CRYOGAS EQUIPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED vs INOX INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

Court: Gujarat High Court
Case type: SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION
Decided on: 09-04-2026

<div> C/SCA/4648/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2026 Reserved On : 01/04/2026 Pronounced On : 09/04/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4648 of 2026 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY ============================================= </div><table><thead><tr><th>Approved for Reporting</th><th>Yes</th><th>No</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><div> CRYOGAS EQUIPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. Versus INOX INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. ============================================= Appearance: MR KAMAL TRIVEDI, SR. ADVOCATE with MR SHALIN MEHTA, SR. ADVOCATE with MR C B UPADHYAYA with MR VINAY BAIRAGARA for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2 MR MIHIR JOSHI, SR. ADVOCATE with MR RASHMIN KHANDEKAR with MR DHIREN KARANIA WITH MR RUDRAM TRIVEDI for the Respondent(s) MR. AADIT R SANJANWALA(9918) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ============================================= </div><table><thead><tr><th>CORAM:</th><th>HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td>and</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY</td></tr></tbody></table><div> CAV JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL) Page 1 of 18 Uploaded by BIJOY B. PILLAI(HC00202) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 09 19:25:05 IST 2026 C/SCA/4648/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2026 1. The short controversy in the present petition invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is pertaining to the validity of the order dated 17.03.2026 whereby the application of the respondent no.1 herein, namely the plaintiff seeking copies/prints of the contents of the pen drive submitted by the Court Commissioner, has been partly allowed. The operative portion of the order impugned reads as under :- “1. Present application seeking copies / prints of the contents of Pendrive submitted by Court Commissioner is partly allowed. 2. Mr. S.K.Gohil, System Officer, District Court Vadodara is hereby appointed as Court Commissioner to only take print outs of the data of plaintiff stored in pendrive (Mark-18/16) in presence of both the parties and hand over to plaintiff. 3. Plaintiff is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) as remuneration towards Court Commissioner before the Nazir, District Court Vadodara which will be released in favour of Court Commissioner after submission of report. 2. Amongst various submissions made by the learned Senior counsels for the petitioners to assail the order impugned, the primary grounds of challenge are that the Commercial Court has erred in providing the printouts of the data, allegedly that of the plaintiff stored in the pen drive, inasmuch as, the data contains confidential information re: trade practices of the plaintiff and that Page 2 of 18 Uploaded by BIJOY B. PILLAI(HC00202) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 09 19:25:05 IST 2026 C/SCA/4648/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2026 the suit is at the primary stage of framing of issues. At this stage, providing material collected by the Court Commissioner from the computer of the defendants would amount to assisting plaintiff to build its evidence, by the Court. 3. The Court Commissioner was appointed vide order dated 25.09.2018 passed by the Commercial Court and the report was submitted at Exhibits ‘52’ and ‘61’ along with the pen drive at Mark 18/16, containing the data stored in the computer of defendants no. 1 and 2, the petitioners herein. Even vide order dated 24.09.2019, the parties were permitted to view the contents of the pen drive on the court’s computer. 4. The stage at which the Court Commissioner was appointed was the stage of consideration of the interim injunction application, which has later been decided by the trial court. The challenge to the order of grant of interim injunction restraining the petitioners from using the respondent’s drawing and confidential information, is pending adjudication in F/Appeal from Order No. 6098 of 2026. 5. It is contended by the petitioners herein that the order of interim injunction does not even refer to the inspection report of the Court Commissioner in its analysis, which fact itself indicates that the alleged contents of the pen drive have no bearing on the merits of the case, at this stage. Page 3 of 18 Uploaded by BIJOY B. PILLAI(HC00202) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 09 19:25:05 IST 2026 C/SCA/4648/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2026 6. It is submitted by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners herein that the pen drive is part of the Court record and hence, possibility of tampering or loss of the data is purely speculative. 7. The plaintiff/respondent no.1 herein, however, moved an application at Exhibit ‘98’ seeking copies/print outs of the contents of the pen drive submitted by the Court Commissioner pursuant to the commission ordered below Exhibit ‘7’. The petitioners/defendants, in rebuttal, filed their reply at Exhibit ‘231’ contending that the purported local inspection amounted to an unlawful and unauthorised invasion of the defendants’ premises and rights. Consequently, any data allegedly obtained pursuant thereto is inadmissible and cannot be relied upon by the Commercial Court. 8. The petitioners/defendants no.1 and 2 denied that the pen drive contains any proprietary documents or intellectual property belonging to the plaintiff/respondent no.1 herein and the mere presence of the plaintiff’s name or address on certain documents collected in the pen drive does not establish ownership or any infringement on the part of the defendants. 