ODISHA FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. vs. M/S ANUPAM TRADERS

REPORTABLE    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION   CIVIL APPEAL NO.   9083           OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.17627 of 2019) Odisha Forest Development Corporation      …Appellant(s) Ltd. Versus  M/s Anupam Traders & Anr.           ….  Respondent(s)          WITH  C.A.NO.     9084   /2019 @ SLP(C)No.18726/2019  C.A.NO.    9088    /2019 @ SLP(C) No.18575/2019  C.A.NO.     9089      /2019 @ SLP(C) No.18846/2019  C.A.NO.    9091        /2019 @ SLP(C) No.18664/2019    C.A.NO.  9092         /2019 @ SLP(C) No.18876/2019 Signature Not Verified  C.A.NO.    9093         /2019 @ SLP(C) No.18916/2019 Digitally signed by MADHU BALA Date: 2019.11.28 14:15:48 IST Reason:  C.A.NO.     9094         /2019 @ SLP(C) No.18939/2019 Page 1 of 26  C.A.NO.  9095         /2019 @ SLP(C) No.18890/2019 C.A.NO.   9096       /2019 @ SLP(C) No.18800/2019   C.A.NO.      9097    /2019 @ SLP(C) No.18945/2019   C.A.NO.   9098       /2019 @ SLP(C) No. 24167/2019   C.A.NO.   9099      /2019 @ SLP(C) No.24166/2019 J U D G M E N T A.S. Bopanna,J.                 Leave granted.      2.   The appellants in eleven of these appeals are the Odisha   Forest   Development   Corporation   Ltd.   (“OFDC Ltd.” for short) and the State of Odisha is the appellant in two   other   appeals.     The   appeals   filed   by   the   State   of Odisha relate to the same orders in respect of the same private   respondents   who   were   the   writ   petitioners regarding   whom   the   Odisha   Forest   Development Corporation   Ltd.   has   also   filed   the   appeal.     Further, though   separate   orders   passed   by   the   High   Court   in Page 2 of 26 different writ petitions relating to various petitioners are assailed in all these appeals, the issue involved is the same.     Hence   all   these   appeals   were   clubbed,   heard together and are accordingly disposed of by this common judgment.  For the purpose of narration of facts, the case as in Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.17627/2019, titled   Odisha   Forest   Development   Corporation   Ltd.   vs. M/s Anupam Traders & Anr. is taken note, which reads as hereunder. 3. The   appellant   OFDC   Ltd.   issued   an   e­tender notification dated 22.11.2016 inviting offers online from intending purchasers for advance sale of phal Kendu leaf (KL)   of   2017   crop   as   per   the   ‘lots’   indicated   in   the notification.   The private respondent had responded to the notification and made its offer.  The bid was opened on   07.12.2016.     The   private   respondent   being   the successful bidder was required to execute an agreement and   deposit   the   provisional   security   deposit   of Rs.5,00,000/­   (Rupees   Five   Lakh).     The   private respondent   herein   executed   an   agreement   dated Page 3 of 26 20.01.2017.   In terms of the agreement, on the actual quantity   of   leaves   collected,   the   additional   security deposit covering 25% of the purchase price of the lot was to   be   deposited   before   31.05.2017.     The   private respondent in the instant case was therefore required to deposit   the   differential   security   amount   of Rs.27,14,765/­less,   the   security   amount   of Rs.5,00,000/­ (Rupees Five Lakh) already paid. 4. In view of the requirement to pay the same before 31.05.2017,   the   private   respondent   addressed   a   letter dated 02.06.2017 seeking extension of time to pay the said   security   amount.     The   extension   sought   was declined   by   the   appellant   through   the   communication dated   06.06.2017.     Since   the   amount   required   to   be deposited   was   not   made,   the   appellant   cancelled   the agreement dated 20.01.2017 by issuing the notice dated 21.08.2017.    Since  such cancellation would   be  at the ‘cost and risk’ of the private respondent, the lot was to be put to re­tender.  The appellant accordingly proceeded to Page 4 of 26 issue a fresh e­tender notification on 22.08.2017 for sale of the same ‘lots’ of the phal Kendu leaves. 5. At that stage the private respondent aggrieved by extension of time not being granted, filed the writ petition in W.P.(C) No.11498/2017, the same was withdrawn and a writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No.18718/2017 was filed wherein   the   order   dated   21.08.2017   passed   by   the appellant cancelling the agreement dated 20.01.2017 as also  the  subsequent  Auction Notice   dated   22.08.2017, were assailed.   In the said writ petition, interim order against   the   subsequent   auction   through   notice   dated 22.08.2017 was sought.  While considering the same, the High Court while allowing the appellant to proceed with the   subsequent   tender   process,   had   stayed   the finalization of the sale subject to the private respondent herein depositing an amount of Rs.20,00,000/­ (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) within one week with the appellant herein.     