Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 755
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL Nos. OF 2025
[Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 26178-79 OF 2016]
M/S SURAJ IMPEX (INDIA) PVT. LTD. …. APPELLANT
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ….RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The captioned Appeal is directed against the Judgment and
Order dated 17.11.2014 passed by the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh at Indore in Writ Petition No. 2576/2012 whereby the
applicability of the Customs Circular No. 35/2010-Cus. dated
17.09.2010 for the purposes of All Industry Rate (AIR) Duty
Drawbacks was observed to be prospective in nature. Review
Petition bearing RP No. 1/2015 arising therefrom was dismissed
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NEETU SACHDEVA
Date: 2025.05.22
15:45:22 IST
Reason:
by the High Court vide Order dt. 01.04.2016 at the very threshold
SLP (C) Nos. 26178-79 of 2016 Page 1 of 18
stating that there was no error apparent on the face of the record.
Aggrieved, the Appellant has assailed the observations of the
High Court thereunder, by way of the present Appeal.
Factual Background
3. The factual conspectus of the captioned case is such that
the Appellant, M/s Suraj Impex (India) Pvt. Ltd., primarily
engaged in the operations of export of Soyabean Meal, an
1
agricultural-commodity falling under Chapter 23 of the Custom
Tariff Act, 1975, asserts that as a merchant exporter, the entity is
entitled to claim duty drawbacks at All-Industry Rate (“ AIR ”)
introduced by the Customs Notification No. 81/2006 dt.
13.07.2006 and continued vide annual Notification Nos. 68/2007
dt. 16.07.2007, No. 103/2008 dt. 29.08.2008, No. 84/2010 dt.
17.09.2010. Clause 5 of the Notification no. 81/2006 & 68/2007
and Clause 6 of Notification No. 103/2008 and 84/2010
respectively, are identically worded and state as under:
“The figures shown under the drawback rate and
drawback cap appearing below the column
“Drawback when Cenvat facility has not been
availed” refer to the total drawback (customs,
central excise and service tax component put
together) allowable and those appearing under the
1
First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - Chapter 23:
Residues and waste from the food industries; prepared animal
fodder—
SLP (C) Nos. 26178-79 of 2016 Page 2 of 18
column “Drawback when Cenvat facility has been
availed” refer to the drawback allowable under the
customs component. The difference between the two
columns refers to the central excise and service tax
component of drawback. If the rate indicated is the
same in both the columns, it shall mean that the
same pertains to only customs component and is
available irrespective of whether the exporter has
availed of Cenvat or not.”
2
4.
The Schedule permits 1% AIR duty drawback on the
export of SBM, on both occasions whether the CENVAT Facility
(collective component of customs, central excise and service) was
availed or not . The Appellant regularly received the benefit of the
1% AIR duty drawback up till 2008, when the Director General
of Central Excise, [“ DGCEI ”] Indore, Respondent no. 4 herein
framed an opinion that the manufacturers/exporters were not
entitled to the said AIR drawback, if they had already availed the
rebate of central excise duty under Rule 18 or Rule 19(2) of the
Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Respondent no. 3 hence withheld
the release of the duty drawback to the Appellant and such
similarly placed merchant exporters, who then approached the
Directorate of Drawback and the Central Board of Excise and
Customs, New Delhi vide Representation dt. 13.12.2011 filed on
behalf of Federation of Indian Export Organizations, urging that
2
First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975—Chapter 23--Column
4 & 6 indicate the Drawback Rate as 1% for both instances whether
Cenvat facility is availed or not.
SLP (C) Nos. 26178-79 of 2016 Page 3 of 18
the drawback on SBM Export was the customs component,
whereas the benefit under Rule 18 and Rule 19(2) of the Central
Excise Rules, 2002 was towards the central excise portion, which
are distinct in nature. It was mentioned thereunder that the “ CBEC
had itself fixed this rate uniformly at 1 % for exporters whether
the CENVAT facility has been availed or has not been availed
because the rate is based on the Customs component of the duty
incidence and the CENVAT facility has no bearing on the rebate
of Customs Duty.”
