Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 1391
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No. 14604 OF 2025
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.8303 of 2025)
SMT. BOLLA MALATHI …APPELLANT
VERSUS
B. SUGUNA AND ORS. …RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
SANJAY KAROL J.
Leave Granted.
2. The family members i.e. wife and mother of the
deceased, one Bolla Mohan are at odds in this appeal arising out
th
of a judgment and order dated 11 February 2025 passed by the
High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 5756
1
of 2024, regarding the release of General Provident Fund
Signature Not Verified
amount accrued in the course of employment of the deceased in
Digitally signed by
RAJNI MUKHI
Date: 2025.12.05
17:52:38 IST
Reason:
1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘GPF’
C.A. No. @SLP (C) No.8303 of 2025) Page 1 of 10
the Defence Accounts Department, Government of India.
th
3. When the deceased joined service on 29 February 2000,
as per the applicable rules, he nominated the respondent no.1
herein (mother) as recipient of GPF, Central Government
2
Employees Group Insurance Scheme and the Death cum
3 th
Retirement Gratuity . On 20 June 2003, the deceased married
the appellant herein and subsequently nominated her as
recipient for CGEIS and DCRG only. The deceased died in
th
service on 4 July 2021. It is an admitted position that the
appellant herein has received all benefits arising from the
th
employment of the deceased totaling to Rs.60 lakhs. On 9
September 2021, when she applied for the funds accumulated in
the GPF to be released, respondent Nos. 2 to 4 refused the
same, on account of respondent no.1 being the nominee on
record.
4. The matter was pleaded before the Central Administrative
4
Tribunal , Mumbai Bench, Mumbai by the Appellant.
Considering the applicable Rules, the General Provident Fund
5
(Central Service) Rules, 1960 and observing that Rule 33
thereof provides for the manner in which the funds in GPF are
to be distributed upon the death of subscriber in cases where the
2 Hereinafter referred to as ‘CGEGIS’
3 Hereinafter referred to as ‘DCRG’
4 Hereinafter referred to as ‘CAT’
5 Hereinafter referred to as ‘GPF(CS) Rules’
C.A. No. @SLP (C) No.8303 of 2025) Page 2 of 10
nomination persists and, where it does not. The CAT noted that
although initially, the nomination of Respondent No.1 was
valid, it subsequently became invalid but was not changed
accordingly by the deceased and thus has to be declared invalid
by a competent authority. Since no nomination persisted at the
time of death, it was held that the amount had to be released in
equal shares to all members of the family. As such it was
directed that the appellant and respondent no.1 both would
receive half of the total amount.
5. On appeal, the High Court set aside findings of the CAT
in the following terms:
“11. In the present case, ‘a subscriber’ is the Deceased
and ‘specified nominee’ is the Petitioner (mother).
From the above facts, it is clear that this is not a case of
a specified nominee predeceasing the subscriber. The
Petitioner (mother) is still alive. Therefore situation
contemplated in Rule 5(5)(a) has not arisen and it will
not apply. Rule 5(5)(b) provides that the nomination
shall become invalid in the event of the happening of a
contingency which is specified by the subscriber. In the
present case, such a contingency is provided by the
Deceased as “on acquiring family”. Rule 5(6) provides
that on the occurrence of any event by reason of which
nomination becomes invalid in pursuance of clause 5(5)
(b) or proviso thereto, the subscriber shall send to the
Accounts Officer a notice in writing canceling the
nomination, together with a fresh nomination made in
accordance with the provisions of this rule. Therefore
in our considered opinion, combined reading of Rules
5(5) and 5(6) does not contemplate or provide for auto-
cancellation of the nomination in the event of
C.A. No. @SLP (C) No.8303 of 2025) Page 3 of 10
contingency provided. In the present case admittedly,
the Deceased has neither sent a notice in writing
canceling the Petitioner’s nomination nor fresh
nomination is made in favour of Respondent No.1 in
accordance with Rule 5 for GPF amount. Therefore it
will not result in auto-cancellation of the Petitioner’s
nomination on deceased acquiring family by virtue of
getting married to Respondent No.1.