The   said   order   was   passed   on   08.09.2017 wherein   it   was   further   directed   that   the   said   amount would be kept in a separate deposit by the appellant. Page 5 of 26 The   application   filed   by   the   appellant   herein   seeking vacation of the interim order was considered and at that stage since the vacation of the stay was not opposed by the   private   respondent   herein,   it   was   vacated   on 28.03.2018   due   to   which   the   subsequent   sale   was completed on 24.04.2018.  The private respondent herein thereafter sought leave to withdraw the writ petition in W.P.(C) No.18718/2017 thereby giving up the challenge to the cancellation of the auction process wherein the private respondent had taken part and also the challenge to the subsequent auction which had been conducted by the appellant.  The High Court while disposing of the writ petition as withdrawn, despite objection put forth by the appellant herein directed refund of the deposit which was made pursuant to its interim order dated 08.09.2017. The appellant herein is, therefore, aggrieved by the order dated 30.04.2019 only to the extent whereby the High Court has directed refund of the amount available with the appellant.   Page 6 of 26 6. The facts in the connected appeals is to the same effect except the variation in the ‘lot’ number, quantity of Kendu leaves which was purchased by each of the private respondents therein and the number of the writ petition filed before the High Court.   The names of the different tenderers in the individual writ petitions that were filed and the quantum of amount ordered to be deposited by the   High   Court   will   be   detailed   in   later   part   of   this judgment.   However, in all the cases the writ petitions have   been   withdrawn   and   the   refund   of   the   deposit ordered is directed to be refunded.  In that view, the basic contention   which   is   common,   on   consideration   would answer all the appeals herein.  7.     In that backdrop we have heard Mr. S.K. Padhi, learned senior advocate for the appellants – OFDC Ltd, Ms. Anindita Pujari, learned advocate for the appellant State   of   Odisha   and   Mr.   Aditya   Kumar   Choudhary, learned advocate for the private respondents in all the appeals   and   perused   the   materials   on   record   in   the appeals. Page 7 of 26 8. As noticed, though the private respondents herein had filed the writ petition at the stage when the earlier agreement entered into pursuant to the tender process in their   favour   had   been   cancelled   and   a   subsequent auction was notified, keeping in view the fact that all the private respondents herein had chosen to withdraw the writ petitions, which was permitted by the High Court through the order dated 30.4.2019, the consideration of that aspect is not required to be made. The only question for consideration herein is with regard to the correctness or otherwise of direction issued by the High court to the appellant   herein   to   refund   the   amount   which   was   a deposit   made   by   the   private   respondents   with   the appellant   pursuant   to   the   interim   order   dated 08.09.2017.  9. The learned senior advocate for the appellant while contending   that   the   High   court   was   not   justified   in ordering   the   refund   has   taken   us   through   the   tender notification   dated   22.11.2016,   as   also   the   purchase agreement dated 20.1.2017. In that light, it is pointed out Page 8 of 26 that apart from the Earnest Money Deposit (“EMD” for short) to enable a tenderer to participate in the tender process,   the   successful   purchaser   was   required   to initially   pay   the   provisional   security   deposit   of Rs.5,00,000/­ (Rupees Five Lakhs only) and after final collection   of   the   leaves   the   differential   amount   to   the extent of 25% of the purchase price was to be paid within 31.05.2017. It is contended that if the said amount was not paid, the security amount already paid was to be forfeited and if any further recoveries are to be made, the appellant had the liberty to do so.  10. In that light, it is contended that in the instant facts   only   the   initial  deposit  of   Rs.5,00,000/­  (Rupees Five Lakhs only) was made, apart from the EMD. The default was committed relating to payment of 25% of the additional security amount which was to be made within the time frame. Since, the extension of time as requested was   rejected   and   the   amount   was   not   deposited,   the appellant   was   left   with   no   other   alternative   but   to terminate the agreement and forfeit the security deposit. Page 9 of 26 It is the contention of the learned senior advocate that though   the   High   Court   has   not   specifically   indicated deposit to be made as the additional security deposit, the extent of deposit ordered in each of the cases makes it clear that it is relatable to the extent of the additional security amount which was to be deposited. In that light, he contends that when the writ petition was not pressed, the termination of the agreement would remain valid and in such circumstance since the clause contained in the agreement   permits   the   forfeiture   of   the   preliminary security deposit, the direction to refund the same was not justified.   On the other hand, the High Court ought to have allowed retention of the said amount and the liberty to recover additional amount, if any, should have been   left open. Hence, he contends that the direction issued by the High Court to refund the amount is not justified.  