5. Eventually, the CBEC issued the Clarificatory Circular No.
35/2010-Cus. dt. 17.09.2010, the bone of contention herein,
wherein it was stated that the AIR duty drawback towards the
customs portion as well as excise duty benefit under Rule 18 or
Rule 19(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 shall be available
simultaneously. It is urged by the Appellant that while all previous
Notifications introduced the benefit of rate of drawback on the
free on board (FOB) Value or on the rate per unit quantity of the
export goods, Circular No. 35/2010-Cus. dt. 17.09.2010 made it
clear that exporters shall be entitled to the custom duties which
remained unrebated through the AIR drawback route, clarifying
the applicability and operation of previously issued Circulars by
the CBEC. Per contra , the Respondents have submitted that the
Circular No. 35/2010-Cus. does not have a retrospective effect,
and expressly states that the same has been made effective from
SLP (C) Nos. 26178-79 of 2016 Page 4 of 18
20.09.2010. The relevant portion of the CBEC Notification No.
35/2010 dt. 17.09.2010 is reproduced herein as under:
“The Ministry has announced the revised All
Industry Rates (AIR) of Duty Drawback vide
Notification No. 84/2010-Cus. (N.T) dated
17.09.2010. The rates of drawback have been made
effective from 20.09.2010.
xxx xxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx
xxx xxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx
(vi) Miscellaneous
xxx xxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx
xxx xxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx
(d) The earlier notification (No. 103/2008 Cus. NT
dt. 29.08.2008 as amended) provided that the rates
of drawback in the Drawback Schedule would not
be applicable to products manufactured or exported
by availing the rebate of Central Excise duty paid
on materials used in the manufacture of export
goods in terms of Rule 18 of the Central Excise
Rules, 2002, or if such raw materials were procured
without payment of Central Excise Duty under Rule
19(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. References
have been received that exporters are being denied
1% of drawback, which is the customs component
of the AIR drawback, on the basis of the above
SLP (C) Nos. 26178-79 of 2016 Page 5 of 18
condition although the manufacturers had taken
only the rebate of Central Excise duties in respect of
their inputs/procured the inputs without payment of
central excise duties; and the Customs duties which
remained unrebated should be provided thorough
the AIR drawback route.”
The issue has been examined. The present
Notification no. 84/2020-Cus.(NT) dated
17.09.2010 provides that customs component of AIR
drawback shall be available even if the rebate of
Central Excise duty paid on raw material used in
the manufacture of export goods has been taken in
terms of Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002,
or if such raw materials were procured without
payment of Central Excise Duty under Rule 19(2) of
the Central Excise Rules, 2002.”
6. The Appellant had approached the Commissioner
(Customs) Kandla seeking disbursement of AIR Duty Drawback
prior to 17.09.2010, who denied the said benefit stating that the
effect of the Circular was not retrospective but prospective in
nature, and the benefits will only be applicable once the circular
is in operation, i.e. from 20.09.2010. Vide Communication dt.
04.01.2012, the CBEC (Drawback Division) also reiterated that
the Notification No. 84/2010-Customs (N.T.) dated 17.09.2010
was made effective from 20.09.2010 and since the words are clear
and have prospective effect, the request for applicability of the
same retrospectively does not arise. The Appellant thus filed Writ
Petition No. 2576/2012 challenging Letter dt. 04.01.2012 issued
by the CBEC, seeking the following relief:
SLP (C) Nos. 26178-79 of 2016 Page 6 of 18
(i) Allow this petition with costs;
(ii) By a suitable writ, direction or order it may be
declared that circular No.35/2010 Cus. dated
17.09.2010 has retrospective effect.
(iii) Grant such other relief which this Hon’ble Court
deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case
in favour. of the Petitioners
7. The stand of the Respondents before the High Court
remained unwavering that since the Circular No. 35/2010-Cus. dt.
17.09.2010 very categorically mentioned the effective date as
20.09.2010, which is clear and prospective in nature, the question
of giving retrospective effect to a statute does not arise. It was
argued that the benefit of the Notification could not be extended
to the Appellant as the final product was exempted from payment
of duty and did not come within the domain of CENVAT Scheme,
and rather was covered under clause 8(e) & (f) of the Notification
No. 103/2008 whereby the benefit under Rule 19(2) of Central
Excise Rules, 2002 had already been availed by the Appellant for
the manufacture of the goods. It was argued that the contention of
the Appellant that the drawbacks of more than Rs. 11 crores had
been withheld was incorrect, as the same was legally
inadmissible.
