Full Judgment Text
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No 1318 of 2017
M/s. Edelweiss Asset Construction …Appellant
Company Limited
Versus
R. Perumalswamy and Ors. …Respondents
With
Civil Appeal No 1319 of 2017
And With
Contempt Petition (Civil) No 1906 of 2017
In
Civil Appeal No 1319 of 2017
J U D G M E N T
Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J
1
1 The present appeals arise from a judgment and order of a Division Bench of the
High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 22 December 2016. While allowing a writ
2
appeal filed by the first respondent, the Division Bench of the High Court set aside the
judgment and order of a learned Single Judge dated 30 August 2016, which was
1 Civil Appeal Nos 1318 and 1319 of 2017
2 WA no 1201 of 2016
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
CHETAN KUMAR
Date: 2020.02.25
14:28:15 IST
Reason:
1
rendered in a challenge by the appellants to an order dated 28 December 2015 of the
3
District Revenue Officer , Tiruvallur.
4
2 WS Industries (India) Ltd , the appellant in Civil Appeal No 1319 of 2017 was
incorporated on 23 August 1961 under the Companies Act 1956. Between 27
December 1961 and 8 May 1963, the State of Tamil Nadu issued various notifications
5
under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 , seeking to acquire 49.67 acres of
land situated at Porur Village, Ambattur Taluk, Tiruvallar District, Tamil Nadu. The land
which was the subject matter of acquisition under a notification dated 20 June 1962,
included survey numbers 70/1, 73/2 and 77, comprising an overall area of 46.04 acres.
On 4 July 1962, the State of Tamil Nadu issued a notification under Section 6 of the
Land Acquisition Act with reference to 11.61 acres comprised in survey numbers 70/1,
73/2 and 77. On 17 October 1962, a notification was issued under Section 6 with
reference to 1.50 acres of land comprised in survey number 70/1. This was followed by
awards dated 20 August 1963, 28 March 1963, 25 October 1963 and 7 November 1963
covering an aggregate area of 13.11 acres of land.
3 On 26 February 1964, a registered deed of assignment was executed by the
Governor of Madras in favour of WSIL for an area of 46.04 acres including the disputed
land. The deed of assignment recorded that the State of Tamil Nadu had been paid an
amount of ₹ 1,86,528.52 by WSIL towards the cost of acquisition. In August 1964, WSIL
3 “DRO”
4 “WSIL”
5 “Land Acquisition Act”
2
availed of a loan from ICICI Bank which was secured by a deposit of the title deeds of
the disputed lands. WSIL also obtained various loans and credit facilities from other
banks which were secured by the creation of mortgages on land stated to be
admeasuring about 29 acres.
6
4 On 17 August 2004, the State of Tamil Nadu issued a Government Order
empowering the DRO to rectify defects that may have occurred in the course of
updating the records in the Land Registry. Edelweiss Asset Construction Co Ltd, the
appellant in Civil Appeal No 1318 of 2017, claims an assignment of the debts of WSIL.
5 The dispute in the present case arose on 7 September 2015, when the first
respondent filed an application before the DRO seeking to rectify the revenue records in
respect of the lands bearing survey numbers 70/1, 73 and 77. On 12 September 2015,
the first respondent addressed a legal notice to WSIL claiming an area admeasuring
approximately 13.65 acres comprised in survey numbers 70/1, 73/2 and 77. The case
which the first respondent set up before the DRO was that his father, D Rajagopal, had
purchased a “larger extent of land” in Porur Village, Ambattur Taluk, Tiruvallur District
under a registered sale deed dated 9 October 1929. These lands admeasuring 20.47
acres were alleged to be comprised in survey numbers 70/1, 71, 72 and 77. The first
respondent claimed that in 1962, his father had leased the above 20.47 acres of land to
WSIL for a period of fifty years. According to the first respondent, based on the lease
and possession, WSIL obtained a patta in their favour. The first respondent claimed that
6 GO No 385
3
after the expiry of the term of the lease, WSIL was bound to deliver possession of the
land and that it had no right or interest over the land. On this basis, the first respondent
sought the cancellation of the patta in favour of WSIL. The first respondent claimed that
he was in possession of the original sale deed in respect of 20.47 acres of land which
he was ready to produce. Both in the petition before the DRO which was submitted on 7
September 2015, and legal notice sent to WSIL, a similar claim was set up.
