Delhi District Court
Nawal Kishor Yadav vs M/S Tsl Electro Power Pvt. Ltd on 13 February, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. POOJA JAIN, DISTRICT JUDGE-03
EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
CS No. 3317/16
SH. NAWAL KISHOR YADAV
S/O SH. N.P. YADAV,
R/O H.NO. 499, DDA FLATS,
PUL PRAHLADPUR,
SURAJ KUND ROAD,
N DELHI-110044 ............PLAINTIFF
Versus
1. M/S TSL ELECTRO POWER (P) LTD.
FORMERLY M/S TIMKEN SERVICES (P) LAD
THROUGH M D/ CHAIRMAN
2. SM. GIRISH MOHAN M D
3. SMT. VIMLA DEVI DIRECTOR
4. MRS PALLAVI GUPTA DIRECTOR
5. SH. S PRAKASH DIRECTOR
ALL ADDRESS:
725, UDYOG VIHAR PHASE 5,
GURGAON HRN.
REGISTERED ADDRESS
D-104, NAGARJUNA APARTMENT,
CHILLA COMPLEX, MAYUR VIHAR,
DELHI ........DEFENDANTS
Sh. Nawal Kishor Yadav Vs. M/s TSL Electro Power (P) Ltd. & Ors. CS No. 3317/16 Page No.1/19
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 08.10.2016
DATE OF RESERVING ORDER : 21.12.2024
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 13.02.2025
JUDGMENT
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS.4,31,494/- (RS. FOUR LAKHS THIRTY ONE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED NINTY FOUR ONLY) ALONGWITH PENDENTE LITE & FUTURE INTEREST.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:-
1. Succinctly, the necessary facts for just adjudication of the present suit as stated in the plaint are as under:
It is averred that plaintiff is working as Accounts Manager with M/s Timken Services Pvt. Ltd. Which has changed its name to M/s TSL Electro Power Pvt. Ltd. Plaintiff has joined the defendant's esteemed ISO 9001 2000 Certified Company, after thorough screening at the post above stated since January 2011 at a salary of Rs. 21,000/- p.m. alongwith other benefits. It is further averred that defendant no.1 is a private Engineering Company executing turnkey electrical & mechanical contracts for residential, commercial & industrial buildings & is authorized dealer of Kirloskar Oil engines Ltd. Alongwith other activities while defendant no. 2 to 5 are Chairman/ MD and Directors of the company having its office at Gurgaon in HRN & Regd. address at E/104, Nagarjuna Apartment at Mayur Vihar Delhi. Plaintiff rendered his best services for the defendants Sh. Nawal Kishor Yadav Vs. M/s TSL Electro Power (P) Ltd. & Ors. CS No. 3317/16 Page No.2/19 concerning all accounts & finance related matter like sales tax, Vat & every Type of Taxation & Court matters in Haryana & Outside in all states & left no stone unturned for its bright prospects of company. It is further averred that in written agreement/ arrangement given by defendants handed to plaintiff, a security equivalent to three months of salary was to be retained by defendants company which was to be passed to plaintiff, at the time of settlement of dues. The plaintiff continued to serve defendants uninterruptedly by dint of his hard work & sincerity & plaintiff was getting salary alongwith perks as per appointment letter. With the passage of time seniority was enhanced & the plaintiff performed variety of work & the last drawn salary of plaintiff was Rs.35,491. It is further averred that since the date of joining of the plaintiff with the defendants company, he was not being given salary on time. The proceeds of the profits of defendant company was multiplying so the plaintiff was to do all indoor & out door work himself. The plaintiff, on 07.06.2016, requested defendants no.2-4 to employ one another stepny/helper for which the defendants got enraged and thereafter they due to animosity engaged another accountant namely Surender and handed over all the accounts work to him and snatched the seat from plaintiff out of ill will and threatened the plaintiff to give his resignation till 30.06.2016. Plaintiff was punished for being true & loyal to the defendants without any rhyme & reason. Even after 30.06.2016 the plaintiff attended to his duties at the Gurgaon office for taking his previous and present wage and benefits but was made to wait till evening. And Sh. Nawal Kishor Yadav Vs. M/s TSL Electro Power (P) Ltd. & Ors. CS No. 3317/16 Page No.3/19 against repeated mails and correspondences, the defendants called the plaintiff on 09.08.2016 at 7 pm. Plaintiff visited the defendant's office at 7 p.m. but was called in the director's room at 08 p.m. and all the defendants put pressure and threat to life of the plaintiff and made him to forcibly sign full and final settlement receipt and two voucher receipts whereby only salary for June 2016 and some earned leaves was paid. The plaintiff on the receipt made his endorsement that he has received only June 2016 salary alongwith some earned leave but did not get other salaries, benefits and dues.
