Full Judgment Text
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5934 OF 2021
M/s Vijeta Construction ..Appellant (S)
VERSUS
M/s Indus Smelters Ltd. & Anr. ..Respondent (S)
O R D E R
M. R. Shah, J.
Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order dated 12.03.2012 passed by the High Court of
Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in writ petition (c) No.418 of 2012, by
which the High Court has dismissed the said writ petition as not
maintainable in view of remedy available to the original petitioner
Signature Not Verified
under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
Digitally signed by R
Natarajan
Date: 2021.09.27
16:58:00 IST
Reason:
(hereinafter referred to as the Arbitration Act), the original
respondent No.1 has preferred the present civil appeal.
2
2. That the dispute arose between the parties which could not be
resolved. The case on behalf of the respondent herein was that it
supplied TMT bar to the appellant herein valuing
Rs.2,44,92,846/ out of which it received Rs.1,24,50,000/. The
appellant had not made payment of the remaining amount,
therefore, the respondent being supplier approached the
Chairman, Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Facilitation
Council (hereinafter referred to as the Facilitation Council)
constituted under the Micro Small and Medium Enterprises
Development Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the MSMED Act)
for small scale industries.
3.
By order dated 10.01.2012 the Facilitation Council closed the said
proceedings by observing that Facilitation Council has been
constituted with limited object and jurisdiction and the
Facilitation Council has no jurisdiction to make thorough enquiry
and take evidence and decide truth about the challenged
document. The Facilitation Council also observed that parties are
at liberty to move before the competent court.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated
10.01.2012, the respondent herein preferred writ petition (C)
No.418 of 2012 before the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur.
3
By the impugned order, the High Court has dismissed the said
writ petition by observing that order passed by the Facilitation
Council rejecting the application can be said to be an award under
Section 18 of the MSMED Act and as per Section 18 (2) and (3),
the provision of the Arbitration Act shall apply to the dispute as if
the arbitration was in pursuance of an arbitration agreement
referred to SubSection (1) of Section 7 of the MSMED Act and
therefore such an order would be amenable to the appeal under
Section 34 of the Arbitration Act before the district court. Thus by
the impugned order the High Court has dismissed the said writ
petition on the ground of availability of an alternate remedy of
filing an appeal against the order passed by the Facilitation
Council dated 10.01.2012.
5.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed
by the High Court dismissing the writ petition preferred by the
respondent herein however holding that the order passed by the
Facilitation Council rejecting the application can be said to be an
award and therefore as per the provision of the Arbitration Act
shall apply to the dispute as if the arbitration was in pursuance of
an arbitration agreement referred to SubSection (1) of Section (7)
of the Arbitration Act and therefore against such an order appeal
4
under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act shall be maintainable, the
original respondent has preferred the present appeal.
6.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has
vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the
case the order of the Facilitation Council impugned before the
High Court cannot be said to be an award as by such an order the
Facilitation Council did not conclusively settle the dispute and
rejected the application simply on the ground of jurisdiction and
on the ground that the Facilitation Council has no jurisdiction to
make thorough enquiry and take evidence and decide the truth
about the challenged document.
6.1 It is submitted by the counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant
that therefore when the order passed by the Facilitation Council
impugned before the High Court cannot be said to be an award,
the same was not amenable to the appeal before the district court
under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.
7.
Per contra learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent
– original applicant has vehemently submitted that the order
passed by the Facilitation Council rejecting the application can be
said to be an “award” and therefore such an order of rejecting the
claim petition/application before the Facilitation Council can be
5
challenged before the district court under Section 34 of the
Arbitration Act.
7.1 It is further submitted that as such the Facilitation Council was
not justified in observing that it has no jurisdiction to make
thorough enquiry and take evidence and that the Facilitation
Council has been constituted with limited object and jurisdiction.
Heavy reliance is placed on Section 27 of the Arbitration Act. It is
submitted that the Facilitation Council has all the jurisdiction
which are available to the Arbitrator under the provisions of the
Arbitration Act including taking the evidence.