9. It was vehemently argued by the learned Senior counsels for the petitioners that the pen drive contains confidential and sensitive data of the petitioners/defendants Company and permitting the original plaintiff to access or obtain copies of such data Page 4 of 18 Uploaded by BIJOY B. PILLAI(HC00202) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 09 19:25:05 IST 2026 C/SCA/4648/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2026 without proper judicial scrutiny would cause serious prejudice to the petitioners herein/defendants no.1 and 2. The submission is that the framing of issues is a crucial stage of the trial as it identifies the real questions in dispute between the parties and provides direction to the proceedings. In absence of framed issues, the parties are not clearly aware of what is required to be proved. Permitting sharing of data collected by the Court Commissioner to the plaintiff prior to the framing of issues amounts to collection of evidence without a defined dispute, which is procedurally improper and prejudicial to the defendants. 10.It is submitted that allowing access to or inspection of the contents of the pen drive at this stage is contrary to the very object and scheme of Order XIV CPC and disrupts the order and process of trial. Such an approach confers an unfair advantage upon the plaintiff by enabling them to search for and build evidence without first establishing the precise nature of the dispute and thereby causing serious prejudice to the defendants. 11. Mr. Mihir Joshi, learned Senior counsel for the respondent no.1/plaintiff, however, would argue that the Court has allowed application Exhibit ‘98’ of the plaintiff in part and the printouts of only some data collected by the Court Commissioner stored in the pen drive (Mark 18/16), which is the data of the plaintiff, is directed to be provided in presence of both the parties. Page 5 of 18 Uploaded by BIJOY B. PILLAI(HC00202) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 09 19:25:05 IST 2026 C/SCA/4648/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2026 The submission is that the Commercial Court has taken due care that no confidential data belonging to the defendants be provided to the plaintiff. 12. Further, the pen drive forms part of the record and as per Order XXVI Rule 10 CPC, the evidence taken by the Court Commissioner along with the report shall form part of record of the proceedings. The defendants cannot be permitted to argue that material in the pen drive collected during the Court commission work does not form part of the court record. The submission is that once the copy of the data in the pen drive containing the material collected from the computer of the defendants has already given to them, the plaintiff who has filed the present suit for infringement of its copyright in proprietary engineering drawings, IPs and literary work against the defendants is also entitled to get a copy of its data (data of plaintiff) stored in the pen drive. 13. The contention is that the only caveat put forth by the defendants against the order impugned is that the Commercial Court has provided confidential data of the defendants to the plaintiff collected by the Court Commissioner, which is incorrect. The Commercial Court has carefully segregated the data of the plaintiff, printouts of which are to be provided under the order impugned. It is vehemently argued that once the data collected in the pen drive itself records the name and address of the plaintiff, it is clear that such data belongs Page 6 of 18 Uploaded by BIJOY B. PILLAI(HC00202) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 09 19:25:05 IST 2026 C/SCA/4648/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2026 to the plaintiff and no exception can be taken to providing of the printouts thereof. 14. Reliance is placed on the decisions of the High Court of Delhi in Autodesk Inc v. A.V.T. Shankardass, [2008 SCC OnLine Del 775] to submit that in the case of infringement of copyright, the collected data of the defendants by the Court Commissioner is a crucial evidence, which is required to be evaluated by the Court. The object of appointment of the Court Commissioner is not to collect evidence, but to preserve and protect the infringing evidence. The appointment of Court Commissioner in such matters is usual and in fact is intended to sub serve the ends of justice and it is imperative to ensure that the actual position is not altered. The submission is that the Commercial Court has duly recognised the concern of the plaintiff while appointing the Court Commissioner at the initial stage that there may be a possibility of incriminating software being removed and the requirement was to preserve the data. 15. Referring to Order XXXIX Rule 7 CPC, the learned Senior counsel for the plaintiff/respondent no.1 would submit that the detention and preservation of property, subject matter of suit, at interim stage, is permissible. Order XXVI Rule 9 clearly provides that for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute, the Court if deems fit, may require a local inspection or direct to make such inspection and to report thereon to the Court. The Page 7 of 18 Uploaded by BIJOY B. PILLAI(HC00202) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 09 19:25:05 IST 2026 C/SCA/4648/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2026 appointment of Court Commissioner with a view to detain/preserve the incriminating data has not been challenged by the petitioners/defendants no.1 and 2. 