SU No.07/20

Deepak Raheja (2021 SCC Online Bom 195). In this case the loan was
advanced by cheque and as the defendant failed to make the repayment
of the same, the plaintiff filed suit for recovery of the said amount. The
objection was raised by the defendant regarding maintainability of the
suit,   contending   that,   on   the   date   of   advance,   the   plaintiff   was   not
holding valid money lenders licence. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court
by interpreting the term 'loan' held that, such transaction is not within
the   meaning   of   'loan'   under   the   Money   Lending   Act   and   suit   is
maintainable as there is no bar of Section 13 of the Money Lenders Act.

10. In case of Sitaram Shrawan Koshti Vs. Bajya Parnya Bhoi
[(28) AIR 1941 Nagpur 177], it is held that, the Act only applies to
money lenders and therefore, before it can be applied it must be shown
by the person seeking to apply it and seeking to take advantage of its
provisions that the plaintiff is a money lender. 

11. In case of Ganesh Vs. Mithalal, (AIR 1999 Bombay 120),
it is held that, mere one or two casual transactions of money lending do
not   make   a   person   as   a   professional   money   lender.   With   these
observations the Hon'ble High Court held that, the plaintiff not being a
money   lender   was   not   required   to   comply   with   the   mandatory
provisions of the Bombay Money Lenders Act. In view of judgment of
Ganga Taro Vazirani's case (supra), mere advancement of amount by
way of loan on one or two occasions cannot be held as transaction of
money  lending  and   in   such   cases,   it   will   not  be  expected   that  there
requires money lenders' licence.
 
12. In case before me, the alleged transaction is not under the
 7 Comm.SU No.07/20

Money Lenders Act. As held in Ganga Taro Vazirani's case supra, one
or   two   instances   of   advancement   of   loan   cannot   be   termed   as
transaction   under   the   Money   Lender   Act.   What   is   material   is   doing
business of money lenders and not money lending. In case before me,
pleadings in the plaint does not reveal that there was business of money
lending by the plaintiff. Hence, bar of Section 13 of the Money Lenders
Act, will not be applicable to this transaction. Accordingly, the suit is
maintainable. In the result, I answer issue No.4 in the affirmative.

AS TO ISSUE NO.1:
13. It is the case of the plaintiff that against the request of the
defendant   for   extending   financial   assistance   of   Rs.15,00,000/­,   the
plaintiff has paid Rs.11,15,875/­ to the defendant by way of business
loan. Plaintiff ­ Praful (PW­1) at Exh.9 deposes in support of his claim.
He admits that in respect of such financial assistance, no agreement or
document  as  to   security   for   the   loan   was   executed.   In   the   plaintiff's
documentary evidence there is no such document to show that amount
Rs.11,15,875/­ was paid to the defendant as a loan. It is the contention
of  the   plaintiff   that  the   defendant  is  well  acquainted  with  him, they
belongs to same community and therefore, he accepted the defendant's
request for financial assistance. From these contentions it appears that
the   plaintiff   wants   to   demonstrate   that   there   was   good   relations
between   them   and   therefore,   the   plaintiff's   was   ready   to   pay   such
amount   of   Rs.11,15,875/­   as   alleged   loan   without   executing   any
reciprocal document. Inspite of such contentions, the plaintiff is unable
to  identify   the   defendant's  signature   on   the  defendant's   notice   dated
04.05.2019­ Exh.14 and 04.06.2019­Exh.15. Though these documents
are produced and relied upon by the plaintiff, however at the time of
 8 Comm.SU No.07/20

comparing these  signatures with signature  on debit note  Exh.16, the

plaintiff showed his inability to identify the defendant's signatures on
aforesaid notices at Exh.14 and Exh.15. If the plaintiff is unaware with
the   signature   of   the   defendant   how   he   advanced   loan   of   such   huge
amount without any document? Non­execution of any such document
as security against the loan, raises doubt about the plaintiff's claim that
said amount was paid as a loan.  