It is further averred that plaintiff was hired and fired from his services without due process of law and without settling his full and final payment. The plaintiff tried to contact defendants and other responsible officers personally & through phone for seeking his recoveries/legal dues in the form of salary. It is further averred that description of dues are given below:
a. 3 Months security Equivalent salary Rs.63,000/-.
b. 6 years Gratuity (basic Rs.34,679 + TEA 312+Telephone Rs.500 Totaling Rs.1,20,043.
c. Pending Conveyance as Attachment Rs.19,270.
d. Pending salary balance for Feb, March, April and May
2016, Rs. 1,03,852/-.
e. Bonus Four Year Rs.14,000/-
- One year Rs.7000/-
Sh. Nawal Kishor Yadav Vs. M/s TSL Electro Power (P) Ltd. & Ors. CS No. 3317/16 Page No.4/19
- Six Months Rs.3500/-
f. Salary July, August 2016 Rs.70,982/-.
g. Interest and other Charges of late payment Rs.21,500/-.
It is further averred that all efforts to get his legal dues earned wages/ salaries and perks from the defendants went futile. Plaintiff sent a legal notice dated 29.08.2016 to the defendants. It is further averred that falsity & cheating has been committed by defendants by not paying legal dues of plaintiff for which he has rendered his services. Hence, the present suit is filed.
CASE OF THE DEFENDANTS
2. Defendants filed its written statement and submitted that plaintiff has approached before the court with unclean hands and has indulged in suppressio veri et suggestio falsi therefore dis-entitling himself from any relief, equitable or otherwise. Plaintiff was incumbent as in- charge of accounts and was assisted by two account clerks and was responsible for maintaining books of accounts, preparing balance sheets of the company, disbursement of salaries and wages, making payments to the vendors and follow up with various Government agencies for assessment of sales tax, excise, service tax, labour department etc. Present suit is filed by the plaintiff is meritless, misconceived and an abuse of the process of law. Defendants deny each and every averment made in the plaint. It is further submitted that incompetency of the plaintiff can be understood Sh. Nawal Kishor Yadav Vs. M/s TSL Electro Power (P) Ltd. & Ors. CS No. 3317/16 Page No.5/19 from his incapability in drafting letters which were to be submitted to various government departments. These letters were in prescribed formats and can be easily drafted by a person with common intelligence, instead, these letters were drafted by the directors of the defendant company and handed over to the plaintiff for onward submission. The position of the plaintiff required him to maintain proper books of accounts and to keep proper records of the cash inflow and outflow in the day book. In utter disregard of this position, the plaintiff with a malafide intention, reneged himself from maintaining proper records pertaining to the withdrawal of funds from banks. On various occasions, the performance of the plaintiff led to arguments with various employees for not keeping proper booking records of their receipts and payments. It is further submitted that plaintiff was a senior employee in defendant company but he never undertook and lived up to the responsibilities. Plaintiff being a senior employee never had any concern regarding the filing of the statutory returns of the defendant company, nor he ensured that the junior employees maintained these records. Defendant company often warned the plaintiff to file the statutory records timely but the plaintiff paid no heed to these warnings. Due to his callous approach, defendant company often had to suffer huge losses. It is further submitted that plaintiff who was handing the accounts and finance related matters of the defendant company, did not avail the input service thereby incurring huge loss amounting to a sum of Rs.4,52,395.50. The casual attitude of plaintiff reflected on the accounts of the defendant Sh. Nawal Kishor Yadav Vs. M/s TSL Electro Power (P) Ltd. & Ors. CS No. 3317/16 Page No.6/19 company. Consequently, defendant company started receiving several notices from the excise department due to delay in filing of the financial returns of the company. In one such case, Center Excise Department also imposed a penalty of Rs.45,000/-. This penalty amount is yet to be recovered from the plaintiff. It