8.
We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respective parties at length.
9.
At the outset, it is required to be noted and it is not in dispute
that the parties are governed by the provisions of MSMED Act. As
per the MSMED Act if there is any dispute between the parties the
dispute is required to be resolved by following the procedure as
prescribed under Section 18 of the MSMED Act. It cannot be
disputed that the MSMED Act being a Special Act the procedure
as prescribed under the MSMED Act is required to be followed if
there is any dispute between the parties. Section 15 of the
MSMED Act provides for liability of the buyer to make payment to
micro small and medium enterprises. Section 16 of the MSMED
6
Act provides for the interest payable. Section 17 of the MSMED
Act provides for any goods supplied or services rendered by the
supplier, the buyer shall be liable to pay the amount with interest
thereon as provided under section 16. Section 18 of the MSMED
Act provides for resolution of the dispute between the supplier –
micro and small enterprises and the buyer. Section 19 of the
MSMED Act further provides that no application for setting aside
any decree, award or other order made either by the Council itself
or by any institution or centre providing alternate dispute
resolution services to which a reference is made by the Council,
shall be entertained by any court unless the appellant (not being a
supplier) has deposited with it seventyfive per cent of the amount
in terms of the decree, award or, as the case may be, the other
order in the manner directed by such court.
Section 15 to Section 19 of the MSMED Act which are relevant for
our purpose read as under:
15. Liability of buyer to make payment.—Where any
supplier supplies any goods or renders any services to any
buyer, the buyer shall make payment therefor on or before
the date agreed upon between him and the supplier in
writing or, where there is no agreement in this behalf,
before the appointed day: Provided that in no case the
period agreed upon between the supplier and the buyer in
writing shall exceed fortyfive days from the day of
acceptance or the day of deemed acceptance.
16. Date from which and rate at which interest is payable.
—Where any buyer fails to make payment of the amount
7
to the supplier, as required under section 15, the buyer
shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any
agreement between the buyer and the supplier or in any
law for the time being in force, be liable to pay compound
interest with monthly rests to the supplier on that amount
from the appointed day or, as the case may be, from the
date immediately following the date agreed upon, at three
times of the bank rate notified by the Reserve Bank.
17. Recovery of amount due.—For any goods supplied or
services rendered by the supplier, the buyer shall be liable
to pay the amount with interest thereon as provided under
section 16.
18. Reference to Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation
Council.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any
other law for the time being in force, any party to a
dispute may, with regard to any amount due under
section 17, make a reference to the Micro and Small
Enterprises Facilitation Council. (2) On receipt of a
reference under subsection (1), the Council shall either
itself conduct conciliation in the matter or seek the
assistance of any institution or centre providing alternate
dispute resolution services by making a reference to such
an institution or centre, for conducting conciliation and
the provisions of sections 65 to 81 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) shall apply to such a
dispute as if the conciliation was initiated under Part III of
that Act. (3) Where the conciliation initiated under sub
section (2) is not successful and stands terminated
without any settlement between the parties, the Council
shall either itself take up the dispute for arbitration or
refer it to any institution or centre providing alternate
dispute resolution services for such arbitration and the
provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
(26 of 1996) shall then apply to the dispute as if the
arbitration was in pursuance of an arbitration agreement
referred to in subsection (1) of section 7 of that Act. (4)
Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for
the time being in force, the Micro and Small Enterprises
Facilitation Council or the centre providing alternate
dispute resolution services shall have jurisdiction to act as
8
an Arbitrator or Conciliator under this section in a dispute
between the supplier located within its jurisdiction and a
buyer located anywhere in India. (5) Every reference made
under this section shall be decided within a period of
ninety days from the date of making such a reference.
19. Application for setting aside decree, award or order.—
No application for setting aside any decree, award or other
order made either by the Council itself or by any
institution or centre providing alternate dispute resolution
services to which a reference is made by the Council, shall
be entertained by any court unless the appellant (not
being a supplier) has deposited with it seventyfive per
cent. of the amount in terms of the decree, award or, as
the case may be, the other order in the manner directed
by such court: Provided that pending disposal of the
application to set aside the decree, award or order, the
court shall order that such percentage of the amount
deposited shall be paid to the supplier, as it considers
reasonable under the circumstances of the case, subject
to such conditions as it deems necessary to impose.