14. It   is   to   be   noted   that   the   amount   of   alleged   loan   is

Rs.11,15,875/­   and   the   defendant's   demand   as   alleged   was   for
Rs.15,00,000/­.  The amount of alleged loan is odd figure and hence it
is unable to digest that such odd amount can be an amount of a loan. In
ordinary course of transaction, if any party advances the loan, it will not
advance loan of such odd figure. In the cross­examination, the plaintiff
to   justify   his   case   in   that   regard,   deposes   that   he   informed   the
defendant   that   Rs.11,15,875/­   is   available   and   as   the   defendant
demanded same amount, it was paid to him accordingly. The plaintiff
fairly admits that there is no written document to show that amount of
Rs.11,15,875/­   was   paid   on   defendant's   demand   as   a   loan.   The
explanation provided by the plaintiff for advancement of loan of such
odd amount is not probable and justifiable. The bank statement, Exh.11
shows   that   on   24.04.2019,   the   plaintiff   through   bank   transferred
Rs.11,15,875/­ to the defendant. On the said date, in his account there
was balance of Rs.12,05,940.70. Therefore, the plaintiff's statement that
only Rs.11,15,875/­ was available with him is not correct. This fact also
shows   that   the   plaintiff   was   able   to   pay   Rs.11,50,000/­   or
Rs.12,00,000/­ as round figure of amount of loan against demand of
Rs.15,00,000/­.   Making   payment   of   Rs.11,15,875/­   though   having
 9 Comm.SU No.07/20

balance of Rs.12,05,940.70 in the bank, itself shows that payment of
such   odd   figure   is   not   against   the   loan   but   against   any   other
transaction. 

15. Praful   (PW­1)   deposes   that   there   was   only   one   business
transaction with the defendant and it is in respect of invoice No.2/17­
18. Admittedly, said transaction is in respect of sale of gold mounting
against which invoice No.2/17­18 was raised by the defendant to the
plaintiff   for   Rs.32,09,351/­.   The   existence   and   contents   of   invoice
No.2/17­18 are not disputed. The plaintiff admits the purchase of gold
amounting   to   Rs.32,09,351/­   from   the   defendant,   vide   said   invoice.
However, it is his case that said goods are returned to the defendant.
This   invoice   was   called   upon   by   the   defendant   to   produce   by   the
plaintiff. Accordingly, it is produced. The defendant also admitted in his
pleading the fact about raising of such invoice by him to the plaintiff,
hence, said invoice No.2/17­18 is not disputed. As aforesaid the plaintiff
admits   that   it   is   the   only   transaction   held   with   the   defendant.
Therefore,   it   is   required   to   verify   whether   the   said   odd   amount   of
Rs.11,15,875/­   is   paid   by   the   plaintiff   against   this   transaction.
Admittedly, the cost of goods sold by the defendant to the plaintiff is
Rs.31,15,875/­. The amount paid by the plaintiff to the defendant is
Rs.11,15,875/­.   It   is   not   the   coincidence   that   last   five   digits   of   both
these amounts are same. Including the amount of GST, total amount of
invoice is Rs.32,09,351/­. It is the case of the plaintiff that by cheque
No.443836 he has paid amount of GST Rs.93,476/­ in respect of said
invoice.   Therefore,   calculating   the   amounts   paid   by   the   plaintiff
a)Rs.93,476/­(GST) + b)Rs.11,15,875/­(alleged as loan) total amount
paid by the plaintiff is Rs.12,09,351/­. It is also not the coincidence that
 10 Comm.SU No.07/20

last   five   digits   of   this   amount   are   same   with   the   last   five   digits   of
amount of invoice Rs.32,09,351/­.  If total amount paid Rs.12,09,351/­
is   deducted   from   the   total   amount   of   invoice   of   Rs.32,09,351/­,   the
remaining   balance   will   be   Rs.20,00,000/­.   In   ordinary   course   of
transactions, the traders usually makes part payment of odd amount  by
keeping balance amount in round figure. It appears that same thing is
happened in this case. The course of transaction infers that the amount
of   Rs.11,15,875/­   and   amount   of   GST   Rs.93,476/­   total   amount   of
Rs.12,09,351/­   has   been   paid   as   part   payment   against   invoice
No.02/17­18,   leaving   behind   balance   of   Rs.20,00,000/­.   Making   of
payment of odd amount of Rs.11,15,875/­ itself shows that it was not
the amount of loan. Therefore, I am of the view that the transaction by
its nature infers that it was not in respect of advancement of loan but it
is made against invoice No.02/17­18. For these reasons I am of the view
that the plaintiff is not able to establish the fact that he has advanced
loan of Rs.11,15,875/­ to the defendant. Hence, I answer issue No.1 in
the negative.
 
