K. VIRUPAKSHA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

              REPORTABLE    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION    CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.     377      OF 2020    (Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No.5701 of 2019) K. Virupaksha & Anr.                 .…Appellant(s) Versus The State of Karnataka & Anr.             ….  Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T A.S. Bopanna,J.                 Leave granted.      2.  The appellants herein were the petitioners in Criminal Petition   No.100323/2018   which   was   dismissed   by   the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench through the order dated 21.01.2019. The said order was passed by Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by MAHABIR SINGH Date: 2020.03.03 16:21:25 IST Reason: the High Court while considering the petition filed by the Page 1 of 27 appellants   herein   under   Section   482   of   the   Cr.P.C. seeking that the order dated 20.05.2016 passed by the Principal   Civil   Judge   &   JMFC   in   PC   No.   389/2016 referring the matter for investigation and consequential registration   of   FIR   in   Crime   No.   152/2016   by   the Hubballi   Sub­Urban   Police   Station   for   the   alleged offences punishable under Sections 511, 109, 34, 120­B, 406, 409, 420, 405, 417 and 426 of IPC be quashed. In the said proceedings the appellants herein are arrayed as Accused   Nos.   9   and   11   respectively.   The   appellants herein were at the relevant point in time working as the Deputy General Managers in the Canara Bank (Accused No.1), Circle Office at Hubbali, Karnataka.  3. The brief facts leading to the present situation is that the respondent No.2 herein (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Complainant’) had approached the Canara Bank at   Hubballi   pursuant   to   which   credit   facilities   were sanctioned   on   16.03.2009.   The   total   credit   facility sanctioned   amounted   to   Rs.2.68   crores.   The   property bearing   Survey   No.   213/2002   situated   at   Anchatageri Page 2 of 27 Village, Hubballi measuring 3 acres 2 Guntas was offered as security for the said loan and a charge was created. The   said   property   is   hereinafter   referred   to   as   the ‘Secured   Asset’.   As   per   the  case   of   Canara  Bank,   the Complainant had not repaid the loan amount and in that view   having   committed   default,   the   account   of   the Complainant   was   classified   as   ‘Non­Performing   Asset’ (‘NPA’ for short) on 15.01.2013. The Canara Bank thus having   invoked   the   power   under   Section   13(2)   of   The Securitisation   and   Reconstruction   of   Financial   Assets and   Enforcement   of   Securities   Interest Act,   2002 (‘SARFAESI Act’ for short) had issued appropriate notices and ultimately the possession of the secured asset as contemplated under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act was taken on 22.03.2013. The secured asset was thereafter evaluated and was brought to auction through the public notice dated 13.10.2013 indicating the date of auction as 15.11.2013. The reserve price of the secured asset was fixed at Rs.2,28,51,000/­. Though publication was made, no   bids   were   received   in   the   auction   proposed   on Page 3 of 27 15.11.2013   and   since   the   same   was   a   public   holiday declared   in   the   State   of   Karnataka   the   auction   was postponed to 04.12.2013. Even on the said date no bids were received.   4. Accordingly,   the   Canara   Bank   had   revised   the valuation, indicating the reserve price as Rs.1.10 Crore since the earlier reserve price at a higher rate had not attracted purchasers and issued the fresh auction notice dated   30.12.2013.   The   Complainant   claiming   to   be aggrieved by such action, assailed the auction notice in a Writ Petition filed before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench in Writ Petition No. 100382/2014. The learned Single Judge having considered the matter, apart from   taking   note   of   the   contentions   put   forth   by   the Complainant   had   also   taken   into   consideration   the alternate remedy available to the Complainant under the SARFAESI   Act   and   accordingly   dismissed   the   writ petition   with   cost   of  Rs.10,000/­,   on   22.01.2014.   The Complainant   assailed   the   said   order   by   filing   a   Writ Appeal   before   the   Division   Bench   in   WA   No. Page 4 of 27 100349/2014.   The   Division   Bench   through   the   order dated   19.08.2014   dismissed   the   Writ   Appeal.   