9.1 Therefore as per the scheme of the MSMED Act when there is a
dispute between the micro and small enterprises – supplier and
buyer, the same is required to be resolved by following the
procedure as prescribed under Section 18 of the MSMED Act,
reproduced hereinabove. As observed hereinabove, the MSMED
Act is a Special Act and as per Section 24 of the MSMED Act, the
provisions of Section 15 to 23 shall have overriding effect
notwithstanding inconsistent therewith contained in any other law
for the time being in force. Therefore, Section 18 of the MSMED
Act would have overriding effect over any other law for the time
9
being in force including the Arbitration Act (to the extent
inconsistent) and therefore if there is any dispute between the
parties governed by the MSMED Act the said dispute has to be
resolved only through the procedure as provided under Section 18
of the MSMED Act. As per SubSection (1) of Section 18,
notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time
being in force, any party to a dispute may, with regard to any
amount due under section 17, may approach by way of a
reference/application to the Micro and Small Enterprises
Facilitation Council. As per SubSection (2) of Section 18, on
receipt of a reference under subsection (1), the Council shall have
to resolve the dispute through conciliation either by the Council
itself or seek the assistance of any institution or centre providing
alternate dispute resolution (ADR) services by making a reference
to such an institution or centre, for conducting conciliation and
the provisions of sections 65 to 81 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 shall apply to such a dispute as if the
conciliation was initiated under Part III of the Arbitration Act.
Thus at the stage of conciliation the council/conciliator have to
bear in mind the provisions of sections 65 to 81 of the Arbitration
Act, which read as under:
“65.Submission of statements to conciliator.—(1) The
10
conciliator, upon his appointment, may request each party
to submit to him a brief written statement describing the
general nature of the dispute and the points at issue.
Each party shall send a copy of such statement to the
other party (2) The conciliator may request each party to
submit to him a further written statement of his position
and the facts and grounds in support thereof,
supplemented by any documents and other evidence that
such party deems appropriate. The party shall send a copy
of such statement, documents and other evidence to the
other party. (3) At any stage of the conciliation
proceedings, the conciliator may request a party to submit
to him such additional information as he deems
appropriate. Explanation.—In this section and all the
following sections of this Part, the term "conciliator"
applies to a sole conciliator, two or three conciliators, as
the case may be.
66. Conciliator not bound by certain enactments.—The
conciliator is not bound by the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 (5 of 1908)or the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of
1872).
67.Role of conciliator.—(1) The conciliator shall assist the
parties in an independent and impartial manner in their
attempt to reach an amicable settlement of their dispute.
(2) The conciliator shall be guided by principles of
objectivity, fairness and justice, giving consideration to,
among other things, the rights and obligations of the
parties, the usages of the trade concerned and the
circumstances surrounding the dispute, including any
previous business practices between the parties. (3) The
conciliator may conduct the conciliation proceedings in
such a manner as he considers appropriate, taking into
account the circumstances of the case, the wishes the
parties may express, including any request by a party that
the conciliator hear oral statements, and the need for a
speedy settlement of the dispute. (4) The conciliator may,
at any stage of the conciliation proceedings, make
proposals for a settlement of the dispute. Such proposals
need not be in writing and need not be accompanied by a
statement of the reasons therefor.
11
68.Administrative assistance.—In order to facilitate the
conduct of the conciliation proceedings, the parties, or the
conciliator with the consent of the parties, may arrange for
administrative assistance by a suitable institution or
person.
69.Communication between conciliator and parties.—(1)
The conciliator may invite the parties to meet him or may
communicate with them orally or in writing. He may meet
or communicate with the parties together or with each of
them separately. (2) Unless the parties have agreed upon
the place where meetings with the conciliator are to be
held, such place shall be determined by the conciliator,
after consultation with the parties, having regard to the
circumstances of the conciliation proceedings.
