Full Text
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION
COMM. ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 246 OF 2025
Namrata Tapan Bose & Anr. ...Petitioners
Mr. Nigel Quraishy a/w. Dushyant Krishnan, Snehil Rai and Shruti
Dubey for Petitioners-Namrata Tapan Bose and Aniket Bose.
Dr. Uday Warunjikar a/w. Sumit Kate, for Respondent No. 1-Sunita
Vilas Gaonkar.
Ms. Archana Khan a/w. Suraj S. Iyer, for Respondent No. 2.
Ms. Nandini Deshpande, 1st
Assistant Court Receiver.
Context and Background:
JUDGMENT
1. This is a Petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”) in connection with the dissolution of a Partnership Deed dated June 14, 2023 (“Partnership Deed”) in relation to a partnership firm called M/s. Saikrupa Medical and General Stores (“Saikrupa”). The firm July 14, 2025 carries out the activity of running a chemist shop right across one of the busiest public hospitals in Mumbai – the K.E.M. Hospital in Parel.
2. It is the case of the Petitioners Ms. Namrata Tapan Bose and Mr. Aniket Tapan Bose (“Bose Siblings”) that their have rights systematically and consistently been frustrated by the conduct of the Respondents over the years, disenfranchising them as a matter of fact despite their legal entitlement having been declared in three rounds of litigation culminating in the Supreme Court too having upheld their rights.
3. Feeling disenfranchised and disentitled to any and every benefit that ought to be available to them as a matter of right, the Bose Siblings have sought to dissolve Saikrupa, which is a partnership at will. The Partnership Deed itself is the outcome of the the Petitioner’s rights in Saikrupa having been successfully declared in the three rounds of litigation, with the Supreme Court too refusing to interfere.
4. I have heard Mr. Nigel Quraishy, Learned Counsel on behalf of the Bose Siblings, Dr. Uday Warunjikar on behalf of Respondent No. 1, Ms. Sunita Vilas Gaonkar (“Gaonkar”) and Ms. Archana Khan, Learned Counsel on behalf of Respondent No. 2, Mr. Nitin Bose (“Nitin”), at great length and on multiple occasions. With a view to satisfy myself in this equitable jurisdiction that no firm orders are passed in relation to the final dissolution of the firm without adequate examination and assessment of the facts and the conduct of the parties, in order to see if the firm could survive or the parties could reach a resolution of their positions, I have given Gaonkar and Nitin multiple opportunities to put in place a via media that would address every party’s interests. However, the conduct of Gaonkar has satisfied me that there is no scope whatsoever to expect any legitimate or reasonable conduct for light interventions to be made. This will be seen from the subsequent portions of this judgement.
5. Despite being victorious all the way to the Supreme Court, the Bose Siblings’ rights have remained virtually written on water. The Bose Siblings have been treated as persona non grata by the Respondents and their decision to dissolve Saikrupa is well understandable and rational. The Bose Siblings state that they are left with no option but to dissolve the partnership which is explicitly a partnership at will as provided for in Clause 3 of the Partnership Deed. Other clauses in the Partnership Deed are relevant as well, and I shall allude to the same separately in this judgement.
6. The factual history of this case is telling and some of it needs to be recounted. This Petition is not a simple case of a partner seeking to dissolve a firm seeking some basic interim reliefs under Section 9 of the Act for the first time. There is a legacy of an abusive relationship that the Bose Siblings have had to suffer at the hands of Gaonkar and Nitin. After the Bose Siblings’ father, Mr. Tapan Bose (“Tapan”), a 25% partner in Saikrupa, died on February 2, 2002, the Bose Siblings’ entitlement to be made partners of Saikrupa in relation to their father’s share, was usurped by Nitin and Gaonkar.
7. The Petitioners litigated for their right to be made partners in Saikrupa. This was adjudicated in the Petitioners’ favour through an arbitral award dated January 20, 2018 (“Arbitral Award”). The Arbitral Award then withstood challenges from Gaonkar under Section 34 of the Act (by an order August 23, 2019); and then under Section 37 of the Act (by an order dated February 22, 2021). A final attempt by Gaonkar with a special leave petition filed under Article 136 of the Constitution of India was rejected by the Supreme Court on September 9, 2021.
8. Such a track record of three concurrent findings in their favour ought to have counted for something for the Bose Siblings’ right to be partners in, and enjoy the fruits of Saikrupa. Yet, till date, the Bose Siblings stand deprived of their entitlements, which have continued to be consistently trampled upon. Inexplicable developments would take place even after these three rounds of validation of their rights, leading to interventions by various judges of this Court as the roster of judges moved along over the years. However, despite interventions and orders of various judges of this Court, the Bose Siblings have not received a single farthing from Saikrupa; they are not even shown as partners; and interlocutory directions to make equitable arrangements to protect their interests, balancing Gaonkar’s interests have also been positively frustrated by Gaonkar. Dates and Events:
9. Therefore, it would be necessary and relevant to set out a slightly more detailed outline of dates and events. Outlining the same would show the gruesome, cynical and contemptuous nature of the Respondents’ response to the rule of law and to place this judgement in context. That the rule of law could count for nothing for these Respondents, becomes clear from even a plain reading of the following factual narration.