The Complainant thereafter availed the remedy under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act by filing an application in IR No.3044/2014   (SA)   and   also   accompanying   the   same with   an application   under Section 5 of the Limitation Act bearing IA No. 4482/2014. The application seeking condonation   of   delay   and   consequently   the   main application   were   dismissed   by   the   Debts   Recovery Tribunal   (‘DRT’   for   short)   through   its   order   dated 12.06.2015. Pursuant thereto the Complainant is stated to   have   filed   an   Appeal   before   the   Debts   Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai (‘DRAT’ for short) which is also stated to be dismissed. 5. It is in the said backdrop the Complainant filed the complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C in the Court of the   Principal   Civil   Judge   (Junior   Division)   &   JMFC, Hubballi in P.C. No.389/2016 alleging that the Officers of the   Canara   Bank   in   connivance   with   the   auction purchaser had caused wrongful loss to the Complainant. Page 5 of 27 To the said complaint, apart from the Canara Bank, the highly placed officials, the appellants herein, the valuers and the auction purchaser were shown as the accused. The said complaint being taken on record, the learned Magistrate has referred the same for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and to submit a report. Based on such direction the FIR No.0152/2016 is registered. The appellants, therefore, claiming to be aggrieved had preferred   the   Criminal   Petition   under   Section   482   of Cr.P.C in Criminal Petition No.100323/2018, which was dismissed  by the High  Court  through the  order dated 21.01.2019 which is assailed herein.  6. Heard Mr. Brijesh Kumar Tamber, learned counsel appearing   for   the   appellants,   Ms.   Kiran   Suri,   learned senior   counsel   for   the   Complainant,   Mr.   Shubhanshu Padhi, learned counsel for the State of Karnataka and perused the appeal papers.   7. The   learned   counsel   for   the   appellants   would contend that apart from the appellants having no role in the transaction between the Complainant and the Canara Page 6 of 27 Bank, being the Deputy General Managers and working at the Circle Office, even otherwise cannot be held liable to   face   a   criminal   action   of   the   present   nature.   It   is contended   that   the   loan   transaction   and   the   account being treated as NPA due to the non­repayment of loan cannot   be   disputed.   In   that   circumstance   the   entire action taken, upto the stage of the sale of the property is as regulated under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act which provides not only for the procedure but also for redressal of the grievance of the parties concerned. In that circumstance even if the grievance as sought to be made out by the Complainant are taken note, the same cannot   form   the   basis   for   maintaining   the   criminal complaint   and   in   such   event   the   learned   Magistrate without   application   of   mind   has   directed   investigation under   Section   156(3)   of   Cr.P.C.   which   has   led   to   the registration of the FIR. It is contended that in respect of the action taken by the Canara Bank, the complainant in fact has availed the remedy of filing the Writ Petition, Writ  Appeal   and   thereafter   the   proceedings   before   the Page 7 of 27 DRT   as   also   DRAT   and   having   failed   therein   has   set criminal law into motion which is not bonafide and not sustainable in law. It is contended that the learned Judge of the High Court of Karnataka has not appreciated the matter   in   its   correct   perspective.   Instead,   the   learned Judge has arrived at the conclusion that the investigation would not prejudice the appellants, which is not justified. It   is   contended   that   when   action   is   taken   against   a defaulter, if the instant action is permitted, it would not be possible to discharge the official functions and as such the   instant   case   is   a   fit   case   where   interference   was required but the High Court has failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter. Further, it is also pointed out that the   learned   Judge   was   not   justified   in   rejecting   the petition filed by the appellants merely because the other petitions filed in Criminal Petition No.101258/2016 and Criminal Petition No.101162/2016 filed by  certain other accused had been dismissed and a direction was issued to the police to file the final report.  Page 8 of 27 8. The   learned   senior   counsel   for   the   Complainant would on the other hand rely on the identical criminal petitions which had been dismissed by the High Court insofar  as  Accused  Nos.1 and   12  are  concerned.  