M/S Parkash Cotton Pressing Factory vs Allahabad Bank & Ors.

1

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 328 of 2025

IN THE MATTER OF:
Parkash Cotton Pressing Factory …Appellant(s)

Versus
Allahabad Bank & Ors. …Respondent(s)
Present:
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vaibhav Gaggar Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sajal Dhanija,
Mr. Gaurav Sehgal, Mr. Ketan Saraf, Mr. Prince Assal &
Mr. Deepak Kapoor, Advocates
For
Respondent(s)
: Mr. Atul V. Sood, for Liquidator
Ms. Himanshi Garg, Advocate for R-3

O R D E R
(Hybrid Mode)
[Per: Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan, Member (Judicial)]
Instant Appeal has been filed against impugned order dated 02.01.2025
passed by the Ld. National Company Law Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (Adjudicating
Authority) passed in IA No. 739/2019, moved by the Appellant in CP(IB) No.
67/CHD/PB/2017, whereby the Ld. Adjudicating Authority (AA) has dismissed the
said I.A. preferred by the Appellant for direction to the Resolution
Professional/Liquidator to release the payment of dues on account of interest due
towards the applicant and other operational creditors including employees, accrued
during the period of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of the Corporate
Debtor(CD).
2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this Appeal are that the CD was in the
business of manufacture and production of fabric and textile goods. CD was admitted
into the CIRP vide order dated 29.09.2017 passed by the Adjudicating Authority in
CP (IB) No.67/CHD/PB/2017 under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy
Code,2016(Code). The appellant is the Operational Creditor and supplier of cotton to

2

the CD, which is the raw material for CD and his claim of Rs.3,01,90,402/- was duly
admitted by the RP in relation to CIRP of the Corporate Debtor pertaining to the
supplies made during pre-CIRP period. The CD was a going concern and was
maintained as such by the RP post-admission of the CIRP. RP requested appellant
to continue to supply cotton for continuous manufacturing process of CD. The
supplies to be made was to be treated as CIRP cost and timely payments of such
supplies was assured. Appellant continued to supply raw material during the CIRP
period i.e., from 29.09.2017 to 08.08.2018. The liquidation process of the CD was
initiated vide order passed on 08.08.2018.
3. It is claimed by the Appellant that the last supply to the CD was made on
28.09.2018, on which date after getting the audit conducted, Rs.6,95,24,683/- was
found to be due and payable by the CD to the Appellant. In the CA No.739/2019
moved by the appellant before Adjudicating Authority it is claimed that the Corporate
Debtor owed an amount of Rs.7,19,65,695/- towards the supply of raw material by
the Applicant during the of CIRP period besides the admitted amount of claim as
Operation Creditor of Rs.3,01,90,402/-. The Appellant claimed to have supplied raw
materials worth Rs.3,34,48,392/- during the liquidation. The appellant was paid,
Rs.2,00,00,000/- towards the raw materials supplied during the CIRP process and
Rs.1,40,00,000/- towards the raw materials supplied during the liquidation process
and the CD owed Rs.5,19,65,695/- on account of the pending CIRP costs of raw
materials supplied during the CIRP and Rs.1,94,00,000/- on account of the raw
materials supplied during the liquidation process and Rs. 2,29,56,480.20/- on
account of interest.
4. It is further reflected that appellant moved CA No.429/2018 before
Adjudicating Authority seeking direction that the dues of the Applicant classified as
CIRP costs be paid by the Respondent No.2 on priority which was disposed of by the
AA vide order dated 27.11.2018 directing that the dues of the appellant will have