10. At least ten judges of this Court and two judges of the Supreme Court have had occasion to deal with the facts. The impunity with which Gaonkar has left no stone unturned to frustrate the Bose Siblings, would be borne out from the following outline of events, which is necessary to set out why the reliefs sought in this Section 9 Petition ought to be granted:a) Tapan, who committed suicide on February 2, 2002, was a 25% partner in Saikrupa. Nitin, his brother too was entitled to 25% ownership in Saikrupa. The remaining 50% was entitlement of Respondent No. 1, Sunita Gaonkar (“Gaonkar”); b) The business of Saikrupa was governed by a Partnership Deed dated October 12, 1998 (“Original Deed”). Clause 18 of the Original Deed explicitly provided that upon death of a partner, Saikrupa would not stand automatically dissolved. Instead, the partner’s legal heirs would automatically become partners, with the same terms and conditions and rights and duties as set out in the Original Deed; c) However, in direct violation of Clause 18 of the Original Deed, neither the Bose Siblings nor their mother, one Ms. Kalpana Tapan Bose were made partners in Saikrupa in respect of the 25% share held by Tapan until his death. Instead, Nitin was made a 50% partner and a new purported partnership deed said to be dated June 12, 2002 (“Violative Deed”) was purported to be executed between Nitin and Gaonkar recording that Tapan had died, but that “for accounting convenience”, the Violative Deed was being executed with Nitin and Gaonkar having a 50:50 partnership, taking effect from March 31, 2002; d) The execution of the Violative Deed came in for litigation through a range of proceedings, effectively for considering whether the Violative Deed was at all valid. The dispute was resolved by way of the Arbitral Award (dated January 20, 2018) declaring the Violative Deed to be manifestly illegal and void ab-initio. Certain extracts from the Arbitral Award would bear reproduction and are set below:
12 Respondent No. 2 has attempted to justify the execution of the said deed dated 12 June 2002 on the ground that the same was execute only for the purposes of accounting convenience. It is further submitted that the said Deed was not drafted by lawyers and therefore not too much ought to be read into the conduct of Respondent No. 2 The contention is not only self-serving but would fall within the realm of wishful thinking. Under no circumstances can a document purporting to demonstrate a dead person retiring from a partnership firm be condoned. Respondent No. 1 has admitted to his wrongdoing and therefore not much remains as far as the execution of the document is concerned. However, the stand of Respondent No. 2 is manifestly unjust, against all principles of equity and good conscience. I see no reason whatsoever for the Respondents to have executed the Partnership Deed dated 12th June 2012, except to deprive the Claimants of their share in the partnership. It is pertinent that the document was executed barely four months after Mr. Tapan Bose committed suicide, when Claimant No. 1 not only had to deal with the tragedy of losing her husband, but also with the fact that she was left to take care of her minor children, Claimant No. 2 and 3. I find the conduct of the Respondents to be shocking in the very extreme.
19. Insofar as issues (e) and (f) are concerned, the same requires much deliberation on this conduct of the parties throughout the arbitration. When the Claimants sought documents pertaining to the firm, the same were not provided by either of the Respondents. Respondent No. I had contended that the documents were available with Respondent No. 2. and likewise Respondent No. 2 had contended that the documents were available with Respondent No. 1. The end result was that there was nothing brought on record pertaining to the Income Tax Returns of the firm or the books of accounts, it was therefore virtually impossible for the Claimants to prove the exact amounts due to them.
26. In view of what is stated above, I am disposing off the proceedings by passing the following order. a. The Partnership Deed dated 12th June 2002 is void abinitio. b. Claimant Nos. 2 and 3 are entitled to be made partners of the firm Saikrupa Medical and General Stores, their respective shares being 12.5% each. c. The Respondents shall forthwith execute the fresh Partnership Deed evidencing the Claimant: Nos. 2 and 3's share in the partnership. d. The Respondents shall jointly and severally pay to the Claimants an amount of Rs.40,88,250/-, being their share of profits in the firm. e. The Respondents shall jointly and severally pay to the Claimants an amount of Rs-3,00,000/-, being costs of the arbitration. [Emphasis Supplied] e) A Learned Single Judge of this Court (S.C. Gupte, J.) by a judgment dated August 23, 2019 was pleased to uphold the Arbitral Award disposing of a challenge under Section 34 of the Act mounted by Gaonkar. It is noteworthy that Nitin did not mount a challenge and that has come in for comment from Gaonkar in these proceedings on the premise that Nitin and the Bose Siblings have now aligned against the interests of Gaonkar. However, such a contention is evidently a red herring to distract and has no relevance to the adjudication of this Petition; f) The Learned Single Judge’s view was carried in challenge by Gaonkar under Section 37 of the Act. A Learned Division Bench (R.D. Dhanuka and V.G. Bisht, JJ) on February 22, 2021, upheld the view of the Learned Single Judge and dismissed the appeal; g) This was carried further to the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India seeking a special leave to appeal. The Supreme Court (M.R. Shah and Aniruddha Bose, JJ) by an order dated September 9, 2021 was pleased to dismiss the Special Leave Petition; h) Consequently, the Arbitral Award came to be firmly and finally upheld. By this, it would have to mean, in law, that at least from September 9, 2021, there could have been no doubt whatsoever that the Bose Siblings were entitled to all the benefits and fruits of Saikrupa’s business right since February 2, 2002, and indeed thereafter too, to the ongoing business of Saikrupa. This ought to have been a partnership interest of 25% share in the Partnership Deed (12.5%, each) for the two Bose Siblings; i) However, blatantly and cynically, Gaonkar (and Nitin – who himself appears to now be at the receiving end, with Gaonkar running Saikrupa all by herself) has refrained from even depicting the Bose Siblings as partners of Saikrupa. The tax audit certificates and related papers, which were provided to me after they were called for, would show that the financial statements and tax returns of Saikurpa do not contain a whisper of the interest of the Bose Siblings, who, pursuant to rejection of Gaonkar’s Special Leave Petition by the Supreme Court, are emphatically and without doubt, entitled to a 25% share in Saikrupa; j) Another development took place. Nitin issued a notice dated August 19, 2021, to Gaonkar, accusing her and her husband of usurping Saikrupa entirely. Nitin purported to terminate the Original Deed and all documents executed with Gaonkar in relation to Saikrupa. By this measure, again the Bose Siblings would have been cut out of their interests in Saikrupa. Based on this letter, Dr. Warunjikar, Learned Counsel for Gaonkar submitted to the Learned Single Judge in the execution proceedings (Execution Application