8. The High Court relying upon this assertion of the
Respondents dismissed the Writ Petition no. 2576/2012 stating
SLP (C) Nos. 26178-79 of 2016 Page 7 of 18
that the Notification dt. 17.09.2010 was not merely to clarify the
position or make explicit, an implicit issue in previous
notifications and would not be applicable retrospectively as it
clearly mentions that the same shall be effective from 20.09.2010.
The Review Petition No. 1/2015 filed by the Appellant was also
dismissed in limine , vide Order dt. 01.04.2016.
Submissions
9. It has been argued on behalf of the Appellant that the
Circular No. 35/2010-Cus. Dt. 17.09.2010 was a clarificatory &
benevolent circular issued with reference to the previous
Notifications issued by the CBEC for the purposes of availing the
benefit of the customs component of AIR duty drawback on the
export of Soyabean Meal & De-Oiled Cake. The Clarificatory
Circular dt. 17.09.2010 which adopted the same language as the
previous Notifications for years 2006 to 2010, was intended to
have a uniform interpretation for the purpose of all recovery
proceedings qua duty drawbacks payable from 2006 to 2010. It is
averred that the Department has accorded an erroneous
interpretation to Clauses 7(e) & (f) of the Custom Notification
No. 81/2006 & Notification No. 68/2007 and similar provisions
contained in Clause 8 of the Notification No. 103/2008; which
pertain to the export of commodities which are either
manufactured or exported by availing rebate of duty paid on
SLP (C) Nos. 26178-79 of 2016 Page 8 of 18
materials at the time of processing the product in terms of Rule
18(2) and Rule 19 of the Custom Excise Rules, 2002. The
Appellant has placed reliance on decisions by the Commissioner
(Appeals) qua the application of the same Circular No. 35/2010-
Cus. Dt. 17.09.2010, observing that the said CBEC Circular
which gives a clarification to the existing law/provisions of
Notification, would apply equally to any law/notifications issued
3
earlier and there would not be any double benefit in case an
exporter having availed the central excise duty and claims
4
drawback of the customs portion. The Appellant asserts that a
beneficial Circular has to be applied retrospectively, while an
5
oppressive circular has to be applied prospectively.
10. Per contra , it is argued by the Respondents that the said
Circular No. 35/2010-Cus. dt. 17.09.2010 categorically states in
the first paragraph that “ the rates of drawback have been made
effective from 20.09.2010 ” and hence can in no manner be given
a retrospective operation. It is stated that Circular No. 35/2010-
Cus. dt. 17.09.2010 is an explanation to the Notification No.
84/2010 dt. 17.09.2010 which re-iterates that the Notification as
well as the Circular are prospective in nature.
3
Pradeep Overseas Ltd Ahmedabad & Ors. vide OIA F No. S/49-48, 49 &
54/CUS/JMN/2012 dt. 14.09.2012.
4
Ruchi Soya Industries & Ors. vide OIA No. 01 to 06/Commr(A)/JMN/2013
dt. 17.01.2013.
5
Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore Vs Mysore Electricals
Industries Ltd. [2006] 12 SCC 448.
SLP (C) Nos. 26178-79 of 2016 Page 9 of 18
11. It was argued on behalf of the Respondents that not all
beneficial legislations are necessarily retrospective in nature,
6
referring to the decision in Shyam Sunder Vs Ram Kumar
whereby it was held that though the amending Act is a beneficial
legislation meant for the general benefit of citizens but there is no
such rule of construction that a beneficial legislation is always
retrospective in operation, even though such legislation either
expressly or by necessary intendment is not made retrospective.
Discussion & Analysis
12. We have heard Sh. Arvind Datar, learned Senior Counsel
for the Appellant firm and learned counsel for the Respondents at
length, and have perused the record. The matter calls for the
determination as to whether the Circular No. 35/2010-Cus. Dt.