6 During the pendency of the proceedings before the DRO, a letter was addressed
on 11 September 2015 to the Tehsildar for conducting an enquiry into the claim of the
respondent. The Tehsildar addressed a communication dated 29 October 2015 and
recorded the case of the first respondent that his father had acquired the lands under a
registered sale deed dated 9 October 1929 and that by an oral lease, an extent of 13.65
acres comprised in survey numbers 70/1, 73/2 and 77 had been granted to WSIL for a
period of fifty years. The Tehsildar, in his report to the DRO, took note of the contention
of WSIL that the land had been acquired by the State of Tamil Nadu. Eventually, on the
basis that WSIL had not furnished any document in respect of the land comprised in
survey numbers 70/1, 73/2 and 77 admeasuring 13.65 acres and relying on the case of
the first respondent, a recommendation was made for cancelling the patta standing in
the name of WSIL. The application was disposed of by the DRO by an order dated 28
December 2015. The DRO ordered that:
“It is ordered that the registry in respect of the lands in S.
No.73/2 measuring 0.92.0 hectares and S. No.77 measuring
2.30.0 hectares of Porur Village, Ambattur Taluka, made in
the name of W.S. Insulators of India Limited during the
4
updating registry scheme is liable to be cancelled and
ordered to register in the name of the applicant Thiru R.
Perumalswamy S/o (late) Thiru Rajagopal.”
7 Aggrieved by the order of the DRO, WSIL instituted writ proceedings before the
High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. By a judgment dated 30 August 2016,
a learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition. The learned Single Judge took note of
the acquisition proceedings by the State of Tamil Nadu and came to the conclusion that
upon acquisition, the lands vested absolutely in the State Government free of all
encumbrances. The learned Single Judge observed that while purporting to rectify the
defects in the land registry in terms of the Government Order dated 17 August 2004, the
DRO placed reliance on the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ambattur, of which
a copy had not been furnished. Moreover, it was noted that though the father of the first
respondent died on 29 November 2004, it was only in September 2015 that the
jurisdiction of the DRO had been invoked. The learned Single Judge held that the DRO
had committed a manifest error in enquiring into the title to the lands in question and
had therefore acted in excess of its jurisdiction. The order passed by the DRO was
accordingly set aside.
8 In a writ appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, a Division
Bench of the High Court by a judgment dated 22 December 2016, set aside the
judgment of the learned Single Judge and restored the order passed by the DRO. In the
view of the Division Bench, the DRO acted within jurisdiction in rectifying the mistake in
the land records and it was open to him to verify the documents on which reliance had
5
been placed by the parties. The finding of the learned Single Judge that the DRO had
acted in excess of its jurisdiction in deciding a question of title did not find favour with
the Division Bench. Aggrieved by the order of the Division Bench of the High Court,
both Edelweiss Asset Construction Co Ltd and WSIL filed two separate Special Leave
Petitions before this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.
9 By an order dated 24 April 2019, this Court recorded the submissions which were
urged on behalf of the State of Tamil Nadu in the following terms and issued the
directions which are extracted below:
“Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Tamil
Nadu states that he has been able to obtain, upon a thorough
search, the relevant documents from the Industries
Department which he seeks to place in the form of a
compilation.
However, we are of the view that it would be appropriate if
any documents that the State seeks to file at this stage are
duly supported by an affidavit. We permit the State of Tamil
Nadu to do so within a period of two weeks from today.
An advance copy of the affidavit together with the compilation
of documents shall be made available to the contesting
parties in these proceedings.
The parties would be at liberty to respond to the affidavit
which will be filed on behalf of the State of Tamil Nadu within
a period of three weeks thereafter.
List on 16 July 2019.”
10 In pursuance of the above directions, the State of Tamil Nadu filed a compilation
of additional documents on an affidavit. These documents comprise of the records of
the Industries Department. In terms of the order passed by this Court, an opportunity
6
was granted to all the parties appearing before this Court to controvert the contents of
the additional documents which were placed on record.
11 The State of Tamil Nadu has submitted on affidavit that the State Government
had acquired the subject land which was assigned to WSIL by way of a deed of
assignment dated 26 February 1964 for the purpose of constructing a factory. A copy of
the deed of assignment which has been annexed to the affidavit contains a recital that
(i) the lands vested absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances;
and (ii) WSIL had paid an amount of ₹ 1,86,528.52 towards the cost of acquisition.