(L) No. 2506 of 2018) that the Arbitral Award could no longer be implemented since Saikrupa no longer existed and had been dissolved. Mr. Quraishy, Learned Counsel on behalf of the Bose Siblings had submitted to the execution court that if Saikrupa was be dissolved that would still mean that the Bose Siblings would need to have their 25% share in the business of Saikrupa until the date of dissolution and that accounts should be drawn. It was pointed out to the execution court that in reality, Saikrupa had hardly been dissolved since Gaonkar was running the store, bringing to bear evidence of a UPI payment made at the store; k) The Learned Single Judge (A.K.Menon, J.) by an order dated October 13, 2021, was pleased to repel the contention that Saikrupa stood dissolved. It was found by the Learned Single Judge that the purported termination of the partnerships was false and Saikrupa was indeed functioning, and the Bose Siblings were entitled to the partnership share they had secured in litigation. The Learned Single Judge directed the execution of a new Partnership Deed consistent with the Arbitral Award that had been upheld all the way to the Supreme Court. The Learned Single Judge also directed the Court Receiver to take possession of the Saikrupa and all its records and file a report. An appeal was filed against this order dated October 13, 2021, and that too was withdrawn, and a review petition was filed before the Learned Single Judge; l) Nothing directed in the aforesaid order dated October 13, 2021 came about. The Partnership Deed was not executed by the Respondents. The Court Receiver’s representative (one Mr. A.R. Tiwari) made an attempt to take possession and was rebuffed by one Mr. Rahul Gaonkar, the son of Gaonkar (“Rahul”). The Court Receiver’s report dated October 27, 2021 records that Rahul was at the cash counter of the store and simply refused to let the Court Receiver take possession. Rahul’s role would crop up later again, and this shall be noticed subsequently. A rebuff by Rahul was adequate to frustrate taking possession of Saikrupa’s business operations and the premises used by the firm; m)Thereafter, in the course of the execution proceedings, by an order dated July 12, 2023, the Learned Single Judge directed each party to deposit 50% of the principal award amount with this Court. It is common ground that Gaonkar has made the deposit, but Nitin has not made any deposit. Dr. Warunjikar would place much emphasis in these proceedings about how Gaonkar was compliant with the direction to deposit half the amount referred to in the Arbitral Award. However, it must be remembered that these deposits related to the amount specifically awarded in the Arbitral Award as a best estimate of the amounts payable as of that date – the Arbitral Award had estimated a sum, which was truncated by the Learned Single Judge and translated into an amount of approximately Rs. ~11 lakh, which also was finally upheld. However, such an amount can only relate to the past business of Saikrupa and its earnings, and evidently cannot cover amounts due to a 25% partner year-onyear thereafter, to which the Bose Siblings are entitled and have been denied by Gaonkar (and indeed, Nitin); n) It was Gaonkar who challenged the order dated July 12, 2023 passed by the Leaned Single Judge in the execution proceedings, by filing an appeal (Appeal (L) No. 25350 of 2021). A Learned Division Bench (S.J. Kathawalla and Milind Jadhav, JJ.) by an order dated November 16, 2021, was pleased to direct the Court Receiver to take symbolic possession of Sairkrupa along with all books of accounts, stock registers, particular of bank registers and bank statement; o) Thereafter, on November 18, 2021, Gaonkar withdrew the appeal before the Learned Division Bench. This brought to a firm end any grievance about the rejection of the theory that Saikrupa was dissolved by reason of termination by Nitin. Therefore, the rights of the Bose Siblings (solely in the eyes of law) stood firm now and there was no option for Gaonkar and Nitin but to abide by the Arbitral Award as upheld all the way upwards. The execution proceedings continued before the Learned Single Judge; p) However, there was no compliance even after this stage. Gaonkar continued to run the store without perceiving any impediment to doing so in the teeth of the findings of various benches of this Court. The Bose Siblings were continuously frustrated from having any insight into the business of which they had been firmly declared to be legitimate partners. The Learned Court Receiver, in a report dated December 1, 2021, sought instructions in the execution proceedings, on what further should be done in terms of taking stock of the remaining records of the business in terms of the order already passed in the execution proceedings; q) A peculiar development took place. One Mr. S.R. Paranjape, Additional Prothonotary and Senior Master of the Court was appointed to peruse and approve the draft of the Partnership Deed to be executed in line with the Arbitral Award so that the interests of the parties could be documented into a newly executed Partnership Deed, importing the Petitioners' interests into the terms and conditions of the Original Deed, and leaving all other terms and conditions undisturbed. Inexplicably, on April 8, 2022, advocates for Gaonkar submitted to Mr. Paranjape that they were in the process of filing an “interim application” to “modify” the Arbitral Award dated January 20, 2018. They undertook to serve the Bose Siblings with such application and on this premise, the proceedings to enforce execution of a new partnership deed to give effect to and execute the Arbitral Award were adjourned sine die. Such adjournment is inexplicable to say the least, simply because Gaonkar’s advocates had purported to modify the finally upheld (all the way to the Supreme Court) Arbitral Award through an “interim application”, after it had survived challenges under Section 34 and Section 37 of the Act as also under Article 136 of the Constitution of India; r) Such adjournment of the matter sine die effected on April 8, 2022 was brought to the attention of the Learned Single Judge who was then conducting the execution proceedings. By an order dated June 9, 2023, the Learned Signal Judge (Manish Pitale, J.) had, among others, the following to say:
6. The attention of this Court is invited to clause 18 of the retirement cum partnership deed dated 12/10/1998, which was also noticed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the aforementioned order dated 13/10/2021 and it was submitted that upon the demise of father of the applicants, by operation of the said clause, they automatically stood inducted as partners and yet they are still waiting for appropriate document to be executed for them to be inducted as partners. Thus, despite the fact that award was pronounced in their favour as far back on 20/1/2018, which stood confirmed upto the Supreme Court by dismissal of the SLP on 9/9/2021, the document has not been executed.
11. The record shows that before the Prothonotary and Senior Master of this Court, objections were raised on behalf of the said respondents and eventually, the Prothonotary and Senior Master was constrained to pass the order dated 8/4/2022 adjourning the proceedings sine die. The manner in which the respondent No.2 has been pursuing the proceedings in the present case, this Court has gathered an impression that no stone has been left unturned to delay and postpone implementation of the directions of this Court. The said award was passed, as far back on 20/1/2018, which was eventually confirmed by the Supreme Court in SLP on 9/9/2021 and yet the partnership deed has not been executed as per the directions given in the award.
12. This Court has perused clause 18 of the retirement cum partnership deed dated 12/10/1998. It clearly provides for applicants, as heirs of the deceased partner, to be automatically inducted as partners in the partnership firm, that has been affirmed by the award passed in their favour, which has admittedly attained finality.