It  is contended that though the loan of Rs.2.68 Crores was sanctioned, only a sum of Rs.90 lakhs was disbursed and the remaining amount was adjusted as repayment. It is further   contended   that   the   secured   asset   which   was worth   more   than   Rs.4   Crores   was   undervalued   and ultimately sold for Rs.1.10 Crores in connivance with the auction purchaser who is arrayed as Accused No.15. It is further   contended   that   the   under   valuation   of   the mortgage property is not the only issue but the issue with regard to the non­disbursement of the entire loan and the non­consideration   of   the   three   offers   made   by   the Complainant for One Time Settlement (‘OTS’ for short) are all aspects which are to be investigated upon. It is contended that in such circumstance the investigation as ordered by the learned Magistrate was justified and the High Court has appropriately refrained from interfering in Page 9 of 27 the matter at this stage. It is, therefore, contended that the   contention   as   urged   in   the   instant   appeal   by   the appellants does not merit consideration and the appeal is liable to be rejected. The learned counsel for the State of Karnataka   would   contend   that   pursuant   to   direction issued   by   the   learned   Magistrate   the   FIR   had   been registered   and   the   investigation   is   in   progress   and therefore, the same be permitted to be taken to its logical conclusion.   9. Before adverting to the rival contentions urged on behalf   of   the   parties   we   have   kept   in   perspective   the decision of this Court in the case of   State of Haryana vs.   Bhajan   Lal   (1992)   Supp   (1)   SCC   335   placed   for consideration   by   the   learned   senior   counsel   for   the Complainant which lays down the parameters that are to be   kept   in   view   while   exercising   the   extraordinary power/inherent power to quash the criminal proceeding. On stating the parameters, this Court has cautioned that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised   very   sparingly   and   with   circumspection   and Page 10 of 27 that too in rare cases. In that background, keeping in view the nature of transaction and the manner in which the   earlier   proceedings   were   resorted   to   on   the   same subject matter, the present situation is required to be considered.  10. As   noted,   the   undisputed   fact   is   that   the Complainant   had   approached   the   Canara   Bank   for financial assistance, wherein the appellants herein were the Officers in the Circle Office.   The Complainant had availed the loan facility to the tune of Rs.2.68 Crores on 16.03.2009. Though the Complainant contends that the entire amount of Rs.2.68 Crores was not released, but only     a   sum   of   Rs.90   lakh   was   released   and   the remaining   amount   was   adjusted   as   repayment,   the question would  be as to whether that aspect and  the other   aspects     as   raised   with   regard   to   the   non­ consideration of the OTS as also the value for which the property was sold and the manner in which it was sold could be investigated into by the police merely because allegations are made and certain sections of the Indian Page 11 of 27 Penal Code are invoked when the action is resorted to and regulated under SARFAESI Act.  While taking note of the sequence of events it is noticed that the secured asset though sold in the auction conducted on 31.01.2014 and the grievances as sought to be put forth at this point in the criminal complaint was available at that juncture, it is not as if the complaint was immediately filed. On the other hand, when the auction notice dated 13.10.2013 was   issued,   no   grievance   was   made   out   by   the Complainant before any judicial forum. However, the sale did not take place for want of purchasers and a fresh auction notice dated 30.12.2013 was issued indicating the reserve price at Rs.1.10 Crores.  11. At   that   stage   the   Complainant   approached   the High   Court   of   Karnataka,   Dharwad   Bench   in   a   Writ Petition   filed   under   Articles   226   and   227   of   the Constitution   of   India   in   W.P.   No.100382/2014.   The auction notice dated 30.12.2013 was impugned therein. The allegation which is now sought to be put forth in the complaint filed under Section 200 of the Cr.PC wherein Page 12 of 27 the   appellants   herein   along   with   others   have   been accused   of   with   regard   to   the   under   valuation   of   the secured assets was the very contention which was urged in the said Writ Petition.  The learned Single Judge in the said Writ Petition had taken note of the contention that the reserve price in respect of the secured assets was fixed   at   Rs.228.51   Lakhs   initially,   thereafter   in   the subsequent   auction   conducted   the   same   was   fixed   at Rs.1.10   Crores   and   has   thereafter   concluded   as hereunder: “Undisputedly, petitioner is the debtor and has   suffered   an   order   passed   by jurisdictional   Debt   Recovery   Tribunal.   The Debt   Recovery   Tribunal,   Bangalore   has issued   recovery   certificate   in   favour   of respondent­Bank   to   recover   the   said amount. Property mortgaged to respondent­ Bank by the petitioner has been brought for sale by auction.  