12. Rule 33(i)(a) of the said Rules also operates clearly
in favour of the Petitioner, she being a valid sole
nominee. The provision of distributing the GPF amount
into shares, as contemplated under Rule 33(i)(b) will
not come into play. Since the Deceased has left behind
family, the situation provided in Rule 33(ii) also will
not apply; but assuming that Rule 33(ii) is to be
applied, in our view, it will operate in favour of the
Petitioner, she being a valid sole nominee.
13. In light of what is observed above, when the
impugned order is perused, it is seen that the Tribunal
has not interpreted Rule 33 of the said Rules in proper
prospective and therefore needs interference. It is also
settled law that ‘nomination only indicates the hand
which is to receive the benefits’ but the benefits have to
be distributed in accordance with the law of succession.
The judgment relied upon by Respondent No.1 in the
case of Shipra Sengupta Vs. Mridul Sengupta and Ors.
((2009) 10 SCC 680) reiterate this position. However, it
cannot be countenanced that the Tribunal considered
succession claim of Respondent No.1 directly for being
entitled for 50% share of GPF amount, without
considering that all other terminal benefits of the
Deceased have been exclusively received by
Respondent No.1, such as leave encashment, CGEGIS,
DCRG, medical reimbursement etc. Firstly, the
Tribunal can not enter this dispute in view of the Civil
Court’s exclusive jurisdiction for such disputed
questions of facts. The Petitioner and Respondent No.1
may have their contentious issues about entitlement to
all the property left behind by the Deceased, including
GPF and other terminal benefits. But, if the succession
is to be considered, the Tribunal could not have
considered the same only for GPF amount without
C.A. No. @SLP (C) No.8303 of 2025) Page 4 of 10
other property of the Deceased taken into consideration.
In our view, the amount of GPF will have to be paid to
the Petitioner alone as per rules and Respondent No.1
may then claim her share in appropriate proceedings as
provided under the law. The Respondent No. 1 is at
liberty to do so. If such proceedings are filed, all the
property of the Deceased, including presently disputed
GPF amount and other terminal benefits already
received by Respondent No.1, will be considered.”
6. It is in the above backdrop, that the Appellant is before
us. She takes support of the original nomination document
which provides that nomination would become
ineffective/invalid upon the subscriber acquiring a family and
also on Rule 476(5) of the Official Manual (Part V) which
provides that “It may so happen that nomination has become
invalid…” and says that in such situations the funds are to be
payable to all eligible family members in equal shares. On the
other hand, Respondent No. 1 submits that the intention of the
deceased is clearly demonstrated because the Appellant has
been made the nominee insofar as two aspects of the benefits of
service of the deceased are concerned but she has been clearly
left out of the GPF amount entitlement.
7. The Rules do indeed provide that when a nomination
becomes invalid, the amount is to be distributed/divided
amongst all eligible members, but equally it has to be seen that
between his marriage in 2003 and death in 2021, each year, as
per Rules, presented an opportunity to the deceased to alter the
C.A. No. @SLP (C) No.8303 of 2025) Page 5 of 10
nomination for the GPF which he did not. Be that as it may, the
nomination form was clear. The nomination in favour of the
respondent no.1 would become invalid upon him acquiring a
family (marriage or otherwise), as such, by function thereof, it
became invalid in 2003. He did not alter the nomination to
comply therewith. It is also true that respondent nos. 2 to 4 are
not obligated to ask such a subscriber to alter or cancel the
nominations and it is the duty of the subscriber to do so. It is to
provide for these very situations where a subscriber neglects to
or fails to make such changes, that Rules have been prescribed,
laying down how the money is to be distributed amongst
survivors.