70.Disclosure of information.—When the conciliator
receives factual information concerning the dispute from a
party, he shall disclose the substance of that information
to the other party in order that the other party may have
the opportunity to present any explanation which he
considers appropriate: Provided that when a party gives
any information to the conciliator subject to a specific
condition that it be kept confidential, the conciliator shall
not disclose that information to the other party.
71.Cooperation of parties with conciliator.—The parties
shall in good faith cooperate with the conciliator and, in
particular, shall endeavour to comply with requests by the
conciliator to submit written materials, provide evidence
and attend meetings.
72.Suggestions by parties for settlement of dispute.—Each
party may, on his own initiative or at the invitation of the
conciliator, submit to the conciliator suggestions for the
settlement of the dispute.
73.Settlement agreement.—(1) When it appears to the
conciliator that there exist elements of a settlement which
may be acceptable to the parties, he shall formulate the
terms of a possible settlement and submit them to the
12
parties for their observations. After receiving the
observations of the parties, the conciliator may
reformulate the terms of a possible settlement in the light
of such observations. (2) If the parties reach agreement on
a settlement of the dispute, they may draw up and sign a
written settlement agreement. If requested by the parties,
the conciliator may draw up, or assist the parties in
drawing up, the settlement agreement. (3) When the
parties sign the settlement agreement, it shall be final and
binding on the parties and persons claiming under them
respectively. (4) The conciliator shall authenticate the
settlement agreement and furnish a copy thereof to each
of the parties.
74.Status and effect of settlement agreement.—The
settlement agreement shall have the same status and
effect as if it is an arbitral award on agreed terms on the
substance of the dispute rendered by an arbitral tribunal
under section 30.
75.Confidentiality.—Notwithstanding anything contained
in any other law for the time being in force, the conciliator
and the parties shall keep confidential all matters relating
to the conciliation proceedings. Confidentiality shall
extend also to the settlement agreement, except where its
disclosure is necessary for purposes of implementation
and enforcement.
76.Termination of conciliation proceedings.—The
conciliation proceedings shall be terminated— (a) by the
signing of the settlement agreement by the parties, on the
date of the agreement; or (b) by a written declaration of the
conciliator, after consultation with the parties, to the effect
that further efforts at conciliation are no longer justified,
on the date of the declaration; or (c) by a written
declaration of the parties addressed to the conciliator to
the effect that the conciliation proceedings are terminated,
on the date of the declaration; or (d) by a written
declaration of a party to the other party and the
conciliator, if appointed, to the effect that the conciliation
proceedings are terminated, on the date of the declaration.
13
77.Resort to arbitral or judicial proceedings.—The parties
shall not initiate, during the conciliation proceedings, any
arbitral or judicial proceedings in respect of a dispute that
is the subjectmatter of the conciliation proceedings
except that a party may initiate arbitral or judicial
proceedings where, in his opinion, such proceedings are
necessary for preserving his rights.
78.Costs.—(1) Upon termination of the conciliation
proceedings, the conciliator shall fix the costs of the
conciliation and give written notice thereof to the parties.
(2) For the purpose of subsection (1), “costs” means
reasonable costs relating to— (a) the fee and expenses of
the conciliator and witnesses requested by the conciliator
with the consent of the parties; (b) any expert advice
requested by the conciliator with the consent of the
parties; (c) any assistance provided pursuant to clause (b)
of subsection (2) of section 64 and section 68. (d) any
other expenses incurred in connection with the
conciliation proceedings and the settlement agreement. (3)
The costs shall be borne equally by the parties unless the
settlement agreement provides for a different
apportionment. All other expenses incurred by a party
shall be borne by that party.
