Bank Of India vs S.M Kamal Pasha
- Court
- Supreme Court
2026 INSC 1154
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVILL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No.12045 of 2026
BANK OF INDIA & ORS.
…. APPELLANTS
Versus
S.M. KAMAL PASHA & ORS.
…. RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
Whether the Committee of Creditors (CoC), after
approving the Resolution Plan by a majority, as provided under
the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), can seek
withdrawal of the same before the Adjudicating Authority (AA),
the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT); on grounds of delay,
not attributable to the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) but
on the plea that the financial position of the Corporate Debtor
(CD) has improved considerably, is the vexing question posed.
2. The NCLT allowed the withdrawal filed by the Resolution
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
VISHAL ANAND
Date: 2026.10.26
14:09:35 IST
Reason:
Professional (RP), on it being approved by the CoC unanimously.
The plea taken by the CoC before the NCLT was that the CD’s
Page 1 of 22
Civil Appeal No.12045 of 2026
financial position having improved in the ensuing years, when the
RP was in management, the SRA would have a windfall gain in
having to bring in a lot less than that stipulated in the Resolution
Plan. The erstwhile promotors of the CD, their holding company,
also support the withdrawal of the Resolution Plan; but on
different grounds with a different consequence. They seek that
the CIRP process itself be abandoned since they are willing to
offer a One-Time Settlement (OTS) to the creditors. The members
of the CoC along with the RP seeks for issuance of a fresh Form-
G; a new invitation of Expression of Interest (EoI). The SRA
opposes both prayers referring to the binding nature of the
Resolution Plan, insofar as the CoC and the SRA are concerned.
3. The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT)
found the withdrawal application to be in violation of the
provisions of the IBC, especially referring to Ebix Singapore (P)
Ltd. v. Committee of Creditors of Educomp Solutions Ltd. and
1
Another and State Bank of India and Others v. Consortium of
2
Murari Lal Jalan and Florian Fritsch and Another . The NCLAT
held that the CoC has no jurisdiction to decide on withdrawal of
1
(2022) 2 SCC 401
2
(2025) 4 SCC 354
Page 2 of 22
Civil Appeal No.12045 of 2026
the Resolution Plan. It was found that the earlier proceedings
before this Court; the stay granted in which, occasioned the delay
in implementation of the plan, permitted the appellant therein,
the erstwhile promoter, the holding company to make all such
pleas before the Adjudicating Authority. The NCLAT while
rejecting the application filed by the RP on behalf of the CoC to
withdraw the approval to the Resolution Plan, revived the
application filed by the RP for confirmation of the Resolution Plan;
IA No.1505 of 2021 for consideration by the NCLT. IA No.1679 of
th
2025 filed by the holding company, the 4 respondent herein was
also directed to be considered. The SRA too was permitted to
raise their contentions.
4. The appeal is filed by the members of the CoC, six in
st
number of which the 1 appellant is the applicant under Section 7
of the IBC; the financial creditor, who initiated the CIRP against
st nd
the CD. The 1 and 2 respondents together, as a consortium had
submitted the Resolution Plan, which was approved by the CoC,
rd
the consortium referred to herein as the SRA. The 3 respondent
th
is the RP, and the 4 respondent is the holding company of the
CD.
Page 3 of 22
Civil Appeal No.12045 of 2026
5. The appellants are represented by Mr.Gopal
Sankarnarayan, learned Senior Counsel who points out that the
original proposal in the Resolution Plan was of a resolution
amount of Rs.172.55 crores, when the CD had an opening balance
of Rs.30 crores. However, by the time this Court in the earlier
proceedings dismissed the SLP filed by the erstwhile promoter,
the opening balance has risen up to Rs.165 crores; which confers
a windfall gain on the SRA. Since the fresh infusion of funds by the
SRA would be considerably reduced, according to him, this
would violate the governing principles of CIRP, under the IBC,
which is the maximization of value of the assets of the CD inter alia
inuring to the benefit of the creditors. Here, the creditors would
be benefited if the Resolution Plan is withdrawn, since they would
also be entitled to much more than that offered in the haircut by
the Resolution Plan. At the time of submission of the Resolution
Plan and its approval by the CoC, the CD’s financial position was
tottering since its business of toll collection in the National
Highway 45 had taken a beating due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
It is trite that the commercial wisdom of the CoC is given primacy
under the IBC and this is a fit case where the Resolution Plan
Page 4 of 22
Civil Appeal No.12045 of 2026
should be withdrawn. Reliance is also placed on Kalyani Transco
3
v. Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd. to canvass the proposition that the
CoC’s existence does not end with the approval of the plan and
survives throughout the implementation, till the disbursals as per
the plans are fructified.
6. Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the SRA, on the other hand, heavily relied on the judgment in Ebix
1
Singapore (P) Ltd. to contend that the CoC is bound by the
approval granted of the Resolution Plan and neither can the SRA
wriggle out of its obligation, for reason of the CD’s financial
position having further deteriorated nor can the CoC withdraw
from its commitment to abide by an approved Resolution Plan, for
reason of the financial position of the CD having improved. It is
pointed out that the improvement in the financial position was
already contemplated in the Resolution Plan, and in any event, if
the SRA was handed over the CD, within the timelines provided
under the IBC, the revenue generated would have gone into the
coffers of the SRA without any additional benefit being conferred
on the members of the CoC. The CoC’s request would go against
3
(2026) 6 SCC 431
Page 5 of 22
Civil Appeal No.12045 of 2026
the basic principles enshrined in IBC and any permission granted
for withdrawal of the approved Resolution Plan, at the behest of
the CoC would result in shifting stances by the financial creditors
only looking at a better settlement; which cannot necessarily be
said to be an expression of commercial wisdom.
7. Mr. Nikhhil Nayyar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
th
the 4 respondent, the holding company and the sole promotor
of the CD points out that if the sanctioned OTS, as affirmed by the
CoC is implemented, then everybody would gain and, in that
circumstance, the CIRP itself can be closed and the CD on its
revival would remain a profitable cash surplus going concern. In
fact, the submission is that the Company’s present financial
position not only supports its exit from the CIRP but there is also
a feasible alternative of discharging the admitted creditors’
balance in full, in addition to the OTS. This Court, in the earlier
round had specifically directed consideration of the holding
company’s request, which is now before the NCLT by IA No.1679
of 2025.
1
8. Ebix Singapore (P) Ltd. considered the request of three
SRAs in three different CIRPs. The appeal by Ebix dealt with the
Page 6 of 22
Civil Appeal No.12045 of 2026
withdrawal sought for by the SRA on the ground of investigation
initiated against the misconduct in the affairs of Educomp, the CD,
prior to the commencement of the CIRP. It was found that the SRA
would be immune from any prosecution or punishment and the
contention that it is placed in a prejudicial position due to the
investigation into the affairs of the CD by CBI and the SFIO, was
merely a red herring. Insofar as the Seroco’s appeal is concerned,
the contention of frustration of contract due to the economic
slowdown, impacting the value of assets, was rejected on the
ground of common law remedies not being available to render
the Resolution Plan voidable on account of frustration, force
majeure , or other such instances. However, in the Kundan Care’s
appeal since both the Resolution Applicant and the CoC together
requested for modification of the Resolution Plan because of the
uncertainty over the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA), cleared
by the decision of this Court, a one-time relief under Article 142
of the Constitution was provided. The SRA, in this case
specifically argues against the invocation of Article 142 on the
facts of this case.
Page 7 of 22
Civil Appeal No.12045 of 2026
1
9. Ebix Singapore (P) Ltd. considered three stages, on an
overview of the CIRP procedures; the first, prior to and ending
with the approval of the Resolution Plan by the CoC; the second,
the interim period between the approval of the CoC and the
confirmation by the Adjudicating Authority; and the third, after
the Adjudicating Authority approves the Resolution Plan. Therein
the period which came up for consideration was the second stage
as is the situation in the present case, i.e. between the approval
of the CoC and confirmation by the NCLT. Elaborately
considering the source of the binding nature of the Resolution
Plan; whether it be the IBC or the law of contracts, it was held as
under: -
113……
In the pure contractual realm, an agreement binds parties
who are privy to the contract. In the context of a resolution
plan governed by IBC, the element of privity becomes
inapplicable once the adjudicating authority confirms the
resolution plan under Section 31(1) and declares it to be
binding on all stakeholders, who are not a part of the
negotiation stage or parties to the resolution plan. In fact, a
commentator has noted that the purpose of Bankruptcy law is
to actually solve a specific “contracting failure” that
accompanies financial distress……
It was also held that: -
115….