AS TO ISSUE NO.2:
16. It is the case of the plaintiff that after purchase of goods
from   the   defendant   vide   invoice   No.2/17­18   for   amount   of
Rs.32,09,351/­ on 17.08.2018, he returned said goods on 10.04.2019.
It is his further case that in respect of said transaction and invoice he
paid GST of Rs.93,476/­. It is his further case that on return of goods to
the defendant, the plaintiff is entitled to recover said amount of GST
Rs.93,476/­ from the defendant.
 
17. Admittedly,   goods   were   purchased   by   the   plaintiff.   They
 11 Comm.SU No.07/20

were delivered to him as he pleads return of the same. Therefore, to
establish   his   claim   the   plaintiff   is   required   to   satisfy   following   two
things: 
(a) There was no acceptance of goods.
(b) Goods were physically returned to the defendant. 

18. As aforesaid fact of purchase of goods by the plaintiff from
the defendant and delivery of the same to the plaintiff is not disputed.
in respect of acceptance of the goods, Section  42 of the Sale of Goods
Act, 1930 reads as under :
Section 42 : Acceptance ­ The buyer is deemed to have accepted
the goods when he intimates to the seller that he has accepted
them, or when the goods have been delivered to him and he does
any   act   in   relation   to   them   which   is   inconsistent   with   the
ownership of the seller, or when, after the lapse of reasonable
time, he retains the goods without intimating to the seller that
he has rejected them. 

19. In   case   before   me   there   was   no   written   intimation   of

acceptance but after receipt of the goods vide invoice No.2/17­18 dated
02.08.2017, the  plaintiff has paid Rs.93,476/­ against the  amount of
GST mentioned in the said invoice. Moreover as observed in findings to
issue   No.1,   payment   of   Rs.11,15,875/­   made   by   the   plaintiff   to   the
defendant is part payment against the purchase of goods. Hence, the
plaintiff by such conduct has accepted the goods. The goods were sold
to the plaintiff on 02.08.2017. According to the plaintiff he returned it
to the  defendant on  10.04.2019. For  near  about twenty months, the
plaintiff has not communicated anything about his intention to reject
 12 Comm.SU No.07/20

the goods. Therefore, for more than reasonable time he retained the
goods and thereby also accepted the goods in view of Section 42 of the
Sale of Goods Act, 1930. The goods sold are precious metal that is gold,
therefore, period of twenty months taken by the plaintiff is more than
reasonable  period   to  hold   that   the   plaintiff   after   lapse   of   reasonable
time retains the goods and thereby accepted it. 

20. Now, it is required to consider whether after period of 20
months the plaintiff has physically returned the goods to the defendant.
First   of   all   it   is   to   be   noted   that   no   reason   for   return   of   goods   is
provided   by   the   plaintiff.   For   whole   period   of   20   months   there   was
absence of any communication expressing the intention of the plaintiff
to return the goods. It is pertinent to note that after the transaction of
sale, first written communication is by the defendant vide letter dated
04.05.2019(exh.14) demanding the due payment from the plaintiff and
thereafter by notice reply dated 18.05.2019(exh.17) the plaintiff came
up   with   the   case   of   return   of   goods   by   debit   note   dated
10.04.2019(ex.16).   If   on   24.04.2019,   the   plaintiff   has   made   part
payment against the goods, then execution of debit note on 10.04.2019
is afterthought.

21. Admittedly,   there   is   no   credit   note   from   the   defendant

regarding return and receipt of goods from the plaintiff. The plaintiff
has   not   referred   and   deposed   in   respect   of   debit   note.   There   is   no
evidence of the plaintiff to satisfy who has executed this debit note and
whether   it   has   been   signed   at   the   instance   of   the   defendant.   The
plaintiff admits that the signature at the left hand side on the debit note
Exh.16 is different from the signatures on notices Exh.14 and Exh.15
 13 Comm.SU No.07/20

issued by the defendant. He further clarifies that the signature at the
left   hand   side   of   debit   note   is   of   Niketan,   the   employee   of   the
defendant. Thereby the plaintiff admits that the debit note is not signed
by the defendant and the defendant has not put stamp of seal thereon.
Moreover,   the   plaintiff   has   not   adduce   evidence   to   show   that   the
defendant   has   acknowledged   the   receipt   of   goods   returned   by   the
plaintiff. The plaintiff alleges that the goods are returned on 10.04.2019
and on 24.04.2019, loan was advanced to the defendant, then it was
possible   for   the   plaintiff   to   obtain   the   credit   note   or   the
acknowledgement thereof from the defendant who was under his mercy
of financial assistance. As it is not done so, the plaintiff's story appears
to be far from the truth. As aforesaid on 24.04.2019 the plaintiff has
made payment of Rs.11,15,875/­ not as a loan but as a part payment
against the goods, therefore, the debit note dated 10.04.2019 which has
no signature of the defendant appears to be created after thought.