16. As per Order XXVI Rule 10(2), the report of the Court Commissioner and the evidence taken by him shall be evidence in the suit and shall form part of the record. It is open for any of the parties to the suit, with the permission of the Court, to examine the Commissioner personally in open court to confront him on the report or as to the manner in which he has made the investigation. As per Order XXVI Rule 10(3), the Court if dissatisfied with the proceedings of the Court Commissioner, it may reject the same or may direct for further inquiry, if it thinks fit. 17. The submission is that the Commercial Court cannot be said to have erred in referring to Order XXVI Rule 10 read with Rule 10A CPC to hold that the evidence taken by the Court along with its report shall form part of the record and the defendants cannot be permitted to contend to the contrary or to challenge the entire Court commission work by stating that the Court Commissioner has gone beyond the duties conferred on them. The submission is that the order of the Commercial Court is a calibrated order and only the plaintiff’s documents are directed to be copied and given while accepting the defendants claim of confidentiality and no document of the defendants has been directed to be given. Page 8 of 18 Uploaded by BIJOY B. PILLAI(HC00202) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 09 19:25:05 IST 2026 C/SCA/4648/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2026 18. The submission is that except in a case where the objection of confidentiality is taken, the evidence collected by the Court Commissioner submitted along with its report has to be provided. However, where non- confidential documents belonging to the plaintiff are directed to be supplied to the plaintiff by taking printouts of the contents from the pen drive, no infirmity can be attached to the order of the Commercial Court. Nothing wrong in principles applied by the Commercial Court based on any legal principles could be pointed out by the defendants as noted in the order impugned. This court, therefore, may not entertain the present petition. 19. In response to the submission of the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners/defendants no.1 and 2 that providing contents of the pen drive at this stage when even issues are not framed, would not amount to collecting evidence for the plaintiff/respondent no.1 herein facilitating it to build its case based on the contents of the pen drive, it was submitted that in principle, the Court Commissioner cannot collect evidence which the party would have collected. However, in the present case, where evidence is collected by the Court Commissioner, the direction to provide copies of the data of the plaintiff to it cannot be assailed without any disclosure of such documents being confidential. The submission is that in the instant case, in absence of any objection to the confidentiality, inasmuch as, the documents, copies whereof are to be Page 9 of 18 Uploaded by BIJOY B. PILLAI(HC00202) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 09 19:25:05 IST 2026 C/SCA/4648/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2026 provided under the order impugned, are referred to as the documents of the plaintiff in the Court Commissioner’s report itself, no infirmity can be attached to the order impugned. 20. Referring to the judgment and order dated 07.07.2025 passed by this Court in the case of Prime Diamond Tech & Ors. vs. Sonani Jewels Pvt. Ltd. In Special Civil Application No.9066 of 2025 & Anr. , it was submitted that in the said case, this Court has directed not to provide access to the confidential information/trade secret of the rival parties at the interim stage while leaving it open for the Commercial Court to form its independent opinion at an appropriate stage to do the needful. In any case, no confidential information of the defendants is being provided to the plaintiff under the order impugned and no infirmity, as such, can be attached thereto. 21. Further, referring to the Division Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in Sonali Ashok Tandle v. Ranka Lifestyle Ventures [2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1918] , it was submitted that the sealed cover material submitted in evidence has been deprecated by the said Court. It was clearly held therein that no party is entitled to rely on “sealed cover material” to the prejudice of the other side and no Court should permit it. To do so flies in the face of very concept of fair justice and openness and transparency in the decision making process. Page 10 of 18 Uploaded by BIJOY B. PILLAI(HC00202) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 09 19:25:05 IST 2026 C/SCA/4648/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2026 22. Having heard the learned Senior counsels for the parties and perused the record, relevant is to note that the suit seeking injunction on infringement of the copyright filed against the defendants no.1 and 2/petitioners herein, is at the stage of framing of issues as stated in the present petition. 23. There is no dispute to the principle that the Court Commissioner’s report once submitted in the Court becomes part of the record and shall be evidence in the suit. There cannot be a dispute that the parties are entitled to confront the Court Commissioner on its report and that the evidence collected by the Court Commissioner being part of the record of the Court proceedings, can be supplied to the parties, if applied for, in a case where there is no issue of confidentiality. 24. None of the parties can claim that the evidence collected by the Court Commissioner, which are not confidential information of one of the parties pertaining to trade secret, etc. cannot be supplied to the other party. 