Page 8 of 22
Civil Appeal No.12045 of 2026
…….the resolution plan even prior to the approval of the
adjudicating authority is binding inter se the CoC and the
successful resolution applicant. The resolution plan cannot be
construed purely as a “contract” governed by the Contract
Act, in the period intervening its acceptance by the CoC and
the approval of the adjudicating authority. Even at that stage,
its binding effects are produced by IBC framework.
10. It was categorically held, ‘that ability of the Resolution Plan
to bind those who have not consented to it, by way of a statutory
procedure, indicates that it is not a typical contract’. Dilating upon
Section 30(4) which requires only 66% vote for an approval of the
Resolution Plan, it was noticed that even the dissenting creditors
are bound by the Resolution Plan, by virtue of the statutory
provisions. It was held that:
112….
…. Other elements governing the resolution plan indicate that
the entire process from initiation and leading up to its
acceptance by the CoC takes place within the framework of
IBC. In addition, IBC provides penalties for non-compliance
with the resolution plan after its approval under Section 31
and forfeiture of the PBG for failing to implement the
resolution plan or contributing to the failure of its
implementation. The violation of the terms of the resolution
plan does not give rise to a claim of damages, rather it leads
to prosecution and imposition of punishment under Section 74
IBC. On the contrary, a CoC's withdrawal of the CIRP under
Section 12-A is coupled with a requirement of payment of
CIRP costs, but no damages are statutorily payable to the
Page 9 of 22
Civil Appeal No.12045 of 2026
resolution applicant, irrespective of the stage of the
withdrawal.
It was categorically held that: -
116….
….The binding effect of the resolution plan has the
consequence of preventing the CoC or the resolution
applicant to renege from its terms after the plan has been
approved by the CoC through a voting mechanism……
11. Reference was also made to Section 12A and Regulation 30A
and it was held so: -
131…
….. Further, in the event that the CoC enters into a settlement
with the corporate debtor and withdraws from the CIRP under
Section 12-A, Regulation 30-A provides for only payment of
insolvency costs and not compensation or damages to the
resolution applicant for investing time and money in the
process. The parties may resort to invoking principles of
frustration or force majeure to evade implementation of the
resolution plan leading to unnecessary litigation. This Court
in Amtek Auto [Amtek Auto Ltd. (CoC) v. Dinkar T.
(2021 )4 SCC 457
Venkatasubramanian , had curbed a similar
attempt by a successful resolution applicant who had relied
on a force majeure clause in its resolution plan to seek a
direction compelling the CoC to negotiate a modification to
its resolution plan. The Court held that there was no scope for
negotiations between the parties once the resolution plan has
been approved by the CoC.
12. It is apposite also to refer to paragraph 156.2 which is
extracted herein: -
Page 10 of 22
Civil Appeal No.12045 of 2026
156.2. In Uttara Foods [Uttara Foods & Feeds (P) Ltd. v. Mona
(2018) 15 SCC 587
Pharmachem , this Court had granted a one-time
relief under Article 142 of the Constitution since all the parties
were present before it and had presented it with signed
consent terms. This course of action, in refraining from the
exercise of inherent powers to effect procedures and
remedies that were not specifically envisaged by the statute,
was explicitly affirmed by the Insolvency Law Committee
Report dated March 2018 [ Pages 5 and 101, Report of the
Insolvency Law Committee, Ministry of Corporate Affairs
(March 2018) available at
<https://ibbi.gov.in/uploads/resources/ILRReport2603_0304
2018.pdf> last accessed 20-8-2021.] which proceeded to
suggest amendments to IBC and recommended a ninety per
cent voting threshold by the CoC for withdrawals of a CIRP
and a specific amendment to Rule 8 of the then existing CIRP
Rules to enable parties to file such applications. This report
led to the insertion of Section 12-A which vested the CoC with
the power to withdraw the CIRP or vote on such withdrawal, if
sought by the corporate debtor. This provision was
introduced with retrospective effect on 6-6-2018.
