Punjab-Haryana High Court
Punjab State Electricity Board vs M/S A.R. Transmission Prvate Limted And ... on 27 May, 2015
Author: Kuldip Singh
Bench: Kuldip Singh
FAO No.4310 of 2013 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO No.4310 of 2013 (O&M)
Date of decision: 27.05.2015
PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
(.. Appellant
versus
M/S A.R. TRANSMISSION PRIVATE LIMTED AND ANR
((Respondents
FAO No.4311 of 2013 (O&M)
PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
(.. Appellant
versus
M/S A.R. TRANSMISSION PRIVATE LIMTED AND ANR
((Respondents
FAO No.515 of 2014 (O&M)
PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
(.. Appellant
versus
M/S PUNJAB TRANSFORMERS AND ELECTRONICS LTD. ANR
((Respondents
FAO No.516 of 2014 (O&M)
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED
(.. Appellant
versus
M/S SANGRUR INDUSTRIAL CORP. . AND ANR.
((Respondents
FAO No.519 of 2014 (O&M)
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED
(.. Appellant
versus
M/S TECHNICAL ASSOCIATES INDUSTRIES LTD & ANR
((Respondents
GOPAL KRISHAN
2015.05.28 11:57
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
High Court Chandigarh
FAO No.4310 of 2013 (O&M) 2
FAO No.520 of 2014 (O&M)
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED
(.. Appellant
versus
M/S P.M. ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD. AND ANR.
((Respondents
FAO No.523 of 2014 (O&M)
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED
(.. Appellant
versus
M/S NUCON POWER CONTROL AND ANR.
((Respondents
FAO No.524 of 2014 (O&M)
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED
(.. Appellant
versus
M/S SARAF ELECTRICALS PVT. LTD. AND ANR.
((Respondents
FAO No.525 of 2014 (O&M)
PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
(.. Appellant
versus
M/S JAY BEE INDUSTRIES AND ANR.
((Respondents
FAO No.527 of 2014 (O&M)
PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
(.. Appellant
versus
M/S MAHASHAKTI CONDUCTORS PVT. LTD. AND ANR.
((Respondents
FAO No.529 of 2014 (O&M)
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED
(.. Appellant
versus
M/S CAPITAL TRANSFORMERS AND ANR.
((Respondents
GOPAL KRISHAN
2015.05.28 11:57
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
High Court Chandigarh
FAO No.4310 of 2013 (O&M) 3
FAO No.537 of 2014 (O&M)
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED
(.. Appellant
versus
M/S PUNJAB TRANSFORMERS & ELECTRONICS LTD. AND ANR
((Respondents
FAO No.538 of 2014 (O&M)
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED
(.. Appellant
versus
M/S GURU NANAK ELECTRICALS & ANR
((Respondents
FAO No.541 of 2014 (O&M)
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED
(.. Appellant
versus
M/S TECHNICAL ASSOCIATES INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ANR.
((Respondents
FAO No.542 of 2014 (O&M)
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED
(.. Appellant
versus
M/S PUNJAB TRANSFORMERS & ELECTRONICS LTD. & ANR.
((Respondents
FAO No.544 of 2014 (O&M)
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITEDD
(.. Appellant
versus
M/S SANGRUR INDUSTRIAL CORP. LTD. AND ANR.
((Respondents
FAO No.545 of 2014 (O&M)
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITEDD
(.. Appellant
versus
M/S DEE KAY MECHANICAL WORKS & ANR
((Respondents
GOPAL KRISHAN
2015.05.28 11:57
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
High Court Chandigarh
FAO No.4310 of 2013 (O&M) 4
FAO No.546 of 2014 (O&M)
PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
(.. Appellant
versus
M/S JAY BEE INDUSTRIES AND ANR.
((Respondents
FAO No.547 of 2014 (O&M)
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED
(.. Appellant
versus
M/S NUCON POWER CONTROL PVT. LTD. AND ANR.