17. The Prothonotary and Senior Master is directed to forthwith execute the partnership deed in terms of the schedule of changes proposed in the compilation of documents, which has been taken on record. The necessary steps be taken by the Prothonotary and Senior Master of this Court within one week from today. The application stands disposed of. s) This order dated June 9, 2023 passed by the Learned Single Judge was challenged in appeal which came up before another Learned Division Bench (Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Arif Doctor JJ). It had been argued by Dr. Warunjikar before this Learned Division Bench that there had been “no tearing urgency” to execute a new partnership deed to give effect to the Arbitral Award and it could await the outcome in the review petition that had been filed in relation to the earlier order dated October 13, 2021. Notably this was nearly two years after the event, when the direction to the Court Receiver to take possession had been physically frustrated. Mr. Quraishy had argued that this was yet another attempt to further delay and frustrate the Bose Siblings from getting their rightful due despite succeeding all the way to the Supreme Court. The Learned Division Bench found Gaonkar’s contentions “plainly untenable”. It was noted that the pendency of the review petition was irrelevant and although filed two years ago, no steps had been taken by Gaonkar to even serve the same on the Bose Siblings or to move the Court to hear the review petition. In short, Gaonkar had granted herself a stay; t) The Learned Division Bench explicitly ruled that the review petition appeared to be “nothing more than an attempt to defeat and / or delay the execution / implementation of the [Arbitral] Award that had attained finality especially since the same [the review petition] is based upon a purported termination” which Dr. Warunjikar fairly conceded had been withdrawn. The Learned Division Bench found it necessary to explicitly point to Paragraph 11 of the of the Learned Single Judge’s order under appeal (also extracted above) to hold that Gaonkar was leaving no stone unturned to delay and postpone implementing the Arbitral Award, and that such conduct “cannot be permitted”; u) This was but yet another bench of this Court making yet another strong iteration against Gaonkar’s conduct but it was of no consequence to the Bose Siblings. The Arbitral Award remained and has remained till date, unimplemented. The direction of the Learned Single Judge having been upheld, the Prothonotary and Senior Master of this Court executed the Partnership Deed to implement the Arbitral Award on June 14, 2023. Gaonkar and Nitin did not execute the Partnership Deed on their own and they were bound by it by reason of the Prothonotary and Senior Master having been directed to execute the same; v) Saikrupa is now governed by this Partnership Deed. By an order dated July 12, 2023, the Learned Single Judge (Manish Pitale J.) directed that the Registrar of Firms, Bandra would accept the Partnership Deed executed on behalf of the Respondents by the Prothonotary and Senior Master and register the same. This completed the full, substantive and formal completion of giving full legal effect to implementing the Arbitral Award by way of recording the title of the Bose Siblings to their 25% interest in Saikrupa and its business. This too would be of no avail by reason of subsequent conduct of Gaonkar; w) On July 12, 2023, the Learned Single Judge also noted that the deposit of the amounts referred to in the arbitration had not been paid. Consequently, both Gaonkar and Nitin were directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 5,60,625/- each, which was 50% of the amount of Rs. 11,21,250/- which would flow from the Arbitral Award as of January 20, 2018. The taking over of physical possession of Saikrupa’s store was deferred to after assessing compliance with the aforesaid directions to deposit issued to the Respondents; x) It is common ground that Gaonkar has made the deposit of the princely sum of Rs. 5,60,625/-. Nitin has not even made such deposit. It is equally writ large on the face of the record that this deposit simply related to the position obtaining seven years ago, i.e., as of 2018, when the Arbitral Award was passed. Nothing with this deposit would be any relevance towards the rights owed to the Petitioners by the Respondents after such date, which is the direct outcome of the Arbitral Award – all entitlements to the 25% ownership and its enjoyment. This was frustrated by Gaonkar by opening separate accounts for receipts of earnings of Saikrupa. Such facts are borne out by subsequent orders of another Learned Single Judge conducting the execution proceedings, as also the financial statements of Saikrupa that I had called for in the course of hearing the captioned Petition; y) It is against the aforesaid backdrop of frustration of rights and the cynical violation that the Bose Siblings had, by a letter dated September 20, 2024, indicated to the Respondents that Saikrupa is a partnership at will and that they are now desirous of dissolving the firm. They demanded accounts so that their interests in the firm, the goodwill and in the tenancy rights to the property where Saikrupa was carrying on its business (and Gaonkar is explicitly recorded in the Partnership Deed as having no interest) are crystallised. They were desirous of dissolving the firm and moving on, having found that winning all the way to the Supreme Court still meant nothing to be able to get their due from the Respondents; z) The said letter dated September 20, 2024 met with a response dated October 3, 2024, claiming that Gaonkar had not received a copy of the Partnership Deed, thereby indicating as if she was unaware of which partnership firm was being dissolved and what right the Petitioners would have to dissolve the firm. It is another matter that Gaonkar was an integral party to all the proceedings in the run up to the execution of the Partnership Deed, and despite her ability to have the Prothonotary and Senior Master to adjourn the matter sine die; and despite the Learned Single Judge having to force the execution of the Partnership Deed, she was unaware of the Partnership Deed. Be that as it may, the Partnership Deed was provided by the Bose Siblings to Gaonkar by a letter dated November 19, 2024, which also explicitly reiterated the fact that the Bose Siblings were desirous of dissolving the firm citing Clause 3 of the Partnership Deed at will; and aa) Gaonkar’s response to this letter is again indicative of the manner in which Gaonkar has conducted herself in the matter. The reply dated December 10, 2024 threatened the Bose Siblings with “appropriate legal action” if they did not withdraw the notice of dissolution communicated by the letters dated September 20, 2024, and November 19, 2024. The letter treated the two notices like pleadings, and narrated a para-wise contention against each paragraph, without addressing how a partnership at will could not be dissolved. It may be recalled that Dr. Warunjikar had asserted to the execution court on behalf of Gaonkar (when Nitin had purported to terminate the partnership earlier) that the firm stood dissolved and nothing could be done about it, but when the Bose Siblings who had a legitimate right to dissolve the firm took action as per their entitlement to do so, they were issued a threat of “appropriate legal action” if they did not withdraw their dissolution notices. Prayers in this Section 9 Petition:
11. The plight of the Bose Siblings has remained unchanged since the time they lost their father. In the run up to the final hearing of this matter, further developments took place and I shall advert to them shortly. Gaonkar’s reaction to the dissolution notices has led to the filing of the captioned Section 9 Petition, which seeks the following reliefs:
Petitioners and Respondents, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to restrain, by way of an order of injunction, the Respondents, their agent, employees, representative, or anyone claiming through or under them, from dealing in any manner with the property, assets, stock in trade, books of accounts, or monies of the Partnership Firm being M/s Saikrupa Medical and General stores, with its registered address at Shop no. 17, Mawawala Building Opposite K.E.M. Hospital, Dr. Borges Road, Parel Mumbai 400 012.