11. The   learned   advocate   for   the   respondent   would also refer to the very same clauses as contained in the agreement.   He   contends   that   the   private   respondents herein were before the High Court seeking to exercise Page 10 of 26 their right by assailing the order of termination so as to complete the transaction. With reference to the objection statement, the learned advocate would contend that there were circumstances which indicated that the price offered by the private respondent was at higher rate when the panchayat had fixed a lower price for the Kendu leaf. It is his contention that, in any event, the forfeiture can only be to the extent of the amount that had already been deposited,   namely,   the   EMD   and   the   initial   deposit regarding which the private respondents have not made a grievance. On referring to the tender conditions as also the clauses contained in the agreement, he contends that as per Clause 9 (iv) even if the additional security is not deposited or if any loss is suffered, the provision made therein is to recover the amount by way of initiating legal proceedings   or   through   the   Orissa   Public   Demand Recovery   Act   which   option   has   been   left   open   to   the appellant by the High Court and as such the appellant cannot make out any grievance. It is his contention that the   very   fact   that   the   High   Court   while   granting   the interim order, though had directed deposit of the amount Page 11 of 26 had further directed the appellant to keep it in a separate fixed deposit, will indicate that the said amount had no reference whatsoever to the additional security deposit but it was only to establish the bonafide of the private respondent who was the writ petitioner. Hence, in that circumstance when the High Court has directed refund the order does not call for interference. 12. In the light of the above, what is required to be noticed   at   the   outset   is   the   provision   relating   to   the security   deposit   contained   in   Clause   9   of   the   tender notification on which reliance was placed by both sides, which reads as hereunder: “Security Deposit (i) The   successful   purchaser   shall   have   to   pay provisional   Security   Deposit   @   Rs.5.00   lakhs (Rupees Five Lakh) per lot(s) within 21 [Twenty­ one]   days   of   issue   of   ratification   order.     If   the provisional   security   deposit   is   not   paid   at Corporate Office within 21 days from the date of issue of ratification order, the sale of the lot(s) will be   cancelled   and   the   EMD/part   S.D.   will   be forfeited   to   OFDC.     However   in   exceptional circumstances,   the   period   of   21   days   may   be extended for a further period of 7 (seven) days by the Director (C)/Managing Director of OFDC Ltd. by depositing of non­refundable fees of Rs.2000/­ (Rupees two thousand only) by the purchaser. (ii) After final collection of leaves, the purchaser has to pay the differential amount up to the extent of 25% of Purchase price of the lot towards final Security deposit within 31.5.2017, failing which it will be Page 12 of 26 considered as violation of purchaser’s agreement and   the   provisional   security   deposit   will   be forfeited. (iii) The Security Deposit can be adjusted either wholly or in part, as the case may be, by the Director (C)/Managing   Director,   OFDC   Ltd.   towards   any amount recoverable from the purchaser, including the purchase price under provisions of the Acts, Rules   &   Notification   of   Govt.,   Purchaser’s agreement   and   the  terms   and  conditions   of   the sale notice and all such deductions shall have to be made good by the purchaser by depositing an equal amount within 15 days of issue of the notice to that effect. (iv) If   the  dues  to  be  recovered   from  the  purchaser exceed the amount of security deposit, the amount in   excess   shall   unless   made   good   to   the Corporation within 15 days from the date of issue of the notice to that effect, be recoverable by way of initiating   legal   proceedings   or   through   Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act 1962 (Orissa Act­I of 1963).”  13. Similarly, the agreement entered into between the parties,   apart   from   containing   a   similar   clause   for security deposit as at Clause No.11, also contains Clause 13 relating to the termination of the agreement. The said clause reads as under: ­ “13. Termination of Purchaser’s Agreement           (i) If the purchaser fails to pay the first instalment nd nd before the due date of 2   instalment or 2   instalment rd before due date of the 3  instalment or third instalment within 15 days after its due date or any other amount due   or   to   comply   with   any   of   the   provisions   of   the agreement, the Director (C)/Managing Director of OFDC Ltd. may at his discretion and without prejudice to any other right  and remedies that may be available to him, terminate this agreement after giving 15 days notice and Page 13 of 26 an opportunity of hearing to the purchaser and blacklist the purchaser for a period up to 3 years. (ii) The order of termination of the agreement shall be delivered   in   person   to   the   purchaser   or   sent   by Registered/Speed Post.  