3

priority over the dues of any Financial Creditor. However, when the dues were not
paid despite the order of the Adjudicating Authority, the appellant moved CA No.
606/2018 before Adjudicating Authority seeking recovery of his dues. It is also
claimed that the Liquidator had been duly deducting TDS on the interest due and
the Form 26AS till 31.03.2018 and therefore on account of non-payment of the dues,
interest due has accumulated to the tune of Rs.2,29,56,480.2/-
5. It is further reflected that when the payment was delayed, appellant again filed
I.A. No. 606 of 2018 seeking direction to the RP/Liquidator to release the payment
of the dues for the period of liquidation and comply with the earlier order dated
27.11.2018. Thereafter, I.A. No.739 of 2019 was filed by the appellant claiming
interest on the amount which was due on account of delay in making payment of
supplies during CIRP/liquidation period. Another I.A. No.968 of 2022 was filed by
the appellant seeking release of payment of dues towards the appellant during CIRP
period. Writ Petition CWP No. 18204 of 2022 was also filed before the Hon'ble High
Court which was allowed vide order dated 24.08.2022 whereby the direction was
given to the AA to dispose of I.A. No. 606 of 2018 within 3 months.
6. It is also reflected that an I.A. No. 574 of 2021 was filed by the Financial
Creditor seeking audit of the expenditure incurred during the CIRP period and vide
order dated 28.09.2022 passed by the Adjudicating Authority the same was allowed
and the Auditor was appointed who submitted its report dated 14.02.2023 and final
Audit report was prepared on 04.05.2023, which was filed along with I.A. No.1323 of
2023 by the Liquidator, whereby the amount payable to the appellant was certified
by the Auditor as Rs.6,95,24,683/-.
7. It is further reflected that vide order dated 06.12.2023, I.A. No. 606 of 2018
filed by the appellant for release of pending payment was allowed whereby it was held
that the Appellant is entitled to receive Rs.6,95,24,683/- against the material
supplied to the Corporate Debtor, however the I.A. No.739 of 2019 seeking payment

4

of interest for delayed period was rendered as infructuous. The Appellant challenged
the said order before this Appellate Tribunal and vide order dated 05.07.2024 the
matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for decision on merits. The
Adjudicating Authority however by passing the impugned order dismissed the said
application and aggrieved by the same appellant has preferred this appeal.
8. We have heard Ld. Counsels for the parties and have perused the record as
well the written submissions filed by the parties.
9. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that amount of Rs.
69,524,683.35/- was due since 27.11.2018, when the Adjudicating Authority had
directed that the material supplied by the appellant to the CD shall be treated as
th
CIRP costs, which was released after a delay of five years on 8 December 2023, and
therefore the appellant is entitled for the interest of this period.
10. It is further submitted that the appellant had supplied essential raw material
and therefore the dues with regard to the same was CIRP / liquidation cost and was
payable on accrual and since the last supply was made on 28.09.2018, the appellant
is entitled for the interest of these five years. Reliance in this regard has been placed
on Abhijit Guhathakurata versus AGC Networks Limited, 2023 SCC Online,
NCLAT 1109, and Shailesh Verma versus Maharashtra State Electricity
Distribution Company Limited, 2022 SCC Online, NCLAT 4321.
11. It is further submitted that claim of the interest by the appellant is
consequential to delayed payment and in the past also the delayed payment interest
was actually paid by the Resolution Professional during CIRP where the TDS was
also deducted and deposited upon such interest for the invoice dated 23.08.2017
and 31.03.2018 and the payment and TDS also reflected in form 26 AS for the invoice
date 23.08.2017. Reliance is also placed on a circular issued by the Indian Cotton
Association which provides interest at the rate of 1.40 % per month for delayed
payment on supplied cotton.

5

12. It is vehemently submitted that the undertaking which has been made the
basis of the rejection of the application moved by the appellant has been given under
coercion and financial duress and therefore the same is required to be ignored.
13. It is further submitted that the reliance on the undertaking could also not be
placed for the reason that NCLAT while remanding the matter to the Adjudicating
Authority has taken cognizance of the undertaking and even thereafter had directed
the Adjudicating Authority to dispose of the application moved by the appellant
afresh. Therefore, there was no reason for the Adjudicating Authority to have hold
that the undertaking filed by the appellant was in financial duress.
14. It is further submitted that Section 33(5) of the Code does not automatically
bar an application moved under Section 60(5) arising from liquidation as the
appellant is not seeking a fresh claim after liquidation, and it is only requesting the
claim which had already arisen during the CIRP and liquidation period.
15. It is further submitted that corporate debtor's own ledger reflects that amount
payable to the applicant had remained deposited and had actually earned interest,
therefore, it is the duty of the liquidator to pay the interest as mentioned in the
circular for the period of five years after the last supply made by the appellant.
16. Learned Counsel for the appellant in support of his submissions has relied on
following case laws: -
(i) Abhijit Guhathakurta v. AGC Networks Ltd. National Company Law Appellate
Tribunal 2023 SCC OnLine NCLAT 1109