((Respondents
FAO No.548 of 2014 (O&M)
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED
(.. Appellant
versus
M/S NUCON SWITCHGEARS PVT. LTD. AND ANR.
((Respondents
FAO No.549 of 2014 (O&M)
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED
(.. Appellant
versus
M/S TECHNICAL ASSOCIATES LTD. AND ANR.
((Respondents
FAO No.550 of 2014 (O&M)
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED
(.. Appellant
versus
M/S DEEPAK WIRE INDUSTRIES & ANR
((Respondents
FAO No.552 of 2014 (O&M)
PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
(.. Appellant
versus
M/S SARAF ELECTRICALS AND ANR.
((Respondents
GOPAL KRISHAN
2015.05.28 11:57
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
High Court Chandigarh
FAO No.4310 of 2013 (O&M) 5
FAO No.774 of 2014 (O&M)
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED
(.. Appellant
versus
M/S SUPERTECH FORGINGS & ANR
((Respondents
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Kuldip Singh
Present: Mr.Ashok Aggarwal, Senior Advocate with
Mr.Sapan Dhir and Mr.Vinod S. Bhardwaj, Advocates
for the appellant in all the cases
Mr.Rajiv Atma Ram, Senior Advocate with
Ms.Manveer Kahlon, Advocate
for respondent No.1 FAO Nos.4310 and 4311 of 2013
Mr. Arun Jain, Senior Advocate, with,
Mr.Tribhawan Singla, Advocate, for the respondent
in FAO Nos. 515, 516, 519, 529, 537, 538,
541, 542, 544, 545, 549 and 550 of 2014.
Mr. C.B. Kaushik, Advocate for the respondent(s)
in FAO Nos. 520, 525 and 546 of 2014.
Mr. Ashok Singla and Aakash Singla, Advocates,
for the respondent(s)
in FAO Nos. 524, 527, 552 of 2014.
Mr. Ashwani Talwar and Ms. Sanamjit Kaur, Advocates,
for respondent in FAO Nos. 523, 547 and 548 of 2014.
Ms. Jatinder Jit Kaur and Mr. Ish Puneet Singh,
Advocates, for respondent in FAO No. 774 of 2014.
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see
the judgment ?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Kuldip Singh, J.
This judgment shall dispose of FAO Nos.4310 and 4311 of 2013. It shall also dispose of FAO-515-2014, FAO-516-2014, FAO- 519-2014, FAO-520-2014, FAO-523-2014, FAO-524-2014, FAO-525- 2014, FAO-527-2014, FAO-529-2014, FAO-537-2014, FAO-538- 2014, FAO-541-2014, FAO-542-2014, FAO-544-2014, FAO-545- 2014, FAO-546-2014, FAO-547-2014, FAO-548-2014, FAO-549- 2014, FAO-550-2014, FAO-552-2014, FAO-774-2014, involving GOPAL KRISHAN 2015.05.28 11:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh FAO No.4310 of 2013 (O&M) 6 similar controversy. However, for facility of reference, facts are being taken from FAO No.4310 of 2013.
Punjab State Electricity Board, now known as Punjab Power Supply Corporation Limited, has filed this appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the Arbitration Act) for setting aside the impugned judgment dated 17.11.2013, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala and the award dated 23.12.2008.