The termination shall be effective from the date of order terminating the agreement. (iii) On termination of the agreement the Corporation shall be entitled to: a. Forfeit   the   provisional   as   well   as   final   security deposit in full. b. Forfeit the undelivered stocks of Kenduleaves in storage in favour of the Corporation for which payment has been made. Cancel the customer registration with OFDC along c. with forfeiture of registration fees. d. (i)  Sell the Kenduleaves in the godown for which amount due has not been paid and undelivered stock of Kenduleaves in storage which has been forfeited   in   favour   of   the   Corporation   under condition   13   (iii)  (b)  and   recover  the   loss.     The same shall also be recoverable by encashment of the  Bank  guarantee,   if any  such guarantee  has been furnished by the purchaser under clause­7, as also from sale of such leaves which has been forfeited   in   favour   of   the   Corporation   under condition 13(iii)(b).  Provided if the lot is not resold in the first sale after issue of order of termination of   agreement,   loss   will   be   recovered   from   the purchaser   treating  the   value   of   the   lot   as   zero. However, if the lot is sold in subsequent sale, the amount of sale price recovered as such shall be adjustable against balance amount of loss or be refunded  to the purchaser  as  the  case  may  be. However   no   interest   will   be   payable   to   the purchaser   on   such   amount.     In   the   event   of cancellation of purchaser’s agreement the loss to st be recovered from 1   purchaser will be computed as follows: ­ Total   expected   receipts   including   all   taxes   in concerned   sale   (+)   expenditure   on   storage, supervision   etc.   up   to   disposal   (­)   receipts including taxes from subsequent sale. (ii)  Recover any amount of loss still remaining due through Legal proceedings. Page 14 of 26 (iii)   Retain   the   full   amount,   if   on   such   resale, higher amount is received than is due in respect of the lot and the purchaser shall have not right or claim there to. e.   Recover   all   cost   and   expenses   incurred   for recovering loss. f. Recover all penalties imposed and compensation assessed not yet paid.” In   addition   to   the   same,   it   is   noticed   that   in   the communication dated 02.08.2017 (Annexure P/8) while issuing   the   notice   calling   upon   to   pay   the   additional security deposit, the appellant has indicated that if the same is not paid the provisional security deposit will be forfeited and the ‘lot’ will be sold in the ensuing sale. That apart, in the order dated 21.08.2017 whereby the agreement   was   terminated,   it   was   intimated   that   the provisional   security   is   forfeited   and   that   the   stock contained in ‘lot’ No. 42 would be resold at the ‘cost and risk’ of the private respondent herein. 14.  In the above background, a perusal of the interim order   dated   08.09.2017   passed   in   writ   petition   would indicate that the High Court on considering the facts and circumstances of the case has directed that the private Page 15 of 26 respondents herein deposit the amount as indicated in the order, which is shown against their respective names here below in tabular format for easy reference: ­ 

Page 16 of 26 The High Court does not specifically indicate  that the amount is relatable to the additional security that was required to be deposited by the writ petitioners. 15.  In a circumstance of the present nature, when it is noticed that the termination of the agreement itself was for non­deposit of the additional security amount to the extent of 25% of the value, the deposit ordered by the High Court cannot be classified as additional deposit in terms of the contract, at that stage. If ultimately the writ petition   was   taken   to   its   logical   conclusion   and   the private respondents had succeeded in such proceedings, only   in  such   event   the   said   amount   could   have   been considered   as   a   belated   payment   towards   additional security deposit and in any event, the consideration in that   regard   would   be   in   terms   of   the   directions   that would have been issued by the High Court. Though that be the position and presently since the writ petition was withdrawn unconditionally, the question is as to whether the respondents were entitled to refund of the amount as a matter of right when all future action for disposal of the Page 17 of 26 subject Kendu leaves was at the ……. ‘cost and risk’ of the   private   respondents   as   per   Clause   13   of   the agreement which is extracted supra.   Hence even if the said amount is not considered as the additional security amount in its true spirit as per the agreement and the right   of   forfeiture   at   this   stage   is   not   accepted   in   its technical sense in favour of the appellant, the right of the appellant   to   recover   the   loss   suffered   in   terms   of   the agreement cannot be ignored. 16. In   the   above   backdrop,   before   we   proceed   any further,   the   intent   of   such   conditional   interim   orders passed by the Courts will have to be gathered.  