79.Deposits.—(1) The conciliator may direct each party to
deposit an equal amount as an advance for the costs
referred to in subsection(2) of section 78 which he
expects will be incurred. (2) During the course of the
conciliation proceedings, the conciliator may direct
supplementary deposits in an equal amount from each
party. (3) If the required deposits under subsections (1)
and (2) are not paid in full by both parties within thirty
days, the conciliator may suspend the proceedings or may
make a written declaration of termination of the
proceedings to the parties, effective on the date of that
declaration. (4) Upon termination of the conciliation
proceedings, the conciliator shall render an accounting to
the parties of the deposits received and shall return any
unexpended balance to the parties.
80.Role of conciliator in other proceedings.—Unless
14
otherwise agreed by the parties,—
(a) the conciliator shall not act as an arbitrator or as a
representative or counsel of a party in any arbitral or
judicial proceeding in respect of a dispute that is the
subject of the conciliation proceedings; (b) the conciliator
shall not be presented by the parties as a witness in any
arbitral or judicial proceedings.
81.Admissibility of evidence in other proceedings.—The
parties shall not rely on or introduce as evidence in
arbitral or judicial proceedings, whether or not such
proceedings relate to the dispute that is the subject of the
conciliation proceedings,— (a) views expressed or
suggestions made by the other party in respect of a
possible settlement of the dispute; (b) admissions made by
the other party in the course of the conciliation
proceedings; (c) proposals made by the conciliator; (d) the
fact that the other party had indicated his willingness to
accept a proposal for settlement made by the conciliator.”
9.2 As per SubSection (3) of Section 18 after conciliation fails under
SubSection (2) of Section 18 of the MSMED Act, and conciliation
initiated under subsection (2) is not successful, conciliation
stands terminated without any settlement between the parties, the
Council shall either itself take up the dispute for arbitration or
refer it to any institution or centre providing ADR services for such
arbitration and the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996 shall then apply to the dispute as if the arbitration was
in pursuance of an arbitration agreement referred to in sub
section (1) of section 7 of that Act. Therefore only after the
procedure under SubSection (2) of Section 18 is followed and the
15
conciliation fails and then and then only the arbitration
proceedings commences and thereafter the provisions of the
Arbitration Act shall then apply.
9.3
In light of the aforesaid statutory provisions under the MSMED
Act as well as the Arbitration Act, the order passed by the
Facilitation Council dated 10.01.2012 which was the subject
matter before the High Court is required to be tested. From the
order passed by the Facilitation Council rejecting/dismissing the
reference/application and the stage at which such an order was
passed we are of the opinion that the Facilitation Council has not
followed the procedure as was required to be followed under
Section 18 of the MSMED Act read with Sections 65 to 81 of the
Arbitration Act, as reproduced hereinabove. It is required to be
noted that at the initial stage the Facilitation Council was
performing the duty as a Conciliator for which the provisions of
Sections 65 to 81 shall be applicable. It is true that at the stage of
conciliation, the role of the conciliator (Facilitation Council) is to
assist the parties to reach an amicable settlement of their dispute
as provided under Section 67 of the Arbitration Act. At that stage
the parties are not required to lead the evidence and at that stage
the role of the conciliator is not to adjudicate the dispute between
16
the parties, but to reach an amicable settlement of the dispute
between the parties. Once the conciliation fails thereafter as per
SubSection (3) of Section 18 of the MSMED Act, the arbitration
proceedings commences and the conciliation proceedings stands
terminated and thereafter the Facilitation Council shall either
itself take up the dispute for arbitration or refer it to any
institution or centre providing ADR services for such arbitration
and the provisions of the Arbitration Act shall then apply to the
dispute as if the arbitration is in pursuance of an arbitration
agreement referred to SubSection (1) of Section 7 of the
Arbitration Act. At that stage and thereafter the Facilitation
Council shall act as an Arbitrator and the provisions of Arbitration
Act shall then apply to the dispute as if arbitration was in
pursuance of an arbitration agreement referred to SubSection (1)
of Section 7 of the Arbitration Act including the appeal under
Section 34 to the district court against the award declared by the
Facilitation Council or any institution or centre providing alternate
dispute resolution (ADR) services to whom the dispute is referred
for arbitration.