In the  event of  Bank  not adhering to provisions of SARFAESI Act in conducting   the   sale   or   there   being   any infraction in this regard, petitioner has an alternate remedy available under SARFAESI Act.   Hence,   at   the   stage   of   auction   being conducted by respondent­Bank for recovery of its legitimate dues, this Court would not interfere   with   said   auction   in   the   normal course.”  Page 13 of 27 “In   the   instant   case,   reserve   price earlier   fixed   at   Rs.228.51   lakhs   has   not fetched customers and as such, respondent­ Bank has fixed the reserve price at Rs.110 lakhs which would be the price with which the   public   auction   starts   and   auction bidders are not permitted to give bids below the   floor   value   or   reserve   price.  If   the petitioner is able to secure a customer or a bidder who can offer his bid for the value as proposed by the petitioner itself, it would be needless to state that secured creditor would definitely   accept   the   said   bid   since   earlier attempts by it to auction the property has been in vain.”  “In the instant case, as already noticed hereinabove, petitioner is a borrower and it had defaulted in payment of monies due to the Bank. In other words, public money due by   petitioner   to   the   Bank   has   not   been repaid. Petitioner loan account having been classified   as   a   ‘non­performing   asset’, respondent­Bank   has   initiated   proceedings under the SARFAESI Act to recover the dues. In   the   earlier   auctions   conducted,   reserve price fixed was Rs.228.51 lakhs i.e., in the auction which was to be held on 15.11.2013 and   04.12.2013.   However,   in   the   paper publication   that   has   been   issued   on 30.12.2013   Annexure­C   in   the   auction proposed to be held on 31.01.2014 at 3.30 p.m. (E­auction), reserve price has been fixed at   Rs.110   lakhs.   The   grievance   of   the petitioner   is   that   value   of   the   property   is more   than   Rs.405.21   lakhs   and   as   such, property   in   question   cannot   be   sold   for   a pittance.  If   value   of   the   property   as contended by petitioner is Rs.405.21 lakhs, Page 14 of 27 nothing prevents the petitioner from getting a   purchaser   or   a   bidder   to   purchase   the property for the said value and clear off the debts due by it to the respondent which even according to petitioner is around Rs.285.71 lakhs as on 31.01.2014 (which was Rs.261 lakhs as on 11.10.2013). However, without taking said recourse, petitioner is attempting to stall the auction proceedings which is not permissible   inasmuch   as   the   respondent­ Bank being a nationalised Bank which is the custodian of public money is taking steps to recover its dues by auctioning the property through   e­auction   and   the   action   of respondent­Bank   cannot   be   flawed. Respondent­Bank   has   adopted   one   of   the courses suggested by the Hon’ble Apex Court in United India Assurance case referred to supra   namely   “Public   Auction”   by   which process there would be larger participation. If at all the auction is to be set­aside for any reason   whatsoever,   petitioner   can   take recourse   to   the   remedy   available   under SARFAESI   Act   and   get   the   sale   set   aside. However, petitioner cannot be permitted to stall the  auction  itself  under  extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court.” (emphasis supplied) 12. While   arriving   at   such   conclusion   the   learned Single   Judge   had   kept   in   view   the   provisions   as contained in the SARFAESI Act, as also the decisions of this Court, more particularly in the case of  United Bank Page 15 of 27 of India vs. Satyawati Tondon & Ors.   (2009) 1 SCC 168.   In that view though the learned Single Judge did not   accept   the   contentions   as   put   forth   had   also indicated that if at all the auction is to be set aside for any reason whatsoever, the Complainant who was the petitioner therein can take recourse to the remedy under SARFAESI Act and get the sale set aside.  In that view the learned   Single   Judge   was   of   the   opinion   that   the Complainant   cannot   be   permitted   to   stall   the   auction itself through the prayer made in the Writ Petition.  The Complainant   had   assailed   the   said   order   in   an   intra­ court   appeal   bearing   W.A.   No.100349/2014.     The Division Bench by its order dated 19.08.2014 had taken note   of   the   consideration   made   by   the   learned   Single Judge with reference to the case of   Satyawati Tondon & Ors.   (Supra) and had accordingly dismissed the Writ Appeal. 