is further submitted that cheques forwarded by the company for withdrawal were returned back inspite of availability of funds. This happened because the inter transfer of funds, a task assigned to the plaintiff, was not done in a timely manner. Even bank with which the defendant company had a long term commercial relationship took objections towards these actions of the plaintiff. The Bank specifically asked the defendant either to use the E-net Banking facility or to use the facilities of another bank. Plaintiff was asked to co-ordinate with the bank for availing E-net facility offered by them. Even after several reminders by the defendant company the plaintiff failed to execute even this task due to which the bank withdrew their services which resulted into a loss of Rs.7.5 lakhs for the defendant company. It is further submitted that any expenditure incurred by employee was to be presented alongwith the bill. The alleged claim on account of the conveyance bills raised by the plaintiff through the present plaint is an afterthought and is ought to be rejected. The alleged claim of conveyance expenditure has been raised by the plaintiff through a statement provided on 16.03.2016 and it pertains to the period starting from October 2014 till March 2016 which period cannot be verified by the defendant company as the records of this period have Sh. Nawal Kishor Yadav Vs. M/s TSL Electro Power (P) Ltd. & Ors. CS No. 3317/16 Page No.7/19 already been audited and the same becomes un-payable after the audit. It is further submitted that defendant clarified its position to the plaintiff who himself is acquainted with the fact that the bills dating one month back cannot be raised as the entry with regard to these bills cannot be made in the books of accounts which are audited on a monthly basis. The plaintiff himself being a part accounts department for a long term had knowledge about this practice of the defendant company. Plaintiff raise these claims after more than a year of expenditure which proves the ill intentions of the plaintiff to extract money from the defendant company. Moreover, no record of expenditure has been provided alongwith the bills. The bills raised by the plaintiff is nothing but a figment of imagination as no such expenditure was ever availed by the plaintiff. Defendant company gave annual increments to the plaintiff which was in parity with the other employees. However, as no output was being realized by the work of the plaintiff, there was no other option for the defendant company but to look for a replacement. Defendants have further denied all the other allegations as alleged in the plaint and requested for dismissal of the suit.
ISSUES
3. Upon completion of pleadings, the Ld. Predecessor of this court had framed the following issues vide order dated 12.04.2017:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs.4,31,494/- as claimed by the plaintiff? OPP Sh. Nawal Kishor Yadav Vs. M/s TSL Electro Power (P) Ltd. & Ors. CS No. 3317/16 Page No.8/19
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest, if so, at what rate and for which period? OPP
3. Relief.
PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE
4. Plaintiff has examined three witness in support of his case including himself as PW-1.
PW-1-Sh. Nawal Kishor Yadav has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. PW-1/A and relied upon following documents:
i. Retainership Contract dated 24.01.2011 Ex. PW1/1. ii. Computer generated copy of letter dated 05.08.2013 Ex. PW1/2.
iii. Photocopy of Power of Attorney dated 20.05.2013
Mark-A.
iv. Photocopy of General Power of Attorney dated
27.01.2016 Mark-B.
v. Photocopy of vouchers and receipt, all dated
09.08.2016 Mark C (colly)
vi. Photocopies of ledger account are mark D.
vii. Photocopies of conveyance charge bills Mark E
(colly).
viii. Photocopies of e-mails mark F (colly).
Sh. Nawal Kishor Yadav Vs. M/s TSL Electro Power (P) Ltd. & Ors. CS No. 3317/16 Page No.9/19
ix. Photocopy of legal notice dated 29.08.2016 is Mark G
(colly).
x. Postal receipts are Ex. PW1/3 (colly).
5. PW-2-Sh. Sunil Govil has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. PW2/A and relied upon Aadhar Card Ex. PW2/1 (OSR).
6. PW-3-Shri Harender Prasad Singh has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. PW3/A and relied upon Aadhar Card Ex.
PW3/1 (OSR).