10. In the present case no such procedure has been followed by the
Facilitation Council as required to be followed under Section 18 of
17
the MSMED Act. It is to be noted that the proceedings before the
Facilitation Council/Conciliator was at the stage of conciliation. It
is true that at the stage of conciliation under SubSection (2) of
Section 18, the conciliator (Facilitation Council) was not required
to permit the parties to lead the evidence and adjudicate the
dispute. At the same time, if there was no amicable settlement
during the conciliation or under SubSection (2) of Section 18 then
the arbitration proceedings were required to be initiated as
provided under SubSection (3) of Section 18 which have not been
initiated in the present case. Therefore, as such, the matter is
required to be remitted to the Facilitation Council to follow the
procedure under Section 18 of the MSMED Act by quashing and
setting aside the order dated 10.01.2012 passed by the
Facilitation Council as well as the impugned judgment and order
passed by the High Court in writ petition No.418 of 2012.
11. Now so far as the observations made by the Facilitation Council,
Chhattisgarh, Raipur in order dated 10.01.2012 that the
Facilitation Council has been constituted with limited object and
jurisdiction and the council has no jurisdiction to make thorough
enquiry and to take evidence is concerned, the aforesaid cannot be
accepted. As per the scheme of the MSMED Act, the Facilitation
Council has a dual role to play, one as a Conciliator as per Sub
18
Section (2) of Section 18 and thereafter in case the conciliation is
unsuccessful as an Arbitrator as per SubSection (3) of Section
18. As a Conciliator the role of the Conciliator Facilitation
Council is, as observed hereinabove, to assist the parties in an
independent and impartial manner in their attempt to reach an
amicable settlement of their dispute and at that stage the
Facilitation Council is not required to adjudicate the dispute. At
that stage the Facilitation Council has no jurisdiction to make
thorough enquiry and take evidence. However, once the
conciliation fails and the settlement is not arrived at during the
conciliation and thereafter when the arbitration proceedings
commences as per SubSection (3) of Section 18, the Council as
an arbitrator shall have all the powers of the arbitrator as are
available under the provisions of the Arbitration Act. Therefore the
Facilitation Council is not right in observing that the council has
no jurisdiction to make thorough enquiry and take evidence and
that the council has been constituted with limited object and
jurisdiction.
12. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the order
passed by the Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Facilitation
Council, Chhattisgarh, Raipur dated 10.01.2012 in case
19
No.26/MSTFC/2009 as well as the impugned judgment and order
passed by the High Court in writ petition (c) No.418 of 2012 are
hereby quashed and set aside. Matter is remitted to the Micro
Small and Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council, Chhattisgarh,
Raipur to decide case No. 26/MSTFC/2009 afresh in accordance
with law and on its own merits after following the procedure as
required under Section 18 of the MSMED Act and as per the
observations made hereinabove. As the dispute is very old, the
Facilitation Council is directed to complete the proceedings within
a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order. There
shall be no order as to costs.
Pending applications, if any stand disposed of.
…………………………………J.
(M. R. SHAH)
…………………………………J.
(A. S. BOPANNA)
New Delhi,
September 23, 2021
20
ITEM NO.7 Court 13 (Video Conferencing) SECTION IV-C
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(s). 5934/2021 @ SLP (C) No. 32052/2013
M/S VIJETA CONSTRUCTION Appellant(s)
VERSUS
M/S. INDUS SMELETERS LTD & ANR. Respondent(s)
IA No. 4/2013 - APPLN. FOR BRINGING ON RECORD SUBSEQUENT EVENT
IA No. 1/2013 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING
IA No. 2/2013 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE
DEFECTS
IA No. 3/2013 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 5/2014 - STAY APPLICATION)
Date : 23-09-2021 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA
For Appellant(s) Ms. Akanksha Sisodia, Adv.
Mr. Anup Jain, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Nitin Gaur, Adv.
Mr. Ranjit Kumar Sharma, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
The Appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed reportable
Order.
(R. NATARAJAN) (NISHA TRIPATHI)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS BRANCH OFFICER
(Signed reportable Order is placed on the file)