Petitioners and Respondents, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to appoint a receiver with all powers under Order XL Rule 1 to take physical possession of the property, assets, stock in trade and books of accounts of the Partnership Firm being M/s Saikrupa Medical and General stores, with its registered address at Shop no. 17, Mawawala Building Opposite K.E.M. Hospital, Dr. Borges Road, Parel Mumbai 400 012.
Petitioners and Respondents, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to appoint the Petitioners as agents of the Court Receiver in respect of the property, assets, stock in trade and books of accounts of the Partnership Firm being M/s Saikrupa Medical and General stores.
Petitioners and Respondents, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 1 to furnish to the Petitioners the details of all assets, books of accounts, bank account statements, and stock in trade of the Partnership Firm being M/s Saikrupa Medical and General stores from 2002 till date including the accounts of the Respondent No. 1 in view of the fact that she has been misappropriating cash and is using her personal UPI ID and linked bank account for accepting payments due to the Firm.
12. It is trite law that pursuant to Article 141 of the Constitution of India, a declaration of the law by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts. I do not intend to invoke the doctrine of precedent or to embark upon an exposition of what constitutes a precedent. However, what is clear in the instant case is that the Arbitral Award constitutes a declaration of the law and its effect in the facts of the case – that the Violative Deed was void ab initio and the Bose Siblings are partners of Saikrupa upon the death of Tapan. The Arbitral Award is a declaration of the law insofar as the interpretation of the Arbitral Award is concerned in the eyes of the law. It has been upheld through the hierarchy of challenges all the way to the Supreme Court. Once the Supreme Court has decided that there is no merit in interfering with the concurrent findings in the Arbitral Award, the Single Judge decision and the Division Bench decision, it would follow that a litigant is entitled to enforcement of what has been held in his favour. Terms of the Partnership Deed:
13. A perusal of the Partnership Deed would show that all other terms and conditions of the Original Deed dated October 12, 1998 have truly remained intact and the only change was to import the Petitioners into their ownership interest of 25%.
14. Specifically, Clause 3, which made it clear that the duration of partnership would be at will was continued. The ownership of the Bose Siblings is divided at 12.5% each, to inherit the 25% held by Tapan until his death on February 2, 2002. Clause 7 which show the ownership interests are further clarified by recording that the Bose Siblings would not be liable in respect of any debt or expense or liability incurred by Saikrupa in their absence until the date of execution of the new Partnership Deed, namely, for June 14, 2023.
15. Clause 10 of the Partnership Deed requires the books relating to the business of the partnership to be properly maintained. Every single partner has a right to inspect the books of account, either by himself or through his agent and take any extracts therefrom. Clause 11 of the Partnership Deed requires every partner to be just and faithful to the others in all transactions relating to the partnership and work towards the betterment of the partnership business. Clause 12 of the Partnership Deed permits every partner to withdraw against his share of profits such as may be mutually agreed between the parties. This clause would be relevant when this judgement later discusses the withdrawals from the firm, primarily made by Gaonkar even while the Bose Siblings are not even depicted as partners.
16. Clause 13 of the Partnership Deed provides that every partner shall be just and faithful to the other partners and at all times give to the others full information and truthful explanation of the Partnership Deed. Clause 14 contains the same clause as originally contracted, to deal with death of a partner, namely, that upon death of any partner, the legal heirs of such partners would automatically become partners. More importantly, Clause 16 of the Partnership Deed explicitly provides that all rights in the firm name i.e. Saikrupa, goodwill and tenancy rights shall belong to Nitin and the Bose Siblings, and that Gaonkar will have no rights whatsoever in the firm name, goodwill and tenancy rights.
17. This would become important as would be seen later in this judgement because what has transpired thereafter is diametrically the opposite, which necessitates consideration of the reliefs sought in the captioned Petition. Clause 18 of the Partnership Deed provides that all documents, books and vouchers of the partnership shall remain in possession of the partners and shall be produced as and when necessary before all lawful authorities, including income tax and sales tax, and any other governmental authorities. The partners are required to allow any retiring partner to take notes or copies of the books of the dissolved partnership.
18. The aforesaid conspectus of explicit provisions contracted by the parties would need to be assessed in the course of considering what reliefs must follow in this case. It is noteworthy that the dispute between the parties did not end here. The execution of the Partnership Deed reduced to writing, the entitlements of the Bose Siblings in the ownership and operations of Saikrupa, but that has remained virtually written on water since the ground reality is that such rights reduced to writing have been trampled upon with impunity. Yet, in direct conflict with the Partnership Deed, Gaonkar is running the firm all on her own, using the premises over which she has disclaimed any right in Clause 16 of the Partnership Deed.
19. Despite the various foregoing actions, directions and orders of this Court, the Bose Siblings have no insight whatsoever into the running of the firm. They are deprived of access to Saikrupa and its financials. They are deprived access to the bank accounts of the firm. The QR Codes deployed at the cash till of the firm is evidently linked to personal bank accounts of Gaonkar and Rahul, which would indicate that monies that need to flow into the firm are in fact flowing to the account of Gaonkar behind the back of the other partners. This demonstrates the impunity with which Gaonkar has gone about violating the requirements of the fully-upheld Arbitral Award. For the Bose Siblings, winning the Arbitral Award and having it defended successfully in three rounds of challenge, all the way to the Supreme Court counts for nothing, going by the manner in which the rule of law has been vitiated by Gaonkar’s conduct.
20. Even a plain perusal of the material on record bearing in mind that this Court’s jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Act would need to take note of the Bose Siblings’ plight despite being winners of the Arbitral Award, which has been upheld through three rounds of challenges. A strong prima facie case for dissolution has been made out by the Petitioners, and therefore the question that would follow is what reliefs can be granted to the Petitioners. Directions by this Bench:
21. When the captioned proceedings came up before this Bench, multiple attempts were made by this Bench to give the Respondents a long rope with a view to protect the best interests of Saikrupa in the interregnum, enable insight for the Bose Siblings into the conduct the firm’s operations and financials; and let a working arrangement develop that would abide by the outcome in the arbitration. I must mention that such directions were issued despite the protests of the Petitioners that this Court must not try to continue a relationship which was irreconcilable and was in fact an abusive relationship.