The relevant rules are extracted hereinbelow:
Rule 33 of GPF(CS) Rules :
“Procedure On Death Of A Subscriber
On the death of a subscriber before the amount standing
to his credit has become payable, or where the amount
has become payable, before payment has been made:
(i) When the subscriber leaves a family-
(a) if a nomination made by the subscriber in
accordance with the provisions of Rule 5 in favour of a
member or members of his family subsists, the amount
standing to his credit in the Fund or the part thereof to
which the nomination relates shall become payable to
his nominee or nominees in the proportion specified in
the nomination;
(b) if no such nomination in favour of a member or
members of the family of the subscriber subsists, or if
such nomination relates only to a part of the amount
C.A. No. @SLP (C) No.8303 of 2025) Page 6 of 10
standing to his credit in the Fund, the whole amount or
the part thereof to which the nomination does not relate,
as the case may be, shall, notwithstanding any
nomination purporting to be in favour of any person or
persons other than a member or members of his family,
become payable to the members of his family in equal
shares:…”
(emphasis supplied)
Note 2 to Rule 476 (V) of the Official Manual (Part V) for CDA
(Funds):
“Note 2: It may so happen that the nomination has
become invalid due to a subscriber subsequently
acquiring family or due to any other reasons. In such
cases the amount of fund assets becomes payable to all
eligible family members in equal shares. To enable
payment being made correctly in such cases the
Administrative authorities may be asked through the
tender form to obtain and submit the original of the list
of family members issued by Revenue authorities not
below the rank of Tehsildar either with claim, or
separately and the original list should be verified before
paying the amounts as admissible.”
(emphasis supplied)
8. The High Court observed as extracted supra that the
Rules do not provide for any auto cancellation procedure and
since the deceased had not carried out the procedure for change,
the nomination as in the original papers would stand. It may be
so that the Rules do not provide for auto cancellation but it is
also that they provide for the eventuality where the nomination
duly filled by the subscriber do not subsist. That apart, the Rule
C.A. No. @SLP (C) No.8303 of 2025) Page 7 of 10
quoted above stipulates a mandate that, upon acquiring family
the nomination will become invalid. That being the case, even in
view of the fact that the deceased had not made changes to the
nomination for GPF, the earlier nomination cannot be held to be
valid.
9. The position stated by us above is no longer under any
manner of doubt. Granted that the nomination was in favour of
respondent no.1, however, the condition stipulated in the
nomination form rendered such nomination, at the time of death,
void. In other words, the nomination itself would not give
respondent no.1 a better claim over the total GPF amount than
the appellant. While dealing with a case arising out of Insurance
Act, 1938, this Court through E.S. Venkataramiah J. (as his
6
Lordship then was) in Sarbati Devi v. Usha Devi , observed:
“ 12. … We approve the views expressed by the other
High Courts on the meaning of Section 39 of the Act
and hold that a mere nomination made under Section 39
of the Act does not have the effect of conferring on the
nominee any beneficial interest in the amount payable
under the life insurance policy on the death of the
assured. The nomination only indicates the hand which
is authorised to receive the amount, on the payment of
which the insurer gets a valid discharge of its liability
under the policy. The amount, however, can be claimed
by the heirs of the assured in accordance with the law
of succession governing them.”
(emphasis supplied)
6 (1984) 1 SCC 424
C.A. No. @SLP (C) No.8303 of 2025) Page 8 of 10
7
In Shakti Yezdani v. Jayanand Jayant Salgaonkar , this
Court after referring to various precedents, dealing with the
concept of nominations under different legislations observed as
under:
“41. A consistent view appears to have been taken by
the courts, while interpreting the related provisions of
nomination under different statutes. It is clear from the
referred judgments that the nomination so made would
not lead to the nominee attaining absolute title over the
subject property for which such nomination was made.
In other words, the usual mode of succession is not to
be impacted by such nomination. The legal heirs
therefore have not been excluded by virtue of
nomination.”
(emphasis supplied)
8
[See also: Shipra Sengupta v. Mridul Sengupta ]
10. In that view of the matter, the appeal deserves to be
allowed. The impugned judgment with particulars mentioned in
Para two are set aside and the order of the CAT is upheld as
being in accordance with law. The GPF of the deceased shall be
distributed between the appellant and respondent no.1. It is a
matter of record that the appellant has already received her share
of GPF amount, as ordered by CAT. The remainder half of the
money in question which currently stands deposited before the
Registrar, High Court (Appellate side) shall be released in
favour of Respondent No.1 herein. Learned Counsel for the said
respondent shall make an application within two weeks of this
7 (2024) 4 SCC 642
8 (2009) 10 SCC 680
C.A. No. @SLP (C) No.8303 of 2025) Page 9 of 10
judgment before the concerned Registrar to facilitate the release
of the funds.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
………………………………..………………J.
(SANJAY KAROL)
…………………………………………………J.
(NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH)
New Delhi;
December 05, 2025.