Significantly, no such exit routes have been contemplated for
the resolution applicant. It is relevant to note that the newly
inserted and then unamended Regulation 30-A (w.e.f. 4-7-
2018) of the CIRP Regulations stipulated that withdrawal
under Section 12-A can be allowed through submitting an
application to the IRP or RP (as the case may be) before the
invitation for EoI is issued to the public. The CoC was to
consider the application within seven days of its constitution
and an approval for such application required approval of the
ninety per cent of the voting share of the CoC.
1
13. As has been reiterated in Ebix Singapore (P). Ltd. based
on the binding precedents of this Court, the Adjudicating
Page 11 of 22
Civil Appeal No.12045 of 2026
Authority, the NCLT, cannot second guess the commercial
wisdom of the parties or direct unilateral modification to the
Resolution Plan. When there is no clear legal provision, by a
process of interpretation, no power can be conferred on the
Adjudicating Authority to direct an unwilling CoC to renegotiate
a submitted Resolution Plan or agree to its withdrawal at the
behest of the Resolution Applicant. The direction to re-consider
has to be only to ensure compliance under Section 30(2) IBC,
before exercising its powers of approval or rejection under
Section 31 was the categoric finding.
1
14. We have to observe that Ebix Singapore (P) Ltd. though
was in the specific context of withdrawal/modification sought of
the approved Resolution Plan, by the SRA, which approval was
placed before the Adjudicating Authority for confirmation, the
dictum applies squarely to the CoC too. It was also noticed in
paragraph 223 that, ‘ the existing insolvency framework in India
provides no scope for effecting further modifications or withdrawals
of CoC-approved resolution plans, at the behest of the successful
resolution applicant’ (sic) nor does it provide such a framework at
the behest of the CoC.
Page 12 of 22
Civil Appeal No.12045 of 2026
15. Section 12-A introduced with retrospective effect, on the
face of it, read alone, gives a carte blanche to the applicant, with
approval of 90% voting share of the CoC to seek withdrawal of an
application. Regulation 30-A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy
Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate
Persons) Regulations, 2016 incorporated simultaneous to Section
12A, seemingly restricts the power to withdraw, permitting it
only; before the constitution of the CoC, through the IRP or, after
the constitution of the CoC, thorough the IRP or the RP, as the case
may be. The proviso also makes it abundantly clear that if an
application is made under Clause (b) after the issue of invitation
for EoI under Regulation 36A, the applicant shall state the reasons
justifying withdrawal after issuance of such invitation.
Inferentially cannot be deemed to be a curtailment of the power
under Section 12-A, which in any case is not within the domain of
the rule making authority.
4
16. Glas Trust Company LLC v. Byju Raveendran & Others ,
held that, with the introduction of Section 12-A and Regulation 30-
A an exhaustive procedure is laid down for withdrawal of
4
(2024) SCC Online 3032
Page 13 of 22
Civil Appeal No.12045 of 2026
applications under Sections 7/9/10 which could be sought for at
four stages; (i) before admission of the application, where the
applicant could directly approach the AA, then, (ii) after
admission and before the CoC is constituted, when the
application to withdraw has to be filed through the IRP and again,
(iii) after the CoC is constituted and before the EoI is received,
through the IRP or the RP and finally, (iv) after the EoI is received,
with the same procedure as at the third instance, however with
sufficient reasons for having moved at that belated stage. But the
question still remains as to whether the remedy would remain
alive after the CoC approves the resolution plan.
17. The legislative scheme does not permit Section 12-A to be
read in isolation. Section 31 with the nominal heading, ‘Approval
of Resolution Plan’ postulates the satisfaction of the Adjudicating
Authority, as to the Resolution Plan approved by the CoC under
Section 30(4), meeting the requirements of sub-section (2) of
Section 30. Sub-section (2) of Section 30 ensures that the IRP cost
is paid in priority to the other debts of the CD in the manner
specified by the Board and more importantly, that the creditors of
the CD obtain the higher of the amounts, as indicated in sub-
Page 14 of 22
Civil Appeal No.12045 of 2026
clauses (i) and (ii). That is; either the amount to be paid under
Section 53 to the creditors in the event of liquidation or the amount
specified for distribution under the Resolution Plan in accordance
with the order of priority in sub-section (1) of Section 53;
whichever is higher. Read together, we are of the opinion that the
withdrawal of an application can only be till the CoC approves the
plan and after it is placed before the Adjudicating Authority, there
can be no withdrawal either of the application or the approved
Resolution Plan.