Under the terms of the deed of assignment, the State Government assigned the land to
WSIL for establishment of a factory. The State Government reserved to itself the right to
resume the land in whole or in part, if it was not used by the company for the purpose
for which it was acquired within a period of one year or within such extended period as
may be allowed. The affidavit of the State Government further states that a request was
made by WSIL for transfer of 7.61 acres from a portion of the land acquired by it to S &
S Power Switchgear Limited, a sister concern of WSIL. On 8 June 1977, the State
Government allowed WSIL’s request to transfer an extent of 31,311.50 square meters
of land. The State Government also directed the transferee to apply for an exemption
for holding excess land under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation Act) 1976 as
then applicable in the State of Tamil Nadu. Subsequently, on 26 February 2002, WSIL
made another request to the State Government to transfer an extent of 14 acres to its
subsidiary M/s WS Electric Limited for setting up of a Software Technology Park. This
7
request was acceded to by the State Government on 17 September 2002. From the
affidavit filed by the State of Tamil Nadu, it appears that subsequently on 30 September
2002 another request was made for deletion of some part of the land which had already
been ordered to be transferred on 17 September 2002. On the aspect of addition of
certain other lands for the development of Software Technology Park, the State
Government stated that it acceded to the request on 13 May 2003. The State
Government has also brought this Court’s attention to the fact that on 5 October 2017, it
had issued a notice to show cause to WSIL for violation of the deed of assignment
dated 26 February 1964 and was proposing to resume the land. An important aspect
which merits emphasis at this stage is that on 17 May 2019, the Joint Sub-Registrar
issued details of the Encumbrance Certificate regarding survey numbers 70, 73 and 77
to the District Collector, Chennai. By a communication dated 16 June 2019, the Joint
Sub-Registrar has also forwarded a copy of the HR Register which has a bearing on the
disputed lands in question. In the present proceedings, we are not concerned with the
merits of the show cause notice and the subsequent proceedings initiated by the State
of Tamil Nadu for resumption of the land.
12 Assailing the judgment of the High Court, Mr Neeraj Kishan Kaul and Mr C A
Sundaram, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant have
submitted that the lands in question were acquired by the State of Tamil Nadu under the
provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Upon acquisition, the lands vested in the State
Government and were assigned under a registered deed of assignment dated 26
8
February 1964 in favour of WSIL. Learned counsel submitted that the case that was
sought to be set up by the first respondent was on the basis that his father had acquired
the land under a registered sale deed dated 9 October 1929. Moreover, it was urged by
the first respondent that an oral lease had been executed by the predecessor of the first
respondent in favour of WSIL in 1962 for a term of fifty years and upon the expiry of the
lease, the land was to be reverted back to the owner. Learned Counsel submitted that
upon the acquisition of the land in question by the State of Tamil Nadu, the land vested
in the government free of all encumbrances and it was not open to the first respondent
to move an application for rectification of the land record. Moreover, it was urged that
neither the sale deed dated 9 October 1929, nor the terms of the oral lease were
proved and placed on record. It has been submitted that in spite of the order of this
Court granting a status quo , the first respondent attempted to deal with the lands in
violation of the interim order. That apart, it has been urged that the Encumbrance
Certificates which were relied upon by the first respondent, constituted the sole basis of
the claim and the record which was produced by the State of Tamil Nadu, indicated that
the encumbrance certificates had been interpolated.
13 Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Tamil Nadu has submitted
that the State Government had issued a resumption notice to WSIL and that it would
independently take such action as is necessary in accordance with law. However, it was
urged that the first respondent had no locus to move an application for rectification of
land records before the DRO. It was argued that the lands had been duly acquired by
9
the State of Tamil Nadu and any interest that the first respondent claimed through his
father, would stand extinguished and his claim at the highest could have been to seek a
remedy for compensation in accordance with law. In any event, it has been submitted
that the entire case of the first respondent is based on a sale deed which has not seen
the light of the day either before the DRO or before the High Court. It was argued that
the first respondent has failed to produce ownership documents to prove title even
before this Court.
14 Insofar as the first respondent is concerned, it is necessary to note that notice
had been duly served and leave was granted in both the appeals on 27 January 2017.