22. However, it was felt that not only would the Court be better informed by the financials that were sought from the Respondents, but also parties would likely have their own commercial best interests in mind to find a working reconciliation or a commercially reasonable and viable means of parting ways.
23. By an order dated March 27, 2025, I had directed that the tax audit reports and certificate since 2018-19 be brought on record. An affidavit in compliance with this direction was filed on May 3, 2025. Thereafter, on May 8, 2025, this Court directed Gaonkar to open a joint bank account with one of the Bose Siblings, along with attendant directions. No compliance with that order is seen till date. In fact, an Appeal was filed challenging the said order before the Learned Division Bench but was dismissed by the Learned Division Bench on June 19, 2025.
24. Thereafter, on June 23, 2025, this Bench, having seen the conduct of the parties as outlined above, and having rescheduled the hearing twice to accommodate Dr. Warunjikar, Learned Counsel for Gaonkar, refused to accommodate further and heard the advocates on record present, and directed the Court Receiver to take physical possession of the medical store on June 30, 2025. Gaonkar preferred an appeal before the Learned Division Bench challenging the said order dated June 23, 2025. A commitment was made by Gaonkar to the Learned Division Bench that Gaonkar’s advocates would address this Court on the Section 9 Petition on a fixed date, and the petition may be heard finally. Pending the same, the Court Receiver’s taking of physical possession was deferred. Tax Audit Papers:
25. I have perused the tax audit reports of Saikrupa for the five years as filed by Gaonkar in response to the direction issued on March 27, 2025. A plain reading of the same would show the following salient features (I have refrained from a prolix reproduction and copious extracts): A) Year after year, even after the Arbitral Award, the Bose Siblings are not even depicted as partners of Saikrupa in the financial statement of the firm and in the tax returns. There is a blatant violation of the Partnership Deed and the Arbitral Award which has been upheld all the way to the Supreme Court. Despite the Partnership Deed having been executed in 2023 and despite the despite three rounds of challenges to the Arbitral Award of January 20, 2018 having failed, there is not a whisper of the Bose Siblings’ ownership of 25% in the books of accounts and in the tax returns; B) Gaonkar has been paid significant sums towards interest on capital and remuneration every year. Indeed, Gaonkar has also been making significant withdrawals of funds from the capital account of the firm; C) The statutory auditor who has audited the accounts appears to have either been given no knowledge of the legal position governing the ownership of Saikrupa, or has joined hands with the Respondents to continue to provide audit certifications confirming that the books of accounts are true and fair, making no record or disclosure of the Bose Siblings’ ownership interests in Saikrupa and its business operations; D) Significant salaries are paid from the books of Saikrupa, including salaries to Rahul (who was incidentally responsible for frustrating the Court Receiver's attempt to implement the orders of this Court by taking possession of Saikrupa); E) The withdrawals of capital and drawings by Gaonkar in 2019-20 is to the tune of Rs. 23 Lakhs; Rs. 10.[5] Lakhs in 2021-22; and Rs. 4.[5] Lakhs in 2022-23. However, from the financial statements brought on record by Gaonkar pursuant to directions of this Court, it is evident that from the financial year 2022-23 (Assessment Year: 2023-24), Gaonkar's capital account in the Balance Sheet would show entries which would effectively fall under operations and ought to be routed through the profit and loss account. Instead, these entries are routed through the capital account. Thereby, Gaonkar has prima facie deflated the figures for turnover and profits – this coincides with the Prothonotary and Senior Master having executed the Partnership Deed on her behalf in implementation of the execution court’s directions; F) The entries seen in the capital account in the balance sheet, in departure from similar operational entries in the profit and loss account in the earlier years includes receipts from Rahul for “sale of medicines”. For example, Rs.25.89 Lakhs are said to have been received into Gaonkar's capital account. So also another Rs.65.05 Lakhs are shown as sales amount received on behalf of Saikrupa by Gaonkar; G) Likewise, expenditure such as salary payments are also routed through the capital account in the balance sheet. So also expenses which would ordinarily be borne by the firm in its profit and loss account are routed through Gaonkar's capital account. For example, GST payments, professional tax payments, TDS on professional fees and salaries, including to various employees and also to Rahul Gaonkar are routed through the capital account of Gaonkar; H) The aforesaid listing is not meant to be an exhaustive listing but is purely a bid to record by example, the manner of conduct of Saikrupa by Gaonkar. I am satisfied that what was originally the apprehension of the Petitioners and was considered as a mere allegation is borne out by the material on record, and that too in the affidavit filed by Gaonkar pursuant to the explicit directions of this Court to bring on record the tax audit certificates for each of the years after the Arbitral Award was passed in favour of the Bose Siblings; I) Significant salary payments to the tune of close to Rs. 18 to 20 Lakhs continue year on year. The breakup of the salary payments is seen in multiple names, which could well be employees, although Dr. Warunjikar has repeatedly said that the store is a very tiny one and is literally like a hole-in-the-wall shop across K.E.M. Hospital. The contention was that merely because it is located across K.E.M. Hospital, this Court should not form an impression that it would have a robust top line and a significant bottom line. J) In sharp contrast, the movement of accounting entries that belong to the profit and loss account but are moved through Gaonkar’s capital account would have the effect of under stating the income and profits. The movement of receipts and expenditure directly in Gaonkar’s capital account would show that monies were indeed being received outside the firm’s profit and loss account and by routing them through the capital account, the real commercial income and profits would be masked and depressed; K) This would evidently show that the allegation by the Petitioners all along that monies were being received in bank accounts not belonging to the firm have prima facie been actually borne out and that such conduct is apparently part of the demonstrable record in the audited financials and the tax returns filed on behalf of Saikrupa; L) Rahul receives a salary in the sum of Rs. 2.40 Lakhs per annum. On its own, this is not a significant - merely Rs. 20,000 per month but the fact remains that Gaonkar, who has no interest in the firm name, goodwill or tenancy rights of the firm, is literally running the firm and pays her own son a monthly salary even while depriving the Bose Siblings their rightful share, despite their legitimate rights as partners having been declared in the finally upheld Arbitral Award receive nothing; and M) In 2023-24 too the same picture of revenue generation is indicated through the capital account of Gaonkar instead of the profit and loss account of Saikrupa. A similar receipt of Rs. ~20 lakhs from Rahul for a purported sale of medicine and the sales amount on behalf of Saikrupa for Rs. ~86.03 lakhs is routed through Gaonkar’s capital account. The total sum in this regard is about Rs. 1.07 Crores. This could show that the business of Saikrupa has indeed grown but what should have been an additional revenue of Rs. 1.07 Crores in the turnover of the firm recorded in the profit and loss account, has been manipulated by routing it through the balance sheet, thereby depriving the Bose Siblings of their legitimate dues.