C.A. No. @SLP (C) No.8303 of 2025) Page 10 of 10
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No. 14604 OF 2025
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.8303 of 2025)
SMT. BOLLA MALATHI …APPELLANT
VERSUS
B. SUGUNA AND ORS. …RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
SANJAY KAROL J.
Leave Granted.
2. The family members i.e. wife and mother of the
deceased, one Bolla Mohan are at odds in this appeal arising out
th
of a judgment and order dated 11 February 2025 passed by the
High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 5756
1
of 2024, regarding the release of General Provident Fund
Signature Not Verified
amount accrued in the course of employment of the deceased in
Digitally signed by
RAJNI MUKHI
Date: 2025.12.05
17:52:38 IST
Reason:
1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘GPF’
C.A. No. @SLP (C) No.8303 of 2025) Page 1 of 10
the Defence Accounts Department, Government of India.
th
3. When the deceased joined service on 29 February 2000,
as per the applicable rules, he nominated the respondent no.1
herein (mother) as recipient of GPF, Central Government
2
Employees Group Insurance Scheme and the Death cum
3 th
Retirement Gratuity . On 20 June 2003, the deceased married
the appellant herein and subsequently nominated her as
recipient for CGEIS and DCRG only. The deceased died in
th
service on 4 July 2021. It is an admitted position that the
appellant herein has received all benefits arising from the
th
employment of the deceased totaling to Rs.60 lakhs. On 9
September 2021, when she applied for the funds accumulated in
the GPF to be released, respondent Nos. 2 to 4 refused the
same, on account of respondent no.1 being the nominee on
record.
4. The matter was pleaded before the Central Administrative
4
Tribunal , Mumbai Bench, Mumbai by the Appellant.
Considering the applicable Rules, the General Provident Fund
5
(Central Service) Rules, 1960 and observing that Rule 33
thereof provides for the manner in which the funds in GPF are
to be distributed upon the death of subscriber in cases where the
2 Hereinafter referred to as ‘CGEGIS’
3 Hereinafter referred to as ‘DCRG’
4 Hereinafter referred to as ‘CAT’
5 Hereinafter referred to as ‘GPF(CS) Rules’
C.A. No. @SLP (C) No.8303 of 2025) Page 2 of 10
nomination persists and, where it does not. The CAT noted that
although initially, the nomination of Respondent No.1 was
valid, it subsequently became invalid but was not changed
accordingly by the deceased and thus has to be declared invalid
by a competent authority. Since no nomination persisted at the
time of death, it was held that the amount had to be released in
equal shares to all members of the family. As such it was
directed that the appellant and respondent no.1 both would
receive half of the total amount.
5. On appeal, the High Court set aside findings of the CAT
in the following terms:
“11. In the present case, ‘a subscriber’ is the Deceased
and ‘specified nominee’ is the Petitioner (mother).
From the above facts, it is clear that this is not a case of
a specified nominee predeceasing the subscriber. The
Petitioner (mother) is still alive. Therefore situation
contemplated in Rule 5(5)(a) has not arisen and it will
not apply. Rule 5(5)(b) provides that the nomination
shall become invalid in the event of the happening of a
contingency which is specified by the subscriber. In the
present case, such a contingency is provided by the
Deceased as “on acquiring family”. Rule 5(6) provides
that on the occurrence of any event by reason of which
nomination becomes invalid in pursuance of clause 5(5)
(b) or proviso thereto, the subscriber shall send to the
Accounts Officer a notice in writing canceling the
nomination, together with a fresh nomination made in
accordance with the provisions of this rule. Therefore
in our considered opinion, combined reading of Rules
5(5) and 5(6) does not contemplate or provide for auto-
cancellation of the nomination in the event of
C.A. No. @SLP (C) No.8303 of 2025) Page 3 of 10
contingency provided. In the present case admittedly,
the Deceased has neither sent a notice in writing
canceling the Petitioner’s nomination nor fresh
nomination is made in favour of Respondent No.1 in
accordance with Rule 5 for GPF amount. Therefore it
will not result in auto-cancellation of the Petitioner’s
nomination on deceased acquiring family by virtue of
getting married to Respondent No.1.