(ii) Shailesh Verma v. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution
Company National Company Law Appellate Tribunal 2022 SCC OnLine NCLAT
4321
(iii)M/s Associated Construction v. Pawanhans Helicopters Ltd. (2008) 16 SCC 128
(iv)NTPC v. Reshmi Constructions, Builders & Contractors (2004) 2 SCC 663

6

(v)Litostroj Power D.O.O. v. IVRCL Ltd. IA No. 158/2021, NCLT Hyderabad Decided
on: 17.04.2023
(vi)Amit Gupta v. Anil Kohli, Resolution Professional for Dunar Foods Ltd. 2022 SCC
OnLine NCLAT 4344
(vii)State Bank of India & Ors. v. The Consortium of Mr. Murari Lal Jalan & Mr. Florian
Fritsch & Anr. 2024 INSC 852: (2024) 247 Comp Cas 743: 2024 SCC OnLine SC
3187
17. Ld. Counsel for the liquidator on the other hand submits that Adjudicating
Authority vide its order dated 06.12.2023 disposed of IA No. 739/2019 as has
become infructuous, by noting that CA No. 739/2019 and CA No. 606/2018 are filed
by the Appellant and the claim of Appellant is taken care of in CA No. 606/2018. It
is also contended that the appellant had earlier filed CA No. 429/2018 and CA
No.466/2018 on similar issues but the Appellant never claimed any interest on his
amount due in CA No. 606/2018, CA No.429/2018 and CA No.466/2018.
18. It is also submitted that bare perusal of the Invoices attached by the Applicant
shows that none of the Invoices had any provision or stipulation for interest and that
suppliers had made supplies during CIRP/ liquidation period to the CD, however,
the appellant in its applications was claiming amount even before the closure of
CIRP/liquidation and before the realization of proceeds from the sale of assets of the
Corporate Debtor.
19. It is further submitted that the Financial Creditors of the Corporate Debtor
had raised various issues/ concerns regarding the costs during CIRP and liquidation
and therefore, State Bank of India, one of the Financial Creditors of Corporate
Debtor, had filed an IA No.574/2021 seeking appropriate directions for audit of the
CIRP cost from 29.09.2017 to 31.10.2019 and the said application was allowed by
the Adjudicating Authority vide Order dated 28.09.2022 and Liquidator was directed

7

to appoint independent Auditor. Accordingly, D. Pathak & Co., Chartered
Accountants, were appointed who had submitted their report on 14.02.2023 to the
Liquidator, which was then placed before the Financial Creditors in a meeting held
on 22.02.2023 and before Adjudicating Authority vide IA No. 674/2023.
Subsequently, due to some glitches being discovered in Audit report, an updated
report was submitted by way of IA No.1323/2023 and taken on record on
01.08.2023.
20. It is further submitted that pursuant to the audit conducted Auditor did not
find any amount due to the Applicant on account of interest and identified Rs.
6,95,24,683.35/- as the outstanding amount to the appellant. Thereafter the
appellant executed an undertaking in terms of order dated 06.12.2023 and accepted
the amount determined by the Auditor in full and final satisfaction of the dues and
accordingly, the amount of Rs.6,95,24,683.35/- was paid to the appellant after
receipt of aforesaid undertaking and since the appellant never pressed IA
No.739/2019 it was dismissed as has become infructuous. However, only on an
afterthought, and in furtherance of malafide attempt to extort money from the
Corporate Debtor appeal was filed before this appellate tribunal and by passing an
order therein the matter was remanded.
21. It is further submitted that there are no purchase orders or supply contracts
relied upon by the Appellant to claim interest from the Corporate Debtor. He has not
produced any document to show that the Corporate Debtor agreed to pay interest on
account of delayed payment of the invoices, especially for the period of CIRP/
liquidation and otherwise also the interest is not payable as a matter of right for the
period of CIRP/ liquidation, because the same will also disturb the distribution in
terms of Section 53 of the Code.
22. It is further submitted that the Liquidator has also received a GST Show Cause
Notice dated 30.07.2024 for Corporate Debtor, from the Principal Commissioner,