 22. The plaintiff in support of return of goods has also relied on
said   debit   note   dated   10.04.2019   and   documents   as   to   GST   Exh13
(colly.) The documents of GST are not attached with the plaint and not
relied   upon   with   the   pleadings.   Said   return   is   filed   on   10.05.2019
whereas the suit is filed on 05.12.2019. Therefore, at the time of filing
of the suit these documents of GST were available with the plaintiff. If
the   plaintiff   is   relying   on   these   documents,   he   should   have   filed   it
alongwith the plaint as per the mandate of Order XI, Rule 1 of the Code
of   Civil   Procedure,   1908.   These   documents   of   GST   are   directly
produced alongwith the evidence without taking leave of the Court. In
view of provisions of Order XI, Rule 1(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908,   as   applicable   to   the   commercial   suit   by   which   Code   of   Civil
 14 Comm.SU No.07/20

Procedure   has   been   amended   with   respect   to   the   suits   before

commercial  court, such document  cannot be  read in  evidence as the
plaintiff   failed   to   disclose   said   document   alongwith   the   plaint.
Moreover,   before   relying   on   such   documents   of   GST,   the   plaintiff   is
required   to   satisfy   that   the   goods   are   physically   returned   to   the
defendant. 

23. If   goods   of   precious   metal   like   gold   amounting   to

Rs.32,09,351/­   are   to   be   returned   physically,   it   was   expected   in
ordinary course of transactions to obtain the acknowledgement of the
right   person   with   proper   documentation.   The   debit   note   is   the
document created by the plaintiff and not issued by the defendant. In
absence of acknowledgement or credit note of the defendant, there is
doubt   whether   goods   are   returned   to   the   defendant?.   In   absence   of
proof regarding return of such goods and in view of Section 42 of Sale
of Goods Act, 1930 it is required to held that the plaintiff has accepted
the goods and retained the same. Moreover in view of finding recorded
against issue No.1 it infers that the plaintiff  has made  part payment
against   the   goods   purchased   from   the   defendant,   hence   thereby   he
accepted the goods. For these reasons, the plaintiff is not entitled to
recover amount of GST Rs.93,476/­ from the defendant. Therefore, I
answer issue No.2 in the negative.

AS TO ISSUE NO.3:
24. In view of my findings to issue Nos.1 and 2, there is no
liability of the defendant to pay the amount of Rs.12,09,351/­ to the
plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff has not established that the defendant has
failed to pay said amount to him. In the result I answer issue No..3 in
the negative.
 15 Comm.SU No.07/20

AS TO ISSUE NO.5:
25. In view of my findings to issues No.1 to 4, the plaintiff has
failed to prove his claim against the defendant. Therefore, suit is liable
to be dismissed. I am of the view that the plaintiff shall bear costs of
this suit. In the result in answer to issue No.5 I pass the following order.

ORDER
1.  Suit is dismissed with costs.
2.  Decree be drawn up accordingly.
Digitally signed
by RAJESH
ANIRUDDHA
RAJESH SASNE
ANIRUDDHA
Date:
SASNE 2022.04.05
16:49:23
+0530

        (Rajesh A.Sasne)
               Judge,
         City Civil & Sessions Court,
Date : 31.03.2022                                                    Mumbai.
Typed directly on computer       : 31.03.2022
Checked by HHJ on       : 01.04.2022
Signed by HHJ on                   : 04.04.2022
 16 Comm.SU No.07/20

“CERTIFIED   TO   BE   TRUE   AND   CORRECT   COPY   OF   THE   ORIGINAL

SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”

05.04.2022 at 05.00 p.m.      (Mrs. P.L.Parab)
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME        NAME OF CLERK­TYPIST 

Name of the Judge HHJ SHRI RAJESH A.SASNE
(COURT ROOM NO.32)
Date   of   pronouncement   of 31.03.2022 
judgment/order
Judgment/order signed by P.O. on  04.04.2022 
Judgment/order uploaded on  05.04.2022