12. Rule 33(i)(a) of the said Rules also operates clearly
in favour of the Petitioner, she being a valid sole
nominee. The provision of distributing the GPF amount
into shares, as contemplated under Rule 33(i)(b) will
not come into play. Since the Deceased has left behind
family, the situation provided in Rule 33(ii) also will
not apply; but assuming that Rule 33(ii) is to be
applied, in our view, it will operate in favour of the
Petitioner, she being a valid sole nominee.
13. In light of what is observed above, when the
impugned order is perused, it is seen that the Tribunal
has not interpreted Rule 33 of the said Rules in proper
prospective and therefore needs interference. It is also
settled law that ‘nomination only indicates the hand
which is to receive the benefits’ but the benefits have to
be distributed in accordance with the law of succession.
The judgment relied upon by Respondent No.1 in the
case of Shipra Sengupta Vs. Mridul Sengupta and Ors.
((2009) 10 SCC 680) reiterate this position. However, it
cannot be countenanced that the Tribunal considered
succession claim of Respondent No.1 directly for being
entitled for 50% share of GPF amount, without
considering that all other terminal benefits of the
Deceased have been exclusively received by
Respondent No.1, such as leave encashment, CGEGIS,
DCRG, medical reimbursement etc. Firstly, the
Tribunal can not enter this dispute in view of the Civil
Court’s exclusive jurisdiction for such disputed
questions of facts. The Petitioner and Respondent No.1
may have their contentious issues about entitlement to
all the property left behind by the Deceased, including
GPF and other terminal benefits. But, if the succession
is to be considered, the Tribunal could not have
considered the same only for GPF amount without
C.A. No. @SLP (C) No.8303 of 2025) Page 4 of 10
other property of the Deceased taken into consideration.
In our view, the amount of GPF will have to be paid to
the Petitioner alone as per rules and Respondent No.1
may then claim her share in appropriate proceedings as
provided under the law. The Respondent No. 1 is at
liberty to do so. If such proceedings are filed, all the
property of the Deceased, including presently disputed
GPF amount and other terminal benefits already
received by Respondent No.1, will be considered.”
6. It is in the above backdrop, that the Appellant is before
us. She takes support of the original nomination document
which provides that nomination would become
ineffective/invalid upon the subscriber acquiring a family and
also on Rule 476(5) of the Official Manual (Part V) which
provides that “It may so happen that nomination has become
invalid…” and says that in such situations the funds are to be
payable to all eligible family members in equal shares. On the
other hand, Respondent No. 1 submits that the intention of the
deceased is clearly demonstrated because the Appellant has
been made the nominee insofar as two aspects of the benefits of
service of the deceased are concerned but she has been clearly
left out of the GPF amount entitlement.
7. The Rules do indeed provide that when a nomination
becomes invalid, the amount is to be distributed/divided
amongst all eligible members, but equally it has to be seen that
between his marriage in 2003 and death in 2021, each year, as
per Rules, presented an opportunity to the deceased to alter the
C.A. No. @SLP (C) No.8303 of 2025) Page 5 of 10
nomination for the GPF which he did not. Be that as it may, the
nomination form was clear. The nomination in favour of the
respondent no.1 would become invalid upon him acquiring a
family (marriage or otherwise), as such, by function thereof, it
became invalid in 2003. He did not alter the nomination to
comply therewith. It is also true that respondent nos. 2 to 4 are
not obligated to ask such a subscriber to alter or cancel the
nominations and it is the duty of the subscriber to do so. It is to
provide for these very situations where a subscriber neglects to
or fails to make such changes, that Rules have been prescribed,
laying down how the money is to be distributed amongst
survivors.