8

Central GST Commissioner ate, Ludhiana, in relation to illegal availing of ITC based
on goods-less fake and non-existing/ non-operational suppliers, including the
appellant. It is also therein that the appellant is also a fake/ non-existing/ non-
operational supplier and also that the firm in the name of M/s Parkash Cotton
Pressing Factory could not be found and no such factory had ever worked at the
given address.
23. It is further submitted that as per the Audit Report, amount of
Rs.39,62,86,850/- was paid to the Applicant during the CIRP and Liquidation period
and after adjustment of which Rs.6,95,24,683/- was remaining, which was also paid
in furtherance of Order dated 06.12.2023. However, the GST Notice shows that an
amount of Rs.40,25,99,229/- relating to the appellant is based on goods-less sale,
thus the amount already paid to appellant is required to be refunded back to the
Corporate Debtor under regulation 43 of Liquidation Process Regulations, 2016.
24. It is further submitted that the reliance of the appellant on a circular issued
by the Indian Cotton Association is also misconceived and has been rightly discarded
by the Adjudicating Authority because the ICA is a private body and is not a
regulatory authority and therefore any circular issued by the same is not having
binding force, moreover, the circular is not bearing any date or signature.
25. It is also submitted that the Learned Adjudicating Authority has rightly held
in the impugned judgment that Section 5(13) of the Code defines CIRP cost which
does not include interest on supplies made during CIRP which is further fortified by
Regulation 31 of CIRP Regulations, 2016 and the ratio of Shailesh Verma, Supra and
South Eastern Coalfields Limited Supra is also not applicable because these were
the case laws on the peculiar facts and circumstances of their facts.
26. We at the outset notice that on an appeal filed by the appellant before this
Appellate Tribunal (Company Appeal (AT)(INS) No. 137 of 2024) against the order
dated 06.12.2023 passed in IA number 739 of 2019 which was filed by the appellant

9

requesting to pay the interest on the delayed payment and was found infructuous by
the Adjudicating Authority, this Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 05.07.2024
directed the Adjudicating Authority to decide the aforesaid IA afresh. The relevant
part of the said order is reproduced as under:
“4. Learned counsel for both the parties have raised various
contentions in support of their submissions. We are of the
view that since the Adjudicating Authority has not decided
the application and dismissed it as infructuous it is
appropriate that the IA No. 739 of 2019 may be heard
afresh and decided after hearing both the parties. It is made
clear that we are not expressing any opinion on the claim of
either of the parties.
Appeal is disposed of accordingly”.

27. We also notice that Ld. Adjudicating Authority in paragraph 9 of the impugned
order, has reproduced the relevant part of the order dated 06.12.2023 (wrongly
written as 06.12.2024 in the impugned order), whereby the IA No. 739 of 2019 was
disposed of as infructuous. Relevant part of this order is reproduced as under: -
th
“9. It is noted in the minutes of the 16 meeting of the
financial creditors on 28.08.2023, that these issues have
been discussed in detail and the relevant part of the same
is extracted as under:
…………………………………………….
……………………………………………
Financial Creditors ratified the revised audit report and
unanimously concluded that all the creditors shall be paid
the claims falling under CIRP/liquidation cost strictly as per
the figures arrived at in the revised audit report as per the
waterfall mechanism provided in the Code.”

10


10. A chart containing the IA-wise claims and the amount
payable as per the audit report is as under:
11. We note that CA No.739/2019 and CA No.606/2018 are
filed by the same party, i.e., Prakash Cotton Pressing
Factory. And, the amounts outstanding as per the audit
report mentioned at serial No. 2 in the table above. Thus, no
separate processing of the claims made in CA No.739/2019
is warranted. In the result, CA No.739/2019 is rendered
infructuous and disposed of accordingly.
……………….
17.In view of the above discussion, IA No. 739/2019 is
dismissed as infructuous and all the other bunch
applications are allowed and disposed of accordingly.”

28. We also notice that, vide order dated 06.12.2023, Learned Adjudicating
Authority has disposed of various applications which were filed by the operational
creditors for their payment on account of supply of the raw material to the corporate
debtor during the period of CIRP /liquidation. This order was evidently passed after
considering the report of the auditor which was appointed by the RP on the directions
of Learned Adjudicating Authority.