In order to aid the same it will be apposite to take note of the observations contained in the decision of this Court in the case of  M/s. Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. vs. M/s.  (2005) 1 SCC 705 which is as Federal Motors Pvt. Ltd. hereunder, “The power to grant stay is discretionary and flows from the jurisdiction conferred on an appellate Court which is equitable in nature. To secure an order of stay merely by preferring an appeal is not the statutory right conferred on the appellant. So also, an appellate Court is not ordained to grant an order of stay merely because an appeal has been preferred and an application for an order of stay has Page 18 of 26 been made. Therefore, an applicant for order of stay must do equity for seeking equity. Depending on the facts and circumstances of a given case an appellate Court, while passing an order of stay, may put the parties on such terms the enforcement whereof would satisfy the demand for justice of the party found successful at the end of the appeal. In South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Vs. State of M.P. & Ors., (2003) 8 SCC 648, this Court while dealing with interim orders granted in favour of any party to litigation for   the   purpose   of   extending   protection   to   it,   effective during   the   pendency   of   the   proceedings,   has   held   that such  interim  orders,   passed  at an interim stage,   stand reversed in the event of the final decision going against the party successful in securing interim orders in its favour; and the successful party at the end would be justified in demanding compensation and being placed in the same situation in which it would have been if the interim order would  not   have  been   passed   against   it.  The   successful party can demand (a) the delivery to it of benefit earned by the  opposite party under the interim order of the High Court, or (b) compensation for what it has lost, and to grant such relief is the inherent jurisdiction of the Court. In our opinion, while granting an order of stay under Order 41   Rule   5   of   the   CPC,   the   appellate   court   does   have jurisdiction to put the party seeking stay order on such terms   as   would   reasonably   compensate   the   party successful  at  the end  of the  appeal in  so  far as  those proceedings are concerned.” Though the said observation was made in the context of interim order being considered under Order 41 Rule 5 CPC, it would be more appropriate in a writ proceedings in as much as, not only the interim prayer but the very writ   petition   will   be   entertained   in   the   discretionary jurisdiction unlike the statutory appeal under Section 96 read with Order 41 of CPC.   In such circumstance, though   it   is   not   necessary   that   a   condition   is   to   be imposed in every case for grant of interim order, if the Page 19 of 26 Court in a given case imposes the condition, the same is to be treated as being with a purpose and not as an empty formality.  17. In that regard, it is to be noticed that in the instant case in a circumstance where the private respondent had filed the writ petition, even though the High court had permitted   the   process   of   re­tender   to   progress,   the finalization   thereof   had   been   stayed.   If   that   be   the position, the appellant herein was not in a position to immediately   bring   the   Kendu   leaves   for   re­auction   by receiving the amount from the subsequent purchaser and the same is likely to have dissuaded purchasers to offer the best price due to uncertainty looming large.  Whether all these and any other factor has caused the loss to the appellant  and   the   public   exchequer   is   a  matter   to  be determined based on materials and evidence but the fact remains that such resultant delay was at the instance of the private respondent.  As noticed from the terms of the agreement,   any   loss   caused   was   permissible   to   be recovered   from   the   respondent   after   adjusting   the Page 20 of 26 security deposit available. Therefore, even if the amount of deposit made pursuant to the order passed by the High Court is not considered as an additional security deposit, the right of the appellant to proceed in accordance with law to assess the damage suffered and to recover the same from the private respondents, would still remain intact.     As   such   the   deposit   ordered   will   have   to   be considered as a conditional deposit to protect the interest of the appellant as well.  18. In such event, the issue for consideration is as to whether in view of the clause contained in 9(iv) of the tender   notification   the   appellant   should   be   driven   to initiate   the   legal   proceedings   or   for   public   demand recovery after refunding the amount which is deposited, as   contended   by   the   learned   Advocate   for   the   private respondents   despite   taking   note   of   the   intent   of   such deposit. It is no doubt true, dehors the writ proceedings initiated by the private respondents and in the absence of such   deposit,   option   in   any   event   was   open   to   the appellant   to   make   the   recovery   through   such Page 21 of 26 proceedings.     