13. Having taken note of the nature of consideration made by the High Court in the said writ proceedings and keeping  in  view the   proceedings  on  hand,   in order  to Page 16 of 27 come to a conclusion as to whether in a matter of the present nature the appellants should be exposed to the ignominy   of   going   through   the   process   of   criminal proceedings, it is  also appropriate to take note  of the provisions as contained in the SARFAESI Act.   The fact that the issue relates to the exercise of remedy relating to a secured asset as defined under the Act cannot be in dispute.   The fact that the account of the Complainant was classified as NPA is also the admitted position.   In that regard when a right accrues to the secured creditor to   enforce   the   security   interest,   the   procedure   as contemplated under Sections 13 and 14 of the SARFAESI Act is to be resorted to.   Further the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 provides the procedure to be adopted   with   regard   to   the   valuation   and   sale   of   the secured asset.   If the Complainant, as a borrower had any grievance with regard to any of the measures taken by the secured creditor invoking the provisions of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act, the remedy as provided under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act was to be availed.  It is in Page 17 of 27 that light the High Court in the writ proceedings had arrived at such conclusion.   At that point in time the Complainant availed the remedy under the Act by filing the application under Section 17 in I.R. No.3044/2014. Since   there   was   delay   in   filing,   an   application   in   I.A. No.4482/2015 was filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay.  The same was rejected on the ground of delay against which an appeal is said to have   been   filed   before   the   DRAT   and   it   was   pending though it is now stated to be dismissed.   It is at that stage when it was still pending the impugned complaint in P.C. No.389/2016 was filed, wherein through the order dated 20.05.2016 it had been referred to an investigation under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.PC.   14. The learned senior counsel for the Complainant no doubt referred to the Criminal Petition No.101162/2016 and   Criminal   Petition   No.101258/2016   filed   by   the Accused Nos.1 and 12 being dismissed by the High Court and   the   same   not   being   carried   further   and   attaining finality.  Though that be the position, in the instant case Page 18 of 27 the   appellants   are   before   this   Court   to   exercise   the remedy available and as such the dismissal of the said petitions cannot prejudice their case when this Court is required to take a view on the matter though it has not been availed in the earlier cases.   Further the learned senior counsel has also referred to the statements of two former   Officers   of   the   Canara   Bank,   namely, Gurupadayya and Bapu which was recorded during the course of the investigation and a reference was made by the   learned   senior   counsel   to   the   detailed   report regarding investigation wherein the Investigating Officer, namely, the Assistant Police Sub­Inspector, Sub­Urban Police Station, Hubballi had concluded that as per the investigation it is found that all the accused persons with conspiracy and in collusion with each other have cheated the Complainant by releasing only Rs.90 Lakhs out of the sanctioned amount of Rs.2.68 Crores and by later not releasing   the   remaining   amount   had   caused   economic stumbling block and sold the property mortgaged to one of the accused.   Page 19 of 27 15. The   issue   however   is,   as   to   whether   such proceedings   by   the   police   in   the   present   facts   and circumstances   could   be   permitted.     At   the   outset   the sanction of loan, creation of mortgage and the manner in which   the   sanctioned   loan   was   to   be   released   are   all contractual   matters   between   the   parties.     The Complainant  is  an  industrialist who  had   obtained   the loan in the name of his company and the loan account was maintained by the Canara Bank in that regard.  The loan admittedly was sanctioned on 16.03.2009. When at that stage the amount was released and if any amount was   withheld,   the   Complainant   was   required   to   take appropriate  action at  that  point in  time  and avail his remedy.     On   the   other   hand,   the   Complainant   had proceeded   with   the   transaction,   maintained   the   loan account   until   the   account   was   classified   as   NPA   on 15.01.2013.     Initially   the   issue   raised   was   only   with regard to the under valuation of the property when it was brought to sale.  On that aspect, as taken note the writ proceedings   were   filed   and   the   learned   Single   Judge Page 20 of 27 having examined, though did not find merit had reserved liberty to raise it before the DRT, which option is also availed.  