18. We cannot also but notice Explanation I to Section 30 (2),
which clearly requires that there should be a fair and equitable
distribution to the creditors in accordance with the provisions of
this clause which also is a question to be considered while the
confirmation of an approved plan is taken up and decided by the
Adjudicating Authority, the NCLT. We would further buttress this
position with a reference to Explanation II to Section 30 which
stipulates that the provisions of sub-section (2) brought in by the
IBC (Amendment) Act, 2019 apply to every Resolution Plan which
has not been approved or rejected by the Adjudicating Authority;
which is the situation in the above case.
Page 15 of 22
Civil Appeal No.12045 of 2026
19. In this context we also extract paragraph 224 of Ebix
1
Singapore (P) Ltd. which reckoned the possibility of long
delays:-
224. It would also be sobering for us to recognize that whilst
this Court has declared the position in law to not enable a
withdrawal or modification to a successful Resolution
Applicant after its submission to the Adjudicating Authority,
long delays in approving the resolution plan by the
adjudicating authority affect the subsequent implementation
of the plan. These delays, if systemic and frequent, will have
an undeniable impact on the commercial assessment that the
parties undertake during the course of the negotiation…...
20. Referring to the despondent state of affairs, as revealed
from a Report of the Standing Committee on Finance (2020-21) of
the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, regarding delay in
implementation, it was observed: -
The delays were attributable to: (i) the NCLT taking
considerable time in admitting CIRPs; (ii) late and unsolicited
bids by Resolution Applicants after the original bidder
becomes public upon passage of the deadline for submission
of the Plan; and (iii) multiplicity of litigation and the appellate
process to the NCLAT and the Supreme Court.
Here the delay was occasioned because of the stay granted
by this Court.
Page 16 of 22
Civil Appeal No.12045 of 2026
3
21. Kalyani Transco accepted the proposition that CoC has a
vital interest in the Resolution Plan, and such an interest would
continue till the Resolution Plan is actually implemented, since
only on its implementation payments can be made to the creditors
in accordance with the Resolution Plan. There, one of the
questions raised was the delay in implementation of the
Resolution Plan, as permitted by the CoC, challenged by the
promoter as beyond the ken of the CoC, especially since it had
become functus officio on the plan having been approved by the
AA. This Court specifically noticed Regulation 18 of the
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) (CIRP)
Regulations which by sub-regulation (2) enable the RP to convene
a meeting if he considers it necessary on a request received from
the Members of the Committee representing at least 33% of the
voting rights. While the explanation clarifies that such meetings
may be convened under the sub-regulation till the Resolution Plan
is approved under sub-section (1) of Section 31 or order on
liquidation is passed under Section 33, it also provides a rider that
the decision in such meeting shall not affect the Resolution Plan
submitted before the AA. This was specifically referred, to find
Page 17 of 22
Civil Appeal No.12045 of 2026
that on approval of the Resolution Plan, the CoC does not become
functus officio, and it is empowered to decide all matters, except
matters which affect the Resolution Plan submitted before the AA
( sic-para 109 ). It was also held that the CoC has a vital interest in
the Resolution Plan which interest would continue till the
Resolution Plan stands actually implemented (sic- para 110 ).
3
22. In fact, in Kalyani Transco , the Resolution Plan was
approved by the CoC on 15.10.2018 and the RP submitted it for
approval to the AA on 14.02.2019. However, there were several
impediments in the implementation of the Resolution Plan by the
SRA, which included investigation against the erstwhile
promoters, attachments of the properties of the CD and so on and
so forth. Despite all these on 17.02.2020, the NCLAT approved the
Resolution Plan of the SRA by modifying/clarifying some of the
conditions imposed by the NCLT and later the CoC by a
resolution passed on 26.02.2021 by a majority of 97.25% voters
provided that the SRA shall implement the Resolution Plan on or
before 31.03.2021 and the SRA implemented the Resolution Plan
by paying the amounts due to the financial creditors of the CD.