17.09.2010 for the purposes of claim of custom duty drawbacks
for merchant exporters, have retrospective or prospective effect.
In the present case, if the Circular is held to be clarificatory,
curative and declaratory in nature, its application would be
retrospective and would entail the claim of the Appellant of
custom duty drawbacks at 1% AIR payable & enforceable against
the Respondents.
6
Shyam Sunder Vs Ram Kumar [2001] 8 SCC 24.
SLP (C) Nos. 26178-79 of 2016 Page 10 of 18
13. In determining the said question, it is apposite to give
credence to the substance of the Circular and not merely its form
as directed by this Court in several decisions including Sree
Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit & Ors. Vs Dr. Manu &
7 8
Anr . , State of Bihar vs Ramesh Prasad Verma,
Commissioner of Income Tax I, Ahmedabad vs Gold Coin
9
Health Food (P) Ltd . On a careful examination of the CBEC
Circular/Notification No. 35/2010-Cus. dt. 17.09.2010, the
following aspects emerge undisputably:
(i) The Circular was issued pursuant to representations &
references received by exporters who were being
denied the 1% drawback of the customs portion,
despite previous notifications clearly stating that the
drawback was available irrespective of whether the
exporter had availed CENVAT or not.
(ii) A combined reading of the Circular and the
Notifications issued prior thereto, would show there
is no express distinction in the benefit accrued to the
SBM merchant exporters from day one to the date of
7
Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit & Ors. Vs Dr. Manu &
Anr, [2023] SCC Online SC 640.
8
State of Bihar vs Ramesh Prasad Verma [2017] 5 SCC 665.
9
CIT vs Gold Coin Health Food (P) Ltd. [2008] 9 SCC 622.
SLP (C) Nos. 26178-79 of 2016 Page 11 of 18
issuance of the circular. For reference, the table as
indicated by the Appellant is reproduced as under:
Table for Comparison of Customs Notifications No. 81/2006,
68/2007, 103/2008, 84/2010
S.
No.
Notification No.
Notification No.
Notification No.
Notification No.
81/2006
68/2007
103/2008
84/2010
1. (5) The figures
shown under
drawback rate and
drawback cap
appearing below
the column
“Drawback when
Cenvat facility has
not been availed”
refer to the total
drawback
(customs, central
excise and service
tax component put
together)
allowable and
those appearing
under the column
“Drawback when
Cenvat facility has
been availed” refer
to the drawback
allowable under
the customs
component. The
difference
between the two
columns refer to
the central excise
and service tax
component of
drawback. If the
rate indicated is
the same in both
the columns, it
shall bean that the
same pertains to
only customs
(5) The figures
shown under
drawback rate and
drawback cap
appearing below
the column
“Drawback when
Cenvat facility has
not been availed”
refer to the total
drawback
(customs, central
excise and service
tax component put
together)
allowable and
those appearing
under the column
“Drawback when
Cenvat facility has
been availed” refer
to the drawback
allowable under
the customs
component. The
difference
between the two
columns refer to
the central excise
and service tax
component of
drawback. If the
rate indicated is
the same in both
the columns, it
shall bean that the
same pertains to
only customs
(6) The figures
shown under
drawback rate and
drawback cap
appearing below
the column
“Drawback when
Cenvat facility has
not been availed”
refer to the total
drawback
(customs, central
excise and service
tax component put
together)
allowable and
those appearing
under the column
“Drawback when
Cenvat facility has
been availed” refer
to the drawback
allowable under
the customs
component. The
difference
between the two
columns refer to
the central excise
and service tax
component of
drawback. If the
rate indicated is
the same in both
the columns, it
shall bean that the
same pertains to
only customs
(6) The figures
shown under
drawback rate and
drawback cap
appearing below
the column
“Drawback when
Cenvat facility has
not been availed”
refer to the total
drawback
(customs, central
excise and service
tax component put
together)
allowable and
those appearing
under the column
“Drawback when
Cenvat facility has
been availed” refer
to the drawback
allowable under
the customs
component. The
difference
between the two
columns refer to
the central excise
and service tax
component of
drawback. If the
rate indicated is
the same in both
the columns, it
shall bean that the
same pertains to
only customs
SLP (C) Nos. 26178-79 of 2016 Page 12 of 18
component and is
available
irrespective of
whether the
exporter has
availed of Cenvat
or not.
component and is
available
irrespective of
whether the
exporter has
availed of Cenvat
or not.
component and is
available
irrespective of
whether the
exporter has
availed of Cenvat
or not.
component and is
available
irrespective of
whether the
exporter has
availed of Cenvat
or not.