Plaintiff has closed his evidence vide order dated 26.08.2022 by the Ld. Predecessor.
DEFENDANTS' EVIDENCE
7. Defendants have examined only one witness on their behalf as DW-1. Sh. Girish Mohan (Director)/DW-1 has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. DW1/A and relied upon the following documents:
I. Ex. DW1/1- copy of incorporation certificate of the defendant company.
II. Ex. DW1/2- record pertaining tax department in respect of defendant company.Sh. Nawal Kishor Yadav Vs. M/s TSL Electro Power (P) Ltd. & Ors. CS No. 3317/16 Page No.10/19
III. DW1/3- (colly)- the statement showing the input services of the defendant company.
IV. Ex. DW1/4- (colly) the order dated 12.05.2016 passed by Suptd. Central Excise Range Gurgaon.
V. Mark-DW1/5 the copy of settlement alongwith copy of receipts of the settled amount.
Defendants have closed their evidence vide order dated 16.05.2024.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
8. Final arguments heard on either side and perused the material on record.
ISSUES-WISE FINDINGS
9. I have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made on behalf of both the parties, considered the relevant provisions of the law, pleadings of both the parties, testimonies of witnesses and material on record. The issue wise finding is as under:
10. Issue No. 1 & 2.
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs.4,31,494/- as claimed by the plaintiff? OPP Sh. Nawal Kishor Yadav Vs. M/s TSL Electro Power (P) Ltd. & Ors. CS No. 3317/16 Page No.11/19 And Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest, if so, at what rate and for which period? OPP
11. As both the issues are inter-connected hence, being taken up together. The onus to prove these issues are upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff has contended that he was the account manage in the defendant company and has rendered his best services for the defendants concerning all accounts & finance related matter like sales tax, Vat & Every Type of taxation & court matters in Haryana & Outside in all states. Plaintiff has further contended that as per written agreement given by the defendants handed to plaintiff, a security equivalent to three months of salary was to be retained by defendant company which was to be passed to plaintiff. He has further contended that since the date of joining of the plaintiff with the defendants company, he was not being given salary on time or otherwise defendants would withheld two, three months wages alongwith other problems and defendants always cried of barrenness of funds in spite of huge profits and spent all profits of the company in order to raise capital by purchasing unaccounted and benami properties at various places of India. Plaintiff has further contended that when he has requested the defendants to pay his dues they threatened him to life and made him to forcibly sign full and final settlement receipt and two voucher receipts. In order to prove his case, plaintiff has relied upon documents i.e. Sh. Nawal Kishor Yadav Vs. M/s TSL Electro Power (P) Ltd. & Ors. CS No. 3317/16 Page No.12/19 Retainership Contract dated 24.01.2011 Ex. PW1/1; Computer generated copy of letter dated 05.08.2013 Ex. PW1/2; Photocopy of Power of Attorney dated 20.05.2013 Mark-A; Photocopy of General Power of Attorney dated 27.01.2016 Mark-B; Photocopy of vouchers and receipt, all dated 09.08.2016 Mark C; Photocopies of ledger account are mark D; Photocopies of conveyance charge bills Mark E; Photocopies of e-mails mark F; Photocopy of legal notice dated 29.08.2016 is Mark G and Postal receipts are Ex. PW1/3.
12. On the other hand, defendant had contended that plaintiff was incumbent as in-charge of accounts and was assisted by two account clerks and was responsible for maintaining books of accounts, preparing balance sheets of the company, disbursement of salaries and wages, making payments to the vendors and follow up with various Government agencies for assessment of sales tax, excise, service tax, labour department etc. Defendant had further contended that incompetency of the plaintiff can be understood from his incapability in drafting letters which were to be submitted to various government departments and these letters were in prescribed formats and can be easily drafted by a person with common intelligence, instead, these letters were drafted by the directors of the defendant company and handed over to the plaintiff for onward submission. It is further contended that the position of the plaintiff required him to maintain proper books of accounts and to keep proper records of the cash inflow and outflow in the day book. In utter disregard Sh. Nawal Kishor Yadav Vs. M/s TSL Electro Power (P) Ltd. & Ors. CS No. 3317/16 Page No.13/19 of this position, the plaintiff with a malafide intention, reneged himself from maintaining proper records pertaining to the withdrawal of funds from banks. Defendant had also contended that on various occasions, the performance of the plaintiff let to arguments with various employees for not keeping proper booking records of their receipts and payments and plaintiff was a senior employee in defendant company but he never undertook and lived up to the responsibilities. Plaintiff being a senior employee never had any concern regarding the filing of the statutory returns of the defendant company, nor he ensured that the junior employees maintained these records. Defendant had further contended that defendant company often warned the plaintiff to file the statutory records on a timely manner but the plaintiff paid no heed to these warnings and due to his callous approach of the plaintiff, defendant company often had to suffer huge losses. In order to prove his defence, defendant has relied upon documents from Ex. DW1/1 to Ex. PW1/4 and Mark DW1/5.