This Court also found that the Resolution Plan by Clause 3.1
Page 18 of 22
Civil Appeal No.12045 of 2026
provided for an effective date, which shall not exceed 30 days
from NCLT approval date or such extended period, which may be
permitted by 66% majority of the lenders forming part of the CoC.
It was held that Clause 3 of the Resolution Plan neither provided
modification or withdrawal from the Resolution Plan and it was not
an open-ended or indeterminate plan, solely at the discretion of
the resolution applicant. There was neither a provision for
withdrawal or modification of the Resolution Plan nor was any
negotiation emphasized under the said clause. Hence the binding
nature of the Resolution Plan was upheld even in Kalyani
3
Transco and the finding that the CoC continues to exist till the
Resolution Plan is implemented, does not detract from the
essential binding nature of a Resolution Plan, approved by the
CoC.
23. As of now, two applications are pending before the NCLT,
one for the approval of the Resolution Plan and the other filed by
the holding company for implementation of an OTS, thus,
bringing to an end the very CIRP. As has been held in Ebix
1
Singapore (P) Ltd. in considering the said applications, the NCLT
would necessarily have to keep in mind that even under Section
Page 19 of 22
Civil Appeal No.12045 of 2026
12A, if the CoC by a 90% majority consents to withdrawal of the
plan, the consequence is only the payment of CIRP costs by the
CoC. However, the consequences of SRA not implementing an
approved plan would be onerous insofar as forfeiture of PBG and
prosecution under Section 74 of the IBC. In the present case, the
PBG has been furnished by the SRA long back and the same is
being continued with considerable expenses which would not be
defrayed by the provisions of the IBC if no approval is granted to
the Resolution Plan.
24. The compelling contention raised by the appellants is that
the authoritative pronouncements of the NCLT, being disabled
from second guessing the commercial wisdom of the CoC in
approving a plan with 66% majority, squarely applies in the
present instance where the CoC unanimously is in favour of a
fresh Form-G being issued. The ground of feasibility of revival by
itself and the possibility of defeating the very principle of
maximisation of assets of the CD, which is the bedrock of IBC,
requires a consideration by the NCLT. Insofar as the commercial
wisdom, we should also reckon the contention of the SRA that the
financial turnabout for the good, was contemplated even in the
Page 20 of 22
Civil Appeal No.12045 of 2026
Resolution Plan and if the SRA was handed over the CD, the future
generation of income from the operations of the CD, would have
inured to the benefit of the SRA. The SRA’s contention that the CoC
has turned turtle not because of its commercial wisdom but only
due to a shortsighted opportunism revealing institutionalized
rapacity also cannot be ignored.
25. We would not interfere with the impugned order which
though found the CoC to have no jurisdiction to withdraw from its
approval, but all the same directed every contention raised by
the SRA and the CD’s holding company to be considered by the
Adjudicating Authority, while deciding the application filed for
confirmation of the approval of the CoC and the application filed
by the holding company for putting an end to the CIRP itself. The
consideration has to be with a satisfaction entered of the
Resolution Plan meeting the requirements of Section 30(2), as is
mandated by Section 31(1) which shall be after verifying the
financial position of the CD, as of now, together with the cash
balance juxtaposed with the terms of the resolution plan. The
improved profitability alone cannot be a reason to refuse
approval if the Resolution Plan meets the requirements under
Page 21 of 22
Civil Appeal No.12045 of 2026
sub-section (2) of Section 30 We make it clear that except on the
binding nature of the Resolution Plan, vis-a-vis the CoC and the
SRA, as already upheld by this Court, we have only made prima
facie observations which need not govern the final adjudication
by the NCLT.
26. We hence request the applications directed to be
considered by the NCLT to be taken up together and a decision
rendered as expeditiously as possible, reckoning the delay
already occasioned.
27. The appeal stands disposed of.
28. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand rejected.
.……………………………... J.
(J. B. PARDIWALA)
..………….…………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
NEW DELHI;
OCTOBER 26, 2026.
Page 22 of 22
Civil Appeal No.12045 of 2026