29. It is also reflected that the learned adjudicating authority, while passing order
dated 6.12.2023 also considered the minutes of the 16th meeting of the financial
creditors held on 28.08.2023. The said minutes has been reproduced by the Learned
Adjudicating Authority in the aforesaid order, and we also, for the sake of
convenience, place the relevant part of the same as under: -
"6. The liquidator further informed the participants that
Adjudicating Authority, NCLT vide their orders dated
04.08.2023 has directed the liquidator to share the revised
audit report with the financial creditors in a meeting to seek
their opinion on the revised audit report.
7. A copy of the revised audit report along with annexure
has already be e n sent to all the financial creditors along
with notice of this meeting.
11. Thereafter, liquidator sought views of different
participants on revised audit report. Sh. Shailender Kumar;
DGM, State Bank of India initiated the discussions. He
wanted to know the reasons for variation in amount of claim

11

of creditors certified by the auditor in these 2 reports.
Liquidator clarified that auditor in their report dated
10.05.2023 have already clarified that due to technical
glitch: in their system, some data in their two files was
corrupted and due to this reason there was variation in
claim of some creditors. Further member banks wanted to
know if the revised claims would be acceptable to creditors
or there can be objections from some creditors. It was
clarified by the liquidator that during the last hearing,
counsels of all the creditors were present and they were
agreeing to distribution as per audit report. Thereafter, all
participants concluded that distribution may be made by
liquidator as per the revised audit report, provided the same
is allowed by AA NCLT.
12. The liquidator requested to FCs to deliberate and decide
further course of action for dealing claims of such
parties/creditors who have not responded to auditor
communications. After detailed discussions Jed by DGM,
SB/, it was unanimously agreed by all the participants that
since an extensive exercise of determining the CIRP
liquidation cost by way of the audit has been carried out, a
prayer may be made before AA NCLT through liquidator to
treat claim of these parties as NIL and no distribution may
be made to such parties who failed to respond to auditor
communication and public announcements. Financial
Creditors ratified the revised audit report and unanimously
concluded that all the creditors shall be paid the claims
falling under CIRP/Liquidation cost strictly as per the
figures arrived at in the revised audit report as per the
waterfall mechanism provide in the Code."

30. We also notice that in paragraph no. 10 of this order, a chart containing
the IA-wise claims and the amount payable as per the audit report have been
shown and at serial number 2 of the same IA No. 606 of 2018 filed by the
appellant has been shown wherein the amount claimed by the appellant is
shown as Rs.51965695/- with regard to the material supplied during CIRP
and amount of Rs.19400000/- pertaining to the material supplied during
liquidation has been shown and as per the audit report, the amount payable
to the appellant is found as Rs. 6,95,24,683.35/-.

12

31. We further notice that Learned Adjudicating Authority has noted that
that CA No. 739/2019 and CA No. 606/2018 were filed by the same party,
i.e., Prakash Cotton Factory and, the amounts outstanding as per the Audit
Report mentioned at serial No. 2 in the table above is also with regard to the
same party and felt that there is no requirement of separate processing of the
claims made in CA No. 739/2019 and in this background the CA No.
739/2019 was rendered infructuous and disposed of as such. It was also
noticed that these claims have been determined mostly on the inputs provided
by the applicants themselves.
32. Thus, it is evident that no objection was raised by the operational
creditors with regard to the amount determined by the Auditor and no
objection has been filed against the same. So, it is evident that whatever
amount has been determined by the Auditor has been paid to the appellant
and the same has been determined mostly on the inputs provided by the
Appellant and other operational Creditors themselves, nothing against the
special audit has been stated before Ld. Adjudicating Authority or before us
by the appellants. It is also reflected in the impugned order that Learned
Adjudicating Authority has considered the methodology adopted by the
auditor in preparation of its report, and it is also observed that the report has
not only been prepared by considering the invoices, but also the
communications held with the operational creditors of the CD was also taken
into consideration. Therefore, the auditor has taken all the documents
available with the CD in consideration, in order to determine the real amount
payable to the operational creditors.