The first respondent had filed a caveat and appeared at various stages of the hearing of
the proceedings. We may note that the appeals were heard in part on 14 February 2019
and 21 February 2019. On 24 April 2019, an order was passed by this Court, the terms
of which have already been noted earlier. At all these stages, the first respondent has
been duly represented by counsel and has been heard. Eventually, as a result of a
change in assignments, the appeals were directed to be released as part heard cases
and were accordingly placed before this Bench for hearing. During the course of the
hearing of the proceedings, the first respondent was represented by Mr
Ramasubramanian and Mr M Munusamy, learned Counsel. Mr Ramasubramanian,
however, informed this Court later that he had appeared on the bona fide instructions of
his junior and has now received instructions not to appear in the proceedings. We may
note that the attention of the Court has been drawn to the fact that in the present case
10
there has been a succession of Advocates-on-Record who have been changed in the
course of proceedings.
15 The Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act 1983, deals with issues of patta pass book
entries with respect to holders of agricultural lands. Section 6 prescribes that entries in
the patta pass book will be considered as prima facie evidence of title. Section 6
provides thus:
“6. Entries in the patta pass book to be prima facie evidence
of title.- The entries in the patta book issued by the Tahsildar
under section 3 shall be prima facie evidence of title of the
person in whose name the patta pass book has been issued
to the parcels of land entered in the patta pass book, free of
any prior encumbrance, unless otherwise specified therein.”
All entries in the patta pass book issued by the Tahsildar shall be considered as prima
facie evidence of title of ownership of the person, free of all encumbrances. However,
the underlying presumption is rebuttable.
16 Section 10 provides for the procedure to be adopted for modification of the
entries in the patta pass book as follows:
“10. Modification of entries in the patta pass book.- (1) Where
any person claims that any modification is required in respect
of any entry in the patta pass book already issued under
section 3 either by reason of the death of any person or by
the reason of the transfer of the land or by reason of any
other subsequent change in circumstances, he shall make an
application to the Tahsildar for the modification of the relevant
entries in the patta pass book.
(2) An application under sub-section (1) shall contain such
particulars, as may be prescribed, and shall be accompanied
11
by the documents, if any, relied on by the applicant as
evidence in support of his claim.
(3) (a) Before passing an order on an application under sub-
section (1), the Tahsildar shall follow such procedure as may
be prescribed and shall also give a reasonable opportunity to
the parties concerned to make their representations either
orally or in writing. If the Tahsildar decides that any
modification should be made in respect of entries in the patta
passbook, he shall pass an order accordingly and shall make
such consequential changes in the patta pass book, as
appear to him to be necessary, for giving effect to his order.
(b) If the Tahsildar decides that there is no case for effecting
any modification of the entries in the patta pass book, he shall
reject the application.
(c) An order under clause (a) or clause (b) shall contain the
reasons for such order and shall be communicated to the
parties concerned in such manner as may be prescribed.”
Section 10 provides for modification in respect of an entry in the patta pass book by
submitting an application before the Tahsildar. The application shall be accompanied
with documents as evidence, if any, relied upon by the applicant to substantiate his
claim. The Tahsildar shall make a modification in the patta pass book only after giving a
reasonable opportunity to the concerned parties to make their representation.
17 Section 14 provides for bar of certain suits against the government or any officer
of the government in respect of a claim to have any entry made in any patta pass book.
Section 14 provides as follows:
“14. Bar of suits.- No suit shall lie against the Government or
any officer of the Government in respect of a claim to have an
entry made in any patta pass book that is maintained under
this Act or to have any such entry omitted or amended:
Provided that if any person is aggrieved as to any right of
which he is in possession, by an entry made in the patta
pass book under this Act, he may institute a suit for a
12
declaration of his rights under Chapter VI of the Specific
Relief Act, 1963 (Central Act 47 of 1963); and the entry in
the patta pass book shall be amended in accordance with
any such declaration .”
(Emphasis supplied)
Under Section 14, the right to approach a civil court is not prohibited in all cases.
Section 14 only bars suits being filed against the government and its officials regarding
entries made in the patta pass book. The proviso does not prevent parties from filing
suits against rival claimants or individuals and seeking any of the remedies available
under Chapter VI of the Specific Relief Act 1963. The proviso states that any person
who is aggrieved by any entry made in the patta pass book is entitled to file a suit for
declaration of title and the entry in the patta pass book shall be amended in accordance
with such declaration.