25. The suit, out of which the present petition has arisen, is a suit for injunction for infringement of the copyright. The material collected by the Court in the Court Commissioner report are crucial piece of evidence to decide on the main question of injunction. The Court has been careful in preserving the material at the interim stage keeping in the spirit of Order XXXIX Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, on the concern Page 11 of 18 Uploaded by BIJOY B. PILLAI(HC00202) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 09 19:25:05 IST 2026 C/SCA/4648/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2026 shown by the plaintiff and to avoid any possibility of incriminating software being removed or tampered with. The order of appointment of the Court Commissioner in the present matter cannot be said to be an order to collect evidence, but it is to preserve and protect the infringing evidence. The order of appointment of Court Commissioner is intended to sub serve the ends of justice. 26. However, the test of reasonable and credible information regarding existence of copied design or incriminating evidence has to be subjected to strict proof during the course of evidence. It is to be tested on the principles formulated in Order XXVI Rule 10(2) CPC itself where any of the parties with the permission of the Court may confront the Court Commissioner personally in open Court touching any of the matters referred to him or mentioned in his report, or as to his report, or as to the manner in which he has made the investigation. The first principle is that the Court Commissioner’s report is also a rebuttable piece of evidence, though collected by the Court in its wisdom for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute. 27. The question, therefore, would be as to whether the current stage of the suit proceedings where barely issues have been framed and even the plaintiff has not led his evidence, the copies of the documents submitted in the Court Commissioner’s report by taking printouts of the data stored in the pen drive, shall be provided to Page 12 of 18 Uploaded by BIJOY B. PILLAI(HC00202) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 09 19:25:05 IST 2026 C/SCA/4648/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2026 the plaintiff for the mere fact that the Court Commissioner in his report has mentioned that the said documents belong to the plaintiff. 28. From a reading of the order dated 17.03.2026, it is evident that the Court has recorded of the pending application at Exhibit ‘213’ for amendment of plaint and application at Exhibit ‘214’ for production of documents. It has also noted that on the next date fixed therein was for hearing of all pending applications so that the issues could be framed expeditiously. There is a direction for time bound trial of the proceedings of the present suit by the Apex Court. 29. In our considered opinion, providing of the contents of the pen drive to the plaintiff on the premises that the data, copies whereof is to be provided under the order impugned, belong to the plaintiff, at this stage, is an error committed by the Commercial Court in the order impugned. The first reason for holding so is that the Commercial Court has not even deliberated on the contention of the defendants that the data collected in the pen drive is a confidential information of the defendants and the Court Commissioner has not adopted correct means to investigate, in the order impugned. 30. However, what bothers us most is the stage at which the part of the evidence collected by the Court Commissioner is being provided to the plaintiff, on the mere premise that the copies of the pen drive containing Page 13 of 18 Uploaded by BIJOY B. PILLAI(HC00202) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 09 19:25:05 IST 2026 C/SCA/4648/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2026 the material collected from the computer of the defendants has already being given to the defendants. The question is as to whether it would be prudent for the Court to provide the data collected from the computer of the defendants to the plaintiff when the plaintiff has not even led its evidence. In our considered opinion, if this is permitted, it would amount to providing assistance by the Court to the plaintiff to build its evidence, without first establishing the precise nature of the dispute by framing issues after dealing with the applications of the plaintiff for amendment of the plaint and production of the documents. 31. We are of the considered view that the stage at which the order impugned has been passed is not a proper stage of providing copies of the evidence collected by the Court Commissioner to the plaintiff. The proper stage could be when the issues are framed after the plaintiff leads evidence. At that stage, after due consideration of the rival contentions of both the sides, it would be open for the Commercial Court to provide printouts of the data stored in pen drive, which is stated to be that of the plaintiff and does not contain any confidential information of the defendants, which may be a trade secret information of the said party. 32. Even otherwise, from the order impugned itself, it is evident that both the parties, i.e. the plaintiff as well as defendants have been permitted to view the contents of the pen drive on the court’s computer under the order Page 14 of 18 Uploaded by BIJOY B. PILLAI(HC00202) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 09 19:25:05 IST 2026 C/SCA/4648/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2026 dated 24.09.2018. The application Exhibit ‘98’ in the Trade Mark Suit No. 3 of 2019 is pending since 2019. There was no occasion for the Commercial Court to provide printouts of the data of the pen drive allegedly belonging to the plaintiff at this stage. 