The relevant rules are extracted hereinbelow:
Rule 33 of GPF(CS) Rules :
“Procedure On Death Of A Subscriber
On the death of a subscriber before the amount standing
to his credit has become payable, or where the amount
has become payable, before payment has been made:
(i) When the subscriber leaves a family-
(a) if a nomination made by the subscriber in
accordance with the provisions of Rule 5 in favour of a
member or members of his family subsists, the amount
standing to his credit in the Fund or the part thereof to
which the nomination relates shall become payable to
his nominee or nominees in the proportion specified in
the nomination;
(b) if no such nomination in favour of a member or
members of the family of the subscriber subsists, or if
such nomination relates only to a part of the amount
C.A. No. @SLP (C) No.8303 of 2025) Page 6 of 10
standing to his credit in the Fund, the whole amount or
the part thereof to which the nomination does not relate,
as the case may be, shall, notwithstanding any
nomination purporting to be in favour of any person or
persons other than a member or members of his family,
become payable to the members of his family in equal
shares:…”
(emphasis supplied)
Note 2 to Rule 476 (V) of the Official Manual (Part V) for CDA
(Funds):
“Note 2: It may so happen that the nomination has
become invalid due to a subscriber subsequently
acquiring family or due to any other reasons. In such
cases the amount of fund assets becomes payable to all
eligible family members in equal shares. To enable
payment being made correctly in such cases the
Administrative authorities may be asked through the
tender form to obtain and submit the original of the list
of family members issued by Revenue authorities not
below the rank of Tehsildar either with claim, or
separately and the original list should be verified before
paying the amounts as admissible.”
(emphasis supplied)
8. The High Court observed as extracted supra that the
Rules do not provide for any auto cancellation procedure and
since the deceased had not carried out the procedure for change,
the nomination as in the original papers would stand. It may be
so that the Rules do not provide for auto cancellation but it is
also that they provide for the eventuality where the nomination
duly filled by the subscriber do not subsist. That apart, the Rule
C.A. No. @SLP (C) No.8303 of 2025) Page 7 of 10
quoted above stipulates a mandate that, upon acquiring family
the nomination will become invalid. That being the case, even in
view of the fact that the deceased had not made changes to the
nomination for GPF, the earlier nomination cannot be held to be
valid.
9. The position stated by us above is no longer under any
manner of doubt. Granted that the nomination was in favour of
respondent no.1, however, the condition stipulated in the
nomination form rendered such nomination, at the time of death,
void. In other words, the nomination itself would not give
respondent no.1 a better claim over the total GPF amount than
the appellant. While dealing with a case arising out of Insurance
Act, 1938, this Court through E.S. Venkataramiah J. (as his
6
Lordship then was) in Sarbati Devi v. Usha Devi , observed:
“ 12. … We approve the views expressed by the other
High Courts on the meaning of Section 39 of the Act
and hold that a mere nomination made under Section 39
of the Act does not have the effect of conferring on the
nominee any beneficial interest in the amount payable
under the life insurance policy on the death of the
assured. The nomination only indicates the hand which
is authorised to receive the amount, on the payment of
which the insurer gets a valid discharge of its liability
under the policy. The amount, however, can be claimed
by the heirs of the assured in accordance with the law
of succession governing them.”
(emphasis supplied)
6 (1984) 1 SCC 424
C.A. No. @SLP (C) No.8303 of 2025) Page 8 of 10
7
In Shakti Yezdani v. Jayanand Jayant Salgaonkar , this
Court after referring to various precedents, dealing with the
concept of nominations under different legislations observed as
under:
“41. A consistent view appears to have been taken by
the courts, while interpreting the related provisions of
nomination under different statutes. It is clear from the
referred judgments that the nomination so made would
not lead to the nominee attaining absolute title over the
subject property for which such nomination was made.
In other words, the usual mode of succession is not to
be impacted by such nomination. The legal heirs
therefore have not been excluded by virtue of
nomination.”
(emphasis supplied)
8
[See also: Shipra Sengupta v. Mridul Sengupta ]
10. In that view of the matter, the appeal deserves to be
allowed. The impugned judgment with particulars mentioned in
Para two are set aside and the order of the CAT is upheld as
being in accordance with law. The GPF of the deceased shall be
distributed between the appellant and respondent no.1. It is a
matter of record that the appellant has already received her share
of GPF amount, as ordered by CAT. The remainder half of the
money in question which currently stands deposited before the
Registrar, High Court (Appellate side) shall be released in
favour of Respondent No.1 herein. Learned Counsel for the said
respondent shall make an application within two weeks of this
7 (2024) 4 SCC 642
8 (2009) 10 SCC 680
C.A. No. @SLP (C) No.8303 of 2025) Page 9 of 10
judgment before the concerned Registrar to facilitate the release
of the funds.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
………………………………..………………J.
(SANJAY KAROL)
…………………………………………………J.
(NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH)
New Delhi;
December 05, 2025.
C.A. No. @SLP (C) No.8303 of 2025) Page 10 of 10