13. By way of present suit, the plaintiff is seeking recovery of an outstanding of Rs.4,31,494/- which he categorized into seven (7) descriptions which are as follows:
A. 3 months security equivalent salary Rs.63,000/- (sixty three thousand only).
B. 6 years gratuity (Basic Rs.34,679 + Tea 312 +
telephone Rs.500 totalling Rs.1,20,043/-;
C. Pending conveyances as attachment Rs.19,270/-;
Sh. Nawal Kishor Yadav Vs. M/s TSL Electro Power (P) Ltd. & Ors. CS No. 3317/16 Page No.14/19
D. Pending salary balance for February, March, April and
May 2016 Rs.1,03,852/-;
E. Bonus four year Rs.14,000/-, one year Rs.7,000/- and
six months Rs.3,500/-;
F. Salary July, August 2016 Rs.70,982/-;
G. Interest and other charges of late payment Rs.21,500/-.
(Totalling Rs.4,31,494/-)
14. For the security i.e. three months equivalent salary Rs.63,000/-, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff argues that the defendant company retained Rs.63,000/- as a security which was required to be passed on at the time of settlement but the defendant company did not pay it back to the plaintiff. To support this arguments, Ld. Counsel referred Ex.PW1/1 wherein it is mentioned that a "security equivalent to three months salary will be retained which will be passed on at the time of settlement of his dues. The deductions @ 5% per month will be made from his salary till it reaches three months salary.".
15. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for defendant submits that the defendant company never deducted salary of plaintiff to retain it as a security and plaintiff received complete amount of salary from the day of joining. Therefore, when the defendant company did not retain any amount as security, there is no question to pay/adjust the same at the time of settlement. To support his arguments Ld. Counsel for defendant refers the cross-examination of PW-1 wherein the plaintiff/PW-1 deposed that the Sh. Nawal Kishor Yadav Vs. M/s TSL Electro Power (P) Ltd. & Ors. CS No. 3317/16 Page No.15/19 defendant company deducted Rs.8,000/- per month out of his salary from April to August, 2011. Meaning thereby, as per testimony of PW-1 deduction of Rs.40,000/- was made, however, the plaintiff has not placed on record his salary slip to prove the said deductions and also the plaintiff as per his plaint, is claiming Rs.63,000/- due for the security retained by the defendant company. These contradictory statements of PW-1 without any supporting document such as salary slips creates a doubt on the version of plaintiff as to whether any deductions were made from his salary by the defendant company for the purpose of retaining security.
Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for the amount described in first head.
16. For the six years gratuity, mentioned in second head Ld. Counsel for plaintiff argued that the plaintiff worked in the defendant company for six years, therefore, he is entitled for gratuity. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for defendant submits that the plaintiff was working with defendant company under the retainership contract Ex.PW1/1 which was executed for six months initially and had no provision for payment of gratuity. The said retainership contract was continued. In response to this Ld. Counsel for plaintiff argues that the plaintiff initially entered into retainership contract but he continued services for more than six years therefore, he is entitled for gratuity which is given to the other employees.