18 The Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Rules 1987 provide for the procedure to be
adopted to deal with enquiries with respect to the entries made in the patta pass book.
Rule 4 provides for the procedure on recipient of an application or information with
respect to an entry in the patta pass book. The relevant portion of Rule 4 provides thus:
“4. Procedure on receipt of application or information. - (1) On
receipt of the application or information, the Tahsildar shall
make an entry in the "Register of Applications Received" in
the order of receipt in Form III. The Register shall be
maintained village-wise.
(2) On the basis of the information furnished in the application
and as available in the existing land records or obtained
otherwise, the Tahsildar shall cause to be served or
despatched, under certificate of posting, to the persons
having interest on the land a notice in Form IV calling upon
13
them to make representation either orally, or in writing at a
specific place on a specified date which shall be not less than
fifteen days and forty days later than the date of receipt of the
application or information.
(3) On the prescribed date, the Tahsildar shall conduct a
summary enquiry. At the enquiry, on consideration of age,
literacy and occupation, the Tahsildar may permit an
authorised agent of the owner to appear on his behalf to
supplement whatever the owner has to state orally or in
writing. No legal practitioner in his professional capacity shall
be allowed to represent any party at such an enquiry. There
shall not be adjournment of the enquiry not more than twice
and that adjournment shall be granted only on application
made by the parties requesting for adjournment. Reasons for
granting or refusing the adjournment shall be recorded by the
Tahsildar in writing.
(4) In the event of the Tahsildar being satisfied that a
dispute concerning ownership of patta is already
pending in a Court or issues are raised before him which
impinge on personal laws or laws of succession and all
the parties interested do not agree on the ownership in
writing, he shall direct the concerned parties to obtain
order on the ownership from a competent Civil Court
having jurisdiction before changing the entries as
already recorded and existing in the various revenue
records .”
(Emphasis supplied)
In terms of Rule 4(4), the Tahsildar upon being satisfied that a dispute concerning the
ownership of patta is already pending in a court or any issue that is raised before him
impinges on personal or laws of succession shall direct the concerned parties to obtain
an “order of ownership” from a competent civil court having jurisdiction and accordingly
change the entries recorded in various revenue records.
19 Under the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act 1983 and the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass
Book Rules 1987, the Tahsildar is not empowered to adjudicate upon a ‘title dispute’. A
14
combined reading of Section 14 and Rule 4(4) indicates that where there exists a
dispute with respect to ownership of a land between parties with respect to a patta
entry, the correct procedure to be adopted is to approach a civil court having competent
jurisdiction. The entry records will be updated on the basis of the decree of the civil
court upon adjudication.
20 In the present case, Government Order dated 17 August 2004 revoked the
powers of rectification of defects in updating of registry cases conferred upon the
Tahsildar by Government Order no 921 dated 15 August 2001. Instead, Government
Order dated 17 August 2004 empowered the DRO to cure any defects occurring in the
land registry after enquiry. In the present case, the first respondent by an application
dated 7 September 2015 approached the DRO for change of patta in respect of the
disputed lands. The DRO issued summons to the appellant to prove its legal ownership
and possession. By an order dated 28 December 2015, the DRO solely relied on the
report of the Revenue Divisional Officer and ordered deletion of the appellant’s name
from the land records and replaced it with first respondent’s name. The revenue officer
had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon title. A dispute with respect to the title of land is a
mixed question of fact and law, which needs to be raised before a competent civil court.
21 The narration of facts in the earlier part of the judgment makes it clear that on 26
February 1964, the State of Tamil Nadu executed a deed of assignment in favour of
WSIL. The deed of assignment specifically records that the lands vested in the State of
Tamil Nadu free of all encumbrances and were allotted to WSIL. The entire case of the
15
first respondent, was founded on an alleged sale deed of 9 October 1929, under which
his father acquired the land and an alleged oral lease, by which the land was leased in
favour of WSIL in 1963. Neither the sale deed nor the terms of the alleged oral lease
have been produced in the course of the proceedings. Once the lands were acquired by
the State of Tamil Nadu, any pre-existing claim of the first respondent would stand
extinguished. The purpose of the Government Order dated 17 August 2004, is to enable
the DRO to rectify the defects in the land registry. The DRO exceeded his jurisdiction by
engaging in an exercise of investigating the title to the disputed land and substituting
the first respondent with the appellant in the land records. The learned Single Judge
was correct in holding that the DRO in the guise of acting in accordance with the said
Government Order, wrongly adjudicated upon the question of title which was beyond
jurisdiction.