13

33. We also notice that the Learned Adjudicating Authority has held that
there was no stipulation of payment of interest in the invoices and this
proposition has not been denied by the appellant and the appellant has not
claimed interest on the basis of any provision provided in the invoices but the
interest has been claimed on account of the fact that the amount liable to be
paid to the appellant and other operational creditors was lying in the bank in
the shape of fixed deposit and was earning interest and the CD was also
showing interest accrued on the amount payable to the operational creditors.
Therefore, we do not find any fault in the conclusions drawn by the Learned
Adjudicating Authority that no invoices have been produced which could
show that any interest on delay payment was to be paid to the appellant and
there is no existence of any separate agreement between the parties which
may allow the claim of interest of the appellant.
34. We also notice that the interest is also being claimed by the appellant
on the basis of a circular issued by the Indian Cotton Association Limited for
the year 2018-2019 and the same has been reproduced by the Learned
Adjudicative Authority at page number 76 of the impugned order. The Learned
Adjudicating Authority has noted that the above circular neither contains any
number or date, nor the signature of the person who has issued it, and also
that the appellant has failed to show the authority of the above Association to
set any practice or procedure and also the precedent in this regard,
particularly if it is a legislation making body under any enactment or
recognized by the IBBI or has any mention in the IBC and therefore came to
a conclusion that it is not inclined to accept the above circular submitted by
the Appellant in support of his claim for the interest. Having considered all

14

the facts and circumstances of this case and also after perusing the circular,
we also do not want to take any different view what has been taken by the Ld.
Adjudicating Authority and in our considered view also, the appellant cannot
take any benefit of this circular, in absence of any Statutory authority
conferred on the Association to issue a circular of this nature.
35. We have also considered the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for
the appellant, pertaining to the fact that the undertaking before the liquidator
was submitted under compulsion and financial duress. We have perused the
undertaking submitted by the authorized representative of the appellant
before the Ld. Adjudicating Authority before taking the payment. The said
undertaking is reproduced as under:


36. Perusal of this undertaking would reveal that it has been mentioned
therein that the Learned Adjudicating Authority has passed orders on
06.12.2023. On various IAs filed by various creditors for distribution of
amount due from Corporate Debtor and the liquidator has been directed to

15

distribute the said amount as certified by the auditor. It is also mentioned
therein that the appellant is entitled to receive Rs. 69524683/- and further
undertake that after receiving the amount, the claim of the appellant would
be fully settled and nothing will remain outstanding and he will not institute
or pursue any legal proceedings before any court or forum or authority with
regard to the said amount. We do not find any merit in the submissions of
Learned Counsel for the appellant that this undertaking has been given either
in financial duress or under any compulsion and are of the considered view
that the undertaking given by the Authorized Representative of the appellant
before the liquidator would operate as estopple against the appellant in
claiming any amount with regard to the supplies made to the CD, other than
determined by the Auditor and the same has already been paid to the
appellant.
37. The Counsel for the appellant has also relied on Abhijit Guhathakurata
(supra), the said case was decided on its own facts and circumstances, and
the appellant due to factual difference cannot take any benefit of the same.
38. Likewise, Shailesh Verma (supra) is a case where the payment
pertaining to the electricity dues was in dispute, and the Appellate Tribunal
directed to pay the dues within ninety days. However, the appellant has also
been given its dues and therefore cannot take any benefit of this decision.
39. The appellant has also relied on M/s Associated Construction and
NTPC versus Resmi Constructions, Builder and Contractors (supra) . M/s
Associated Construction was with regard to a case wherein the no dues
certificate in the facts of that case was issued under compulsion, which is not
a case in the case at hand. Likewise, in NTPC versus Resmi Chopra , it was

16

held that when the rights and obligations of the parties are worked out, the
contract does not come to an end for the purpose of determination of the
disputes arising thereunder and thus the Arbitration Agreement can be
invoked. We also do not have any different opinion then formulated in this
precedent. However, we don't know in what manner the Appellant can get any
benefit of this law.

40. Having considered all the facts and circumstances of this case, and for
the reasons given herein before, we do not find any good ground to interfere
in the impugned judgment passed by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority. In result
we do not find any merits in the Appeal and the same is hereby dismissed .
41. There are no orders as to cost. The pending IAs are also disposed of.


[Justice Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan]
Member (Judicial)



[Indevar Pandey]
Member (Technical)
New Delhi
29.10.2026
sr/kam