26. The aforesaid points are not meant to be exhaustive at all. They are certain prima facie findings that would underline the need to ensure that the Bose Siblings are protected pending arbitration proceedings. Evidently, the conduct of Gaonkar is so gross that it would call for a forensic audit into the conduct of the affairs of the firm, with particular focus on the financials after Gaonkar became aware of the Bose Siblings’ entitlement to 25% share in the business of the firm.
27. Be that as it may, the Petitioners are fully entitled to and justified in seeking to dissolve the firm. Considering the demonstrated history and the track record of the Respondents, no case is made out for any consideration of further attempts to put in place any interlocutory arrangements that furthers the conduct of Saikrupa’s operations pending conduct of arbitration proceedings. The Bose Siblings stand in a very vulnerable position and continued permission to run the store could lead to false liabilities being foisted on them in their capacity as partners in the firm.
28. When Dr. Warunjikar was asked how such conduct could be defended, his submission essentially was that purely as a matter of law, and regardless of the conduct by Gaonkar, the firm and its business were custodia legis since a Court Receiver already has symbolic possession of the same in the execution proceedings. He would submit that if the firm is already in the custody of the Court Receiver, among others, Gaonkar too is a beneficiary of such custody. Based on that proposition, he would further submit that the prayers in the Section 9 Petition are a replica of the prayers in the execution proceedings, and therefore, this is a second bite at the cherry for execution.
29. I am unable to agree with such completely untenable propositions made on behalf of Gaonkar. The proceedings related to executing the Arbitral Award after it had survived multiple challenges. That Arbitral Award gave the Petitioners entry into the firm with an interest of 25%. Despite such position and despite this Court being seized of the matter with a Court Receiver being in symbolic possession of the firm, the disrespect for the rule of law on the part of Gaonkar and the sheer cynicism with which legal proceedings have been approached, is evident by a mere reading of the outline set out above. This Petition is not for the execution of the Arbitral Award. That is the subject matter of the execution proceedings. This Petition is a Section 9 Petition seeking interim reliefs to protect the firm pending dissolution of Saikrupa, going by the actual conduct of Gaonkar and Nitin.
30. It is the dissolution of the firm which forms subject matter of the dispute between the parties in this round and it is not the same as the execution proceedings to enforce the Arbitral Award. In fact, Dr. Warunjikar has contended that Gaonkar is compliant with the direction to deposit in relation to execution of the Arbitral Award. This Petition, the reliefs from which, are already extracted above, pursue a totally different cause of action.
31. It was also sought to be argued by Dr. Warunjikar on behalf of Gaonkar that the QR Code referred to in the prayers in the Section 9 Petition is the same as the QR Code in the execution proceedings. Even a plain perusal of the two, would show that these are different. Evidently, yet another Learned Single Judge had also directed Gaonkar to bring on record the bank statements relating to accounts linked to two QR Codes. These are totally different from what is covered by this Petition, which relates to the their known QR Code.
32. The sales routed through the extraordinary entries in Gaonkar’s capital account are to the tune of Rs.[1] Crore in just one year. There are evidently different bank accounts through which the premises have been used to run the same business of the same store. Clause 18 of the Partnership Deed makes it abundantly clear that Gaonkar has no interest whatsoever in the goodwill, the firm name, and in the tenancy rights enjoyed in the said premises. The various clauses dealing with the obligation to be truthful and fair to the other partners and the requirement to part with financial information, have all been vitiated. Consequently, with such contumacious conduct as outlined above, and since Saikrupa is a partnership determinable at will, it would not be appropriate to allow Gaonkar to continue in the premises.
33. Grave and irreparable injury has already been occasioned to the Petitioners as is seen from the outline above that despite winning the Arbitral Award on January 20, 2018 and despite a new Partnership Deed being executed under the directions of this Court on June 14, 2023, the Bose Siblings, the offspring of Tapan who died way back on February 2, 2002, have not got a farthing from the firm in which they own 25%. Of course, a princely sum of over Rs. ~5 Lakhs has been deposited by Gaonkar (even that has not been made by Nitin). However, Rahul, the son of Gaonkar gets Rs.2.40 Lakhs per annum from the finances of the firm. Put differently, a potential future legal heir has better treatment than a legal heir who has a contractual right to become a partner in the firm and to get the fruits of the firm’s earnings. The sheer manner of conduct by the Respondents in the teeth of the administration of the rule of law, profiting from their violative conduct, would show that they would suffer no injury despite reliefs being granted – even if they do suffer some economic detriment, considering the conduct so far, it would not constitute an “injury” that involves any legitimacy of consideration in the eyes of the law.
34. On the contrary, it is the Bose Siblings, who are continuing to suffer grave and irreparable injury. In fact, even the dissolution of Saikrupa would firm up the injury suffered by them and they will have to start from scratch giving up their rights in a going concern of the firm despite having won all the way to the Supreme Court. Therefore, the facet 0f balance of convenience too does not turn the needle in favour of the Respondents. The Respondents have been running the store in whichever manner they like and find convenient regardless of the law. The firm is in any case supposed to be dissolved because it is a partnership at will. In the backdrop of the factual matrix of the firm that has been dissolved, it would only be convenient to let the parties move on with their lives rather than continue in the complete mirage and pretension that their interests are secured by the Court Receiver having possession of the firm and that too in aid of execution proceedings.
35. A plain reading of the narration set out in this judgment would show the entire range and number of judges of this Court, who have had occasion to consider the matter over the last eight years. Despite each one of them having expressed himself in the most stringent of forms possible, the state of affairs as outlined above has continued. This is what calls for a serious look into the matter in which the rule of law is being frustrated and thereby warrants consideration of stringent directions in terms of this Petition, and whether contempt proceedings should be initiated suo moto, even if the Petitioners do not have resources to initiate contempt proceedings. The majesty of law is evidently, prima facie, being undermined and trampled upon by the conduct of the parties as is seen from the record.