(7) The rates of
2.
drawback
specified in the
said Schedule
shall not be
applicable to
export of a
commodity or
product if such
commodity or
product is -
(7) The rates of
drawback
specified in the
said Schedule
shall not be
applicable to
export of a
commodity or
product if such
commodity or
product is -
(8) The rates of
drawback
specified in the
said Schedule
shall not be
applicable to
export of a
commodity or
product if such
commodity or
product is -
(9) The rates and
caps of drawback
specified in
column (4) and (5)
of the said
schedule shall not
be applicable to
export of a
commodity or
product if such
commodity or
product is -
(e) manufactured
or exported by
availing the rebate
of duty paid on
materials used in
the manufacture or
processing of such
commodity or
product in terms of
rule 18 of the
Central Excise
Rules, 2002;
(f) manufac-tured
or exported in
terms of sub-rule
(2) of rule 19 of
the Central Excise
Rules, 2002;
(e) manufactured
or exported by
availing the rebate
of duty paid on
materials used in
the manufacture or
processing of such
commodity or
product in terms of
rule 18 of the
Central Excise
Rules, 2002;
(f) manufac-tured
or exported in
terms of sub-rule
(2) of rule 19 of
the Central Excise
Rules, 2002;
(e) manufactured
or exported by
availing the rebate
of duty paid on
materials used in
the manufacture or
processing of such
commodity or
product in terms of
rule 18 of the
Central Excise
Rules, 2002;
(f) manufac-tured
or exported in
terms of sub-rule
(2) of rule 19 of
the Central Excise
Rules, 2002;
(a) manufactured
or exported by
availing the rebate
of duty paid on
materials used in
the manufacture or
processing of such
commodity or
product in terms of
rule 18 of the
Central Excise
Rules, 2002;
(b) manufac-tured
or exported in
terms of sub-rule
(2) of rule 19 of
the Central Excise
Rules, 2002;
(iii) The Circular does not vest any fresh rights on
merchant exporters or casts upon any burden on the
Department except the one already cast upon them
vide previous Notifications.
SLP (C) Nos. 26178-79 of 2016 Page 13 of 18
14. Even otherwise, a threadbare analysis of the nature and
substance of the CBEC Circular No. 35/2010-Cus. dt.
17.09.2010, would firstly make it evident that there is no
substantive modification and amendment to the previous CBEC
Notifications. The language of the Circular does not expand or
alter the scope of the previous Notifications, but cements the
claim of the merchant exporters, who were entitled to receive the
benefit of AIR customs duty drawback since 2007. The Circular
dt. 17.09.2010 per se clarifies and makes it explicit that the
customs duties which remained unrebated to the concerned
manufacturers, should be provided through the AIR drawback
route, with or without the rebate of Central Excise Duties at the
time of processing in terms of Rule 18 or 19 of the Central Excise
Rules, 2002.
15. Having regard to the concerned Circular dt. 17.09.2010
vis-à-vis the previous Notifications, no new right or benefit came
to be created, but the actual scope of the benefit accruing to the
Appellant and such similarly placed merchant exporters, was
explained and settled once and for all. By virtue of the said
Circular, it was merely clarified that the benefit of 1% customs
duty drawback as indicated under the prior Notification was
available to SBM merchants despite having availed CENVAT.
Being explanatory in nature, the Circular in question cannot be
construed as an adoption of a fresh fiscal regime for rebate of
SLP (C) Nos. 26178-79 of 2016 Page 14 of 18
customs duty, intended to affect vested rights or impose new
burdens upon the Department. It was passed to resolve the
ambiguity qua the meaning & threshold of the previous
Notifications. For the same reason, the operation of such a
provision or instruction by the Department could only be
retrospective in nature, so as to give effect to the objective of the
Notifications issued by CBEC.