It   is   noticed   that   apart   from   the   right available   to   recover   the   amount   by   forfeiting   the additional security deposit, the appellant had also clearly indicated that the subsequent sale would be made at the ‘……cost   and   risk’   of   the   private   respondents   herein which would mean that the difference of the cost between the first and second auction and the resultant loss to the appellant  if   attributable   to   the   private   respondents,   is recoverable from the private respondents. However, it is no doubt true that such recovery is to be made after quantifying the same by following due process of law.  19. Presently, though the learned senior advocate for the appellant had furnished a chart showing the original price as against the resale price, thereby projecting the net loss suffered by the appellant, the correctness of the same   cannot   be   adjudicated   in   a   proceeding   of   the present   nature   arising   out   of   a   writ   proceeding.   The matter   being   contractual   and   also   requiring   factual determination,   the   same   can   only   be   done   in   an appropriate proceeding. Therefore, though at this stage Page 22 of 26 the said amount of deposit as ordered by the High Court cannot be considered as additional security deposit nor the actual determination of the loss suffered, when in a circumstance the action of the appellant to re­tender was caused to be deferred, through a proceedings initiated at the instance of the private respondent, the condition to deposit the amount should have been considered by the High Court in the background of its intent to protect the interest   of   appellant.   In   that   circumstance,   when   the contention of loss being caused was put forth the amount ought   to   have   been   allowed   to   be   retained   till   the procedure   as   contemplated   in   law   is   followed   and   a decision is taken though not directly as forfeiture. 20. As noticed above, the appellant in any event would have the right to determine the loss suffered and recover the same in accordance with law as the process to re­ tender,   was   at   the   ‘…...cost   and   risk’   of   the   private respondent as stated in the notice of termination.  In that circumstance, when it is prima­facie indicated that due to   the   delay   caused   at   the   instance   of   the   private Page 23 of 26 respondents the value of the Kendu leaves had reduced, thereby causing loss, in view of legal proceedings initiated by the private respondents, the Court will have to bear in mind the maxim  namely, actus curiae neminem gravabit,  no party should suffer due to the act of Court. In such event, since the interim order was at the instance of the respondent   the   appellant   should   in   our   opinion   be permitted to retain the amount and complete the process by providing opportunity to the private respondents.  21. In the above circumstance, the direction to refund the amount unconditionally is not found justified and is accordingly   set   aside.   The   appellant   shall   issue appropriate   notice(s)   to   the   private   respondents indicating   details   about   the   manner   in   which   they computed the loss after conducting the second auction at the ‘cost and risk’ of the private respondent. On receiving response to the same, a detailed consideration be made and   a   speaking   order   be   passed   in   that   regard.   The respondents are at liberty to challenge the speaking order to   be   passed   by   the   appellant   and   the   process   being Page 24 of 26 pursuant to a contractual matter the private respondent if aggrieved are entitled to avail their legal remedy before the appropriate forum, in accordance with law and the entitlement of the amount will be decided therein.  As per the speaking order passed by the appellant, if it is found that the loss suffered is within the amount available in deposit, appropriate adjustment should be made and the balance if any, be refunded.   On the other hand, if the loss  caused   is   found  to   be   more   than   the   amount   in deposit, the amount available shall be adjusted and the appellant would have the liberty of initiating action for the   recovery   of   the   additional   amount,   if   any,   in accordance with law. Such procedure shall be completed within the outer limit of two months from the date on which a copy of this order is available. Until such time, the amount available in fixed deposit as ordered by the High Court shall be retained in the same position and shall not be appropriated for the benefit of the appellant. The adjustment of the amount by the appellant if made after   passing   the   speaking   order,   the   same   shall   be without prejudice to the contention of both parties and Page 25 of 26 the   same   shall   be   subject   to   the   outcome   of   the proceedings in the matters where the respondents may challenge the speaking order in accordance with law. 22. Accordingly,   all   the   appeals   are   allowed   in   part with no order as to costs.  Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. ………………………..J. (R. BANUMATHI)                                                    .……………………….J.                                               (A.S. BOPANNA)    ………………………….J.                                               (HRISHIKESH ROY) New Delhi, November 28, 2019 Page 26 of 26