22 The first respondent raised an argument before the Division Bench of the High
Court that on 26 February 1964, the disputed land was acquired by the State
Government and assigned in favour of WSIL but in 1964 itself, the land thereafter was
re-conveyed to the State Government. This submission which has been recorded in
paragraph 36 of the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court is in itself
sufficient to displace the case of the first respondent. Once the first respondent has
accepted the fact of the acquisition of the lands by the State Government, clearly then,
the first respondent would have no subsisting interest in the land. As a result, the first
respondent did not have any locus to pursue the application before the DRO for
correction of land records.
16
23 For the reasons above, we come to the conclusion that the view taken by the
Division Bench of the High Court in the writ appeal is unsustainable and we accordingly
set aside the judgment and order of the Division Bench dated 22 December 2016. In
consequence, the order of the DRO dated 28 December 2015 is set aside and the
judgment of the learned Single Judge is restored. The appeals shall accordingly stand
allowed in the above terms. We however clarify that the Court in the present
proceedings has had no occasion to make any observation on the merits of the show
cause notice which has been issued by the State of Tamil Nadu to WSIL for resumption
of the lands. We keep open all the rights and contentions of the parties in that regard.
Contempt Petition (Civil) No 1906 of 2017 In Civil Appeal No 1319 of 2017
24 In view of the order passed in Civil Appeal Nos 1318 and 1319 of 2017, nothing
remains to be dealt with in this Contempt Petition. The Contempt Petition is accordingly
disposed of.
25 Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
…………...…...….......………………........J.
[Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud]
…..…..…....…........……………….…........J.
[Ajay Rastogi]
New Delhi;
February 06, 2020
17
ITEM NO.102 COURT NO.8 SECTION XII
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No.1318/2017
M/S EDELWEISS ASSET CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
R. PERUMALSWAMY AND ORS. Respondent(s)
(With appln.(s) for referring the dispute to mediation and
intervention/impleadment)
WITH C.A. No.1319/2017 (XII)
(With appln.(s) for referring the dispute to mediation and
intervention/impleadment)
CONMT.PET.(C) No.1906/2017 in C.A. No. 1319/2017 (XII)
Date : 06-02-2020 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI
For Appellant(s) Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Atul Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Renuka Iyer, Adv.
Mr. Akash Lamba, Adv.
M/s. M. Rambabu And Co.
CA 1319/2017 & Mr. C. Ariyama Sundaram, Sr. Adv.
CP(C) 1906/2017 Mr. Amar Dave, Adv.
Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv.
Mr. Ankur Saigal, Adv.
Ms. Gunika gupta, Adv.
Mr. Divyang Gobind Chandiramani, Adv.
Mr. Sanjiv Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Shaishir S. Divatia, Adv.
Mr. K.P. Sanjeev Kumar, Adv.
Ms. Rohini Musa, Adv.
Mr. Abhishek Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Zafar Inayat, Adv.
18
Mr. K.P. Sathish Kumar, Adv.
Mr. B. Mohanraj, Adv.
Mr. K. Kanagaraj, Adv.
Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR
For Respondent(s)
Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, AOR
Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, AAG
Mr. T.R.B. Siva Kumar, Adv.
Mr. M. Karthiga, Adv.
Mr. K. V. Vijayakumar, AOR
Mr. D. L. Chidananda, AOR
Mr. V. Balaji, Adv.
Mr. Vinod Mehta, Adv.
Mr. Atul Mehta, Adv.
Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, AOR
Ms. Astha Tyagi, AOR
Mr. Mullapudi Rambabu, Adv.
Mr. Shravanath Paruchuri, Adv.
for M/s. M. Rambabu And Co.
Mr. S. Gowthaman, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Civil Appeal Nos.1318 and 1319 of 2017
The appeals are allowed in terms of the signed
reportable judgment.
Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
Contempt Petition (C) No.1906/2017 in Civil Appeal
No.1319/2017
The contempt petition is disposed of in terms of the
signed reportable judgment.
19
Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
(Chetan Kumar) (Saroj Kumari Gaur)
A.R.-cum-P.S. Court Master
(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)
20