16. It also cannot be deduced that by virtue of the Circular,
CBEC intended to deprive the Appellant and such similarly
placed merchant exporters from the benefit of customs duty
drawbacks prior to 20.09.2010. In our considered view, it is
inconceivable that the previous Notifications would be in
operation in any other manner except as specified and clarified in
the manner indicated in the Circular dt. 17.09.2020, and it is not
the case of the Department that before the issuance of the Circular
dt. 17.09.2020 read with Notification No. 84/2010-Cus of even
date, the Notifications for the years 2006 to 2009 were not in
operation.
17. The use of the expression “should” in reference to the
previous Notifications, is also deliberate & declaratory in nature,
and intended to clear all/any ambiguity that could have arisen in
the interpretation of the CBEC Circular. The language “shall be
deemed always to have meant” or “shall be deemed never to have
SLP (C) Nos. 26178-79 of 2016 Page 15 of 18
10
included” is declaratory and is in plain retrospective and it is
apparent that the CBEC was mindful of its intent whilst adopting
the said terminology in issuing the said circular in question. In
this respect, the statutory principle of “ contemporanea exposito ”
which takes into consideration contemporaneous interpretation
also becomes increasingly relevant insofar as the CBEC Circular
dt. 17.09.2010 read in conjunction with the previous Notifications
already in operation, did not confer a prospective benefit on
antecedent facts, but established the scope of the very benefit
introduced vide the first Notification No. 81/2006 dt. 13.07.2006
for the sake of the Appellant and such similarly placed exporters.
For this simple reason, the operation of the said CBEC Circular
dt. 17.09.2010 ought to be retrospective.
18. It may be argued by the Department that not every
beneficial legislation is intended to be retrospective in nature;
however, the retrospectivity of a statute is to be tested on the anvil
of the doctrine of “fairness”. The substratum of a beneficial
legislation is to ensure that the benefit is uniform and absolute,
which may be prospective in nature, but when such benefit to one
person does not inflict any undue burden on the other, the
purposive construction can be considered to be given a
10
Justice G.P. Singh, “Principles of Statutory Interpretation”
th
(15 Edition LexisNexis 2021).
SLP (C) Nos. 26178-79 of 2016 Page 16 of 18
11
retrospective effect . It is therefore pertinent to clarify that except
in cases where such enactments or issuance of Circulars are
arbitrary, vexatious or constitute a parallel mechanism making its
operation unfair, the Courts need not entertain objections to the
operation of a clarificatory/declaratory provision which is only
intended to assert & give effect to its parent provision/statute.
19.
In the present case, the High Court adopted a cursory view
by solely relying on the submission of the Respondents that
because the subject Circular was to be made effective from
20.09.2010, it was prospective in nature. The High Court did not
appreciate the rationale of the CBEC Circular nor the purport of
the Notifications time and again issued by the Department and
passed the Impugned Order dt. 17.11.2014 in undue haste.
Subsequently, as well it refused to remedy the error apparent on
record, by dismissing the Review Petition at its threshold.
20. Thus, for the reasons indicated hereinabove, the Impugned
Judgment and Order dated 17.11.2014 passed by the High Court
of Madhya Pradesh at Indore in Writ Petition No. 2576/2012 and
Order dt. 01.04.2016 in R.P No. 1/2015 is set aside, and, the
Appellant is entitled to the benefit of 1 % AIR Customs Duty
Drawback on its export of SBM from the year 2008 as applicable,
11
CIT vs Vatika Township (P) Ltd. [2015] 1 SCC 1 & Vijay Vs State of
Maharashtra [2006] 6 SCC 289.
SLP (C) Nos. 26178-79 of 2016 Page 17 of 18
by according retrospective operation to the Circular No. 35/2010-
Cus. dated 17.09.2010 issued by the Central Board of Excise &
Customs, New Delhi, for the purposes of All Industry Rate (AIR)
Duty Drawbacks.
21. The appeals stand disposed of.
22. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
……………………………………J.
[B. V. NAGARATHNA]
……………………………………J.
[SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA]
NEW DELHI
MAY 22, 2025.
SLP (C) Nos. 26178-79 of 2016 Page 18 of 18