17. Here it is an admitted fact that the plaintiff has started his job Sh. Nawal Kishor Yadav Vs. M/s TSL Electro Power (P) Ltd. & Ors. CS No. 3317/16 Page No.16/19 with the defendant company under a retainership contract and he continued services for extended period without renewal of contract or substitution of contract. Hence, it is clear that the plaintiff has been working in the company as an Accounts Manager in the original contract. Perusal of retainership contract clears that there is nothing mentioned about the gratuity in the terms and conditions of the agreement Ex.PW1/1. Moreover, during the cross-examination of PW-1, he deposed that he has not filed any evidence to show that money was deducted from his salary.
18. For the third head i.e. pending conveyance charges, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff argues that the defendants have denied Conveyance bills which were said to be given within seven days.Ld. Counsel for defendant argued that no actual bill of conveyance charges has been produced by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has prayed to prove his claim for conveyance charges.
19. Perusal of record reveals that the plaintiff is relying upon a photocopy of ledger account (Mark-D) and photocopy of expenses details (Mark-E) to prove his claim for conveyance charges, however, these documents are not signed by the defendant and remained unproved.
20. For the salary of the month from July to August, 2016 mentioned in the sixth head, it is relevant to refer the document relied upon by the plaintiff i.e. Mark-F. This is an e-mail dt. 07.07.2016 sent by Sh. Nawal Kishor Yadav Vs. M/s TSL Electro Power (P) Ltd. & Ors. CS No. 3317/16 Page No.17/19 plaintiff to the defendant wherein it is mentioned that the plaintiff handed over all the work to the newly appointed accountant and other persons on 30.06.2016. Meaning thereby the plaintiff had worked with the defendant company till the month of June, 2016 therefore, he is not entitled for the salary for the month of July and August, 2016 as claimed in the sixth head.
21. As regards to the other heads as mentioned in fourth, fifth and seventh head, it is pertinent to note that the defendant had admitted that plaintiff is the account officer in the defendant company but the defendant had contended that the defendant company had already paid all the dues to the plaintiff vide full and final settlement dt. 09.08.2016 i.e. Mark DW1/5. Same receipt has been relied by the plaintiff as Mark C in his evidence. Perusal of said settlement, it is clear that plaintiff had given an undertaking that plaintiff has received a cheque bearing no.004298 and 001032 for an amount of Rs.48785/- towards full and final settlement including wages, earned leave, bonus, gratuity etc. from the defendant. It is further mentioned in the said settlement that plaintiff shall have no dispute or claim with the management of defendant company and plaintiff is voluntarily leaving his job. The said settlement Mark-DW1/5 has been signed by the plaintiff. It is further pertinent to mention here that the plaintiff has contended in his plaint that he has signed the said settlement under the threat of the defendant but the plaintiff has not filed any police complaint against the defendant. It is further perused from the bank statement of plaintiff relied upon by the plaintiff Mark C (internal page 4) Sh. Nawal Kishor Yadav Vs. M/s TSL Electro Power (P) Ltd. & Ors. CS No. 3317/16 Page No.18/19 that he had already encashed the cheque bearing no.004298 amounting to Rs.35,490/- given by the defendant company at the time of full and final settlement dt. 09.08.2016. It is further relevant to note that it is no where averred by the parties that another cheque bearing no.001032 has not been encashed by the plaintiff in his bank account which was given at the time of full and final settlement. Meaning thereby the plaintiff has accepted the above-said cheques in lieu of full and final settlement with the defendant company therefore, he cannot be allowed to say that any other dues are left to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff.
22. In view of above observation it can safely be concluded that the plaintiff has remained unsuccessful to discharge the burden to prove these issues. Therefore both the issues are decided in favour of defendant and against the plaintiff.
23. In view of the above discussion and observation,it is held that plaintiff is not entitled for the relief as claimed in his plaint. Therefore, suit of the plaintiff stands dismissed. No order as to cost.
Digitally
Decree sheet be prepared. signed by
POOJA
POOJA JAIN
File be consigned to Record Room. JAIN Date:
2025.02.13
15:48:53
+0530
Typed to the dictation directly, (Pooja Jain)
corrected and pronounced in District Judge-03/NB,
open court on 13.02.2025 East/KKD Courts, Delhi.
Sh. Nawal Kishor Yadav Vs. M/s TSL Electro Power (P) Ltd. & Ors. CS No. 3317/16 Page No.19/19