It is only thereafter the impugned complaint was filed on 20.05.2016.  16.   The SARFAESI Act is a complete code in itself which   provides   the   procedure   to   be   followed   by   the secured creditor and also the remedy to the aggrieved parties including the borrower.  In such circumstance as already taken note by the High Court in writ proceedings if there is any discrepancy in the manner of classifying the account of the appellants as NPA or in the manner in which the property was valued or was auctioned, the DRT is vested with the power to set aside such auction at the stage after the secured creditor invokes the power under Section 13 of SARFAESI Act.  This view is fortified by the decision of this Court in the case of  Authorised Officer, Indian   Overseas   Bank   &   Anr.   vs.   Ashok   Saw   Mill (2009) 8 SCC 366 wherein it is held as hereunder: Page 21 of 27

Page 22 of 27

(emphasis supplied) 17.  We reiterate, the action taken by the Banks under the SARFAESI Act is neither unquestionable nor treated as   sacrosanct   under   all   circumstances   but   if   there   is discrepancy in the manner the Bank has proceeded it will always be open to assail it in the forum provided. Though in   the   instant   case   the   application   filed   by   the Complainant before the DRT has been dismissed and the Appeal No.523/2015 filed before the DRAT is also stated to be dismissed the appellants ought to have availed the Page 23 of 27 remedy diligently. In that direction the further remedy by approaching the High Court to assail the order of DRT and DRAT is also available in appropriate cases.  Instead the petitioner after dismissal of the application before the DRT filed the impugned complaint which appears to be an intimidatory tactic and an afterthought which is an abuse of the process of law.   In the matter of present nature if the grievance as put forth is taken note and if the same is allowed to be agitated through a complaint filed   at   this   point   in   time   and   if   the   investigation   is allowed to continue it would amount to permitting the jurisdictional police to redo the process which would be in the nature of reviewing the order passed by the learned Single   Judge   and   the   Division   Bench   in   the   writ proceedings by the High Court and the orders passed by the competent Court under the SARFAESI Act which is neither desirable nor permissible and the banking system cannot   be   allowed   to   be   held   to   ransom   by   such intimidation.   Therefore, the present case is a fit case Page 24 of 27 wherein   the   extraordinary   power   is   necessary   to   be invoked and exercised.   18.  The   appellants   herein   had   also   referred   to   the provision as contained in Section 32 of the SARFAESI Act which provides for the immunity from prosecution since protection is provided thereunder for the action taken in good   faith.     The   learned   senior   counsel   for   the Complainant has in that regard referred to the decision of this Court in the case of  General Officer Commanding, Rashtriya Rifles vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.   (2012) 6 SCC 228 to contend that the defence relating to good faith and public good are questions of fact   and   they   are   required   to   be   proved   by   adducing evidence.     Though   on   the   proposition   of   law   as enunciated therein there could be no cavil, that aspect of the matter is also an aspect which can be examined in the proceedings provided under the SARFAESI Act. In a circumstance   where   we   have   already   indicated   that   a criminal proceeding would not be sustainable in a matter of the present nature, exposing the appellants even on Page 25 of 27 that   count   to   the   proceedings   before   the  Investigating Officer or the criminal court would not be justified. 19. In that view, for all the reasons stated above we pass the following: O R D E R (i) The complaint bearing P.C. No.389/2016 and   the   order   dated   20.05.2016   passed therein   as   also   the   FIR   No.0152/2016 insofar   as   the   appellants   herein   are concerned stand quashed. (ii)   Insofar   as   the   grievance   of   the Complainant,   he   is   at   liberty   to   avail   his remedies   in   accordance   with   law   if   he chooses to assail the order dated 12.06.2015 passed in I.R. No.3044/2014 and the order dated   31.05.2017   passed   in   Appeal No.523/2015   by   the   DRT   and   DRAT respectively in accordance with law. Page 26 of 27 (iii) The appeal is accordingly allowed with no order as to costs. (iv)   Pending   applications   if   any,   shall   also stand disposed of. ………….…………….J. (R. BANUMATHI)           .……………………….J.                                                 (S. ABDUL NAZEER) ………….…………….J.                                               (A.S. BOPANNA) New Delhi, March 03, 2020 Page 27 of 27