33. A perusal of the application dated 26.09.2019 at Exhibit ‘98’ (page 253 of the paper book) of the plaintiff further indicates that the issues raised therein are that several files contained in the pen drive could not be opened on the Court’s computer, as the same did not have the necessary software to support such programmes and files, which can be viewed only by expert having supporting software. Many documents reflect the name and address of the plaintiff and are plaintiff’s documents, which establish that the documents obtained from the defendants’ computer are the plaintiff’s documents in breach of intellectual property of the plaintiff. It is, therefore, contended that it is just and necessary for the plaintiff to obtain the copies of contents of the pen drive as the same touches the merits of the matter and the plaintiff is seeking injunction against the defendants and hence, the contents of the pen drive are relevant for adjudication of the dispute. 34. Another concern shown by the plaintiff therein is that the pen drive may get corrupted or otherwise get damaged and the data found in the pen drive or the pen drive itself may get otherwise damaged. It is, therefore, imperative in the larger interest of justice and is of Page 15 of 18 Uploaded by BIJOY B. PILLAI(HC00202) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 09 19:25:05 IST 2026 C/SCA/4648/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2026 utmost importance to provide the copies of the contents of the documents to the plaintiff and the set of documents be made available for the perusal of the Court so that the dispute can be adjudicated on merits. The prayer made therein is that the Court may direct the officer of the Court to carry out the function of taking prints of the electronic records and the pen drive, which is also part of the suit record and the data stored in electronic form shall also be preserved as part of the suit record. The prayers in the said application read as under :- “8. In view of the aforesaid, it is prayed that : a. The contents of the pen drive, at Mark 18/16 available in the record may please be ordered to be copied in the form of hard copies and such copies be ordered to be given to the Plaintiff at Plaintiff’s cost. b. A Court Commissioner/Technical Person who is part of/employee of the Court’s administration/ IT Department may be appointed for carrying out such copies at the cost of the Plaintiff and such copies may please be ordered to be given to the Plaintiff. c. Any other relief in the interest of justice.” 35. Taking note of the above, we may simply observe that in a copyright suit, divulging of trade secret of each other to the rival parties would be antithesis to the whole concept. Further, providing of data collected by the Court Commissioner to the plaintiff at the preliminary Page 16 of 18 Uploaded by BIJOY B. PILLAI(HC00202) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 09 19:25:05 IST 2026 C/SCA/4648/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2026 stage of framing of issues would amount to providing undue assistance by the Court to the plaintiff to establish its case by leading evidence. It is settled principle of law that the plaintiff has to stand on its own legs and the collection of data in the form of Court Commission is for the assistance of the Court, in order to cull out the truth of the case of the parties. The Court Commissioner report is itself an evidence collected by the Court, copies whereof may be provided to the plaintiff at the appropriate stage of the suit by excluding the confidential informations of the defendants. 36. For the reasoning given above, we hold that the order dated 17.03.2026 passed by the Commercial Court, Vadodara below Application Exhibit ‘98’ in Trademark Suit No. 03 of 2019, cannot be sustained at this stage. While setting aside the same, the application Exhibit ‘98’ filed by the plaintiff on 26.09.2019 stands revived. The Commercial Court is directed to proceed with the suit in an expeditious manner by disposing of the pending applications and framing of issues by adopting due process. The application Exhibit ‘98’ of the plaintiff shall be considered by the Commercial Court at an appropriate stage, after the evidence are led by the plaintiff before forming any opinion on the Court Commissioner report by giving due opportunity to the parties to confront the Court Commissioner’s report. 37. It is further clarified that at this stage we do not find any reason to give access to the plaintiff to the information Page 17 of 18 Uploaded by BIJOY B. PILLAI(HC00202) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 09 19:25:05 IST 2026 C/SCA/4648/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2026 collected by the Court Commissioner from the computers of the rival parties, namely the defendants. It would, however, be open for the Commercial Court to form its independent opinion at an appropriate stage, on appreciation of material before it, to do the needful by taking just decision in accordance with law, without being influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove. 38. The present order will have no bearing on the merits of the case of the parties, inasmuch as, all necessary steps to bring the dispute to its logical end by adopting due process of law can very well be taken by the Commercial Court in its own wisdom. We trust that the Commercial Court has already taken necessary steps to ensure preservation of the data of the pen drive collected by the Court Commissioner so as to address the concern of the plaintiff about the pen drive being corrupted or the data becoming inaccessible. 39. With the above, the present petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. (SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ ) (D.N.RAY,J) BIJOY B. PILLAI Page 18 of 18 Uploaded by BIJOY B. PILLAI(HC00202) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 09 19:25:05 IST 2026</div>