36. Evidently, Gaonkar has advised by honed the skill of evading compliance, with self-granted stays pending appeals; continuing noncompliance despite withdrawn appeals, relying on review petitions that are not served or moved; and when faced with an actual execution of a new partnership deed, taking the law into her own hands and routing the firm’s finances through her own personal bank accounts. All of this calls for a firm intervention into the abject and cynical disregard for the rule of law, exposing the Bose Siblings to further vulnerability. The subject matter of the arbitration agreement, which is now the orderly dissolution of the firm can become totally undermined beyond repair. Directions and Order:
37. Therefore, the following order is passed:- A) The Court Receiver shall take physical possession of Saikrupa and the physical premises that it occupies in Parel across K.E.M. Hospital; physically remove whoever is found in the premises; make an inventory of the belongings kept there; and seal the premises; B) The date and time of taking such possession and sealing it is fixed for this Thursday, July 17, 2025 at 12:00 noon. The local police station shall provide full assistance for such physical possession and sealing. This Order shall be served on the local police station with a copy to the Zonal Deputy Commissioner of Police in whose jurisdiction the police station would fall, to enable appropriate assistance to ensure that this time around, the physical possession of the premises is not frustrated. Should the police authorities not assist the Court Receiver in carrying out these directions, they shall be liable for consideration of contempt action; C) An inventory of the belongings kept in the premises shall be prepared and a report shall be prepared by the Court Receiver; D) The properties of the firm shall continue to be custodia legis and shall abide by the outcome in the arbitration proceedings that may need to be initiated in respect of the dissolution of Saikrupa, in aid of which this Section 9 Petition has been filed; E) Once the aforesaid directions are complied with, the Court Receiver shall be entitled to visit the premises under police protection and carry out an inventory of the medicines stored therein. Any medicines that have not expired shall be sold by the Court Receiver without reference to the parties, and with such professional assistance from any doctor as may be necessary; F) The Court Receiver shall appoint a forensic auditor to examine all accounting entries of the firm from the year 2018- 19 till date and file a report for this Court’s consideration. Such forensic audit shall cover the manner in which supplies are procured on behalf of the firm; the manner in which sales are effected; the specific accounts into which sale amount were received by Rahul and Gaonkar, which led to the depiction of the line items titled “sales of medicines” in Gaonkar’s capital account since 2022-23. In this regard, I may also mention that the affidavit in rejoinder seeks to indicate the unbelievable nature of the financial data by wrongly comparing the as total income offered to tax with the total turnover. The taxable income is not the business income, since taxable income involves the amount offered to tax after application of various deductions under tax law. To that extent, the compilation of data set out in a table in the affidavit in rejoinder is erroneous – to the detriment of the Bose Siblings. Before appointment of the forensic auditor, the draft mandate shall be put up for my approval; G) Evidently, the finances of Saikrupa have a robust top line and a robust bottom line, a significant part of which is run through the bank accounts of Rahul and Gaonkar, and for purposes of book keeping is brought into the books through the capital account of Gaonkar (a sub-set of financial statements without touching the profit and loss accounts). This is a facet that shall be specifically considered in the forensic audit of the conduct of the affairs of the firm since 2018-19; H) I am inclined to consider initiating suo moto contempt proceedings in the matter and to consider the specific charges to be framed in this regard. I am inclined to also consider whether the auditor of Saikrupa who has certified the accounts as being true and fair despite the state of legal proceedings, did so with full knowledge of the outcome in the Arbitral Award or whether Gaonkar and Nitin suppressed the same from the auditor. In any case, the auditor ought to have deployed professional skepticism to ask why revenue entries were being moved through the capital account. Towards this end, Gaonkar is directed to file an affidavit within two weeks from the upload of this order on the Court’s website, confirming what management representations were made to the statutory auditor in connection with the ownership of the firm for the ownership of Saikrupa being depicted in the ratio of 50:50 between Nitin and Gaonkar. Such management representations shall be brought on record for further consideration by this Bench and by the arbitral tribunal that would be constituted; I) Each of the tax audit reports also contains an explicit certification from Gaonkar that all amounts receivable by the firm and all amounts expended by the firm have been done only through the bank accounts of the firm. Evidently, the entries to the capital account rely on such certifications as well. The forensic audit would need to examine the manner in which these revenues were made and expenditures were incurred. Towards that end, the bank accounts used by Rahul and Gaonkar for the sale of medicines and incurring of expenditure shall form an integral part of the scope of forensic examination. The statements of such bank accounts shall be delivered by Gaonkar in an affidavit to be filed in this Petition, and the same shall be delivered to the Court Receiver within a period of two weeks from the upload of this order on the Court’s website.
38. It is made clear that at this stage, I am satisfied that no further activity should be carried out from this store until further consideration by the Arbitral Tribunal. Every step taken further without the Bose Siblings being given their 25% ownership share is violative conduct, which has led to the need for dissolution of Saikrupa. If permitted to continue, Gaonkar could wreck the firm and its assets to frustrate the interests of the Bose Siblings.
39. With the aforesaid directions, this Petition is finally disposed of. However, despite disposal, stand over to August 4, 2025 for reporting compliance and consideration of next steps in furtherance of my contemplation of whether suo moto contempt proceedings should be initiated.
40. The Petitioners shall also be required to initiate arbitration proceedings at the earliest, since Section 9 jurisdiction is in aid of arbitration. The Petitioners shall be at liberty to take out such application as may be necessary should there be no response from the Respondent in agreeing upon the identity of the arbitrator. At this stage, tentatively, it is expected that such an application under Section 11 of the Act should be filed at least by September 2, 2025 should the Respondents not consent to an arbitrator’s identity. I have consciously given a long date, considering the length of time for which Respondents have a proven track record of successfully frustrating the interests of the Bose Siblings, and conscious of the resourcefulness of the Respondents in not moving forward, even in the teeth of the Arbitral Award that is upheld all the way of the Supreme Court, and in the teeth of observations by more than ten different learned judges of this Court.
41. With the aforesaid observations and directions, stand over to August 4,
2025.
42. Learned Counsel for Gaonkar makes a request to stay this Judgment for a period of two weeks. The articulation of what has transpired so far, as set out above speaks for itself, and I am not inclined to grant this request.
43. All actions required to be taken pursuant to this order, shall be taken upon receipt of a downloaded copy as available on this Court’s website. [ SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.]