Facts of the case are that respondent No.1filed a claim petition before the Industrial Facilitation Council (for short, 'the Council') under the Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993 (for short the Act of 1993') for grant of interest for the delayed payments. After recording the evidence of both the parties, the Council passed the interim award dated 30.7.2007, whereby both the parties were directed to submit their calculations as per the terms and conditions ordered in award, within 30 days from the date of receipt of the interim award. The respondent- company filed its calculations before the Council. However, the present appellant failed to submit any calculation. The Industrial Facilitation Council was later on substituted by the Council under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (for the short, 'Act of 2006'). By virtue of Section 32 of the Act 2006, the action taken by the Council under the Act of 1993 was deemed to have been taken under the corresponding provisions of the Act of 2006. As the appellant Board failed to submit its calculations, the Council passed the impugned award dated GOPAL KRISHAN 2015.05.28 11:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh FAO No.4310 of 2013 (O&M) 7 23.12.2008, whereby a sum of Rs.1,73,84,905/- along with interest @ 19.5% per annum w.e.f. 1.11.2008 till realization was awarded in favour of the respondent/ company. In the other awards different sums were awarded along with the interest.
The Punjab State Electricity Board filed the objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 before the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala, praying for setting aside the award dated 23.12.2008 inter-alia on the ground that there is no cogent evidence on record to show that the respondent is a small scale undertaking. The claim petition of the respondent relates to time barred payments and therefore, the Council could not take cognizance of the same. The Council had not taken into consideration 'interest holiday' as provided under Section 3 of the Act of 1993. Respondent claimed interest on the payments received by it even prior to the enforcement of the Act of 1993. The Council travelled beyond its jurisdiction in allowing the same. The Council wrongly declined to entertain the counter claim filed by the appellant. Respondent never raised any objection while receiving the payment and material from the appellant. As such, it was estopped from taking the controversy before the Council. The amount claimed by the respondent has not been shown in the balance sheet of the respondent.
The Punjab State Electricity Board had appointed a regular arbitrator to resolve all such disputes. The matter was wrongly put up before the Council by the respondent. The Council had not taken into consideration the supply of defective material of GOPAL KRISHAN 2015.05.28 11:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh FAO No.4310 of 2013 (O&M) 8 the respondent No.1 and receipt of its costs by respondent No.1 while passing the award. Calculations given by the respondent were not as per law. The respondent before the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala denied all the averments.
During arguments before learned Additional District Judge, Patiala, the Court took the view that the principles settled by the Council while passing the interim award cannot be looked into while deciding the present petition. Counsel for the petitioner (the present appellant) then confined his arguments only to the objection regarding calculations made in the impugned award and stated that same were not as per law and interest allowed by the Council on the awarded amount was highly exorbitant and against the public policy. Learned Additional District Judge, Patiala came to the conclusion that the calculations submitted by the respondent were sent by the Council to the Punjab Financial Corporation, which checked up the calculations and found the same to be correct. The petitioner had not filed any calculations. It was also observed that as per provisions of the Act of 1993, the interest was to be allowed @ 1 ½% over the lending rate of State Bank of India. The Council called for the Prime lending rates from the State Bank of India and on the basis of the same allowed interest @ 19.5% per annum w.e.f. 1.11.2008. It was held that this is in terms with Section 4 of the Act of 1993. Consequently, the objections were dismissed.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the file.
GOPAL KRISHAN
It is not disputed that the Council passed the interim 2015.05.28 11:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh FAO No.4310 of 2013 (O&M) 9 award on 30.7.2007, in which it was held that as per Act of 1993, the petitioner Board is liable to pay the interest on the delayed payment which shall be subject to the following terms and conditions:-
i) This shall be applicable only on the amounts which are due on and after 30.5.1999 to the claimant from the respondent Board.
ii) The Tribunal is of the considered opinion that whatever payment has been made, the claimant cannot adjust the same at all towards any interest amount payable by the Board. As such, all the payments which have been made so far by the respondent Board to the claimant on account of supplies delivered to the Board. As such, all the payments which have been made so far by the respondent Board to the claimant on account of supplies delivered to the Board (as per Annexure P-5 and P-6) shall be calculated towards the principle amount and on the balance amount remaining interest shall be calculated and interest on that amount shall be payable.
iii)The interest shall be payable from the date, by which as per agreement between claimant and the Respondent Board, the amount was to be paid to the claimant. However, wherever the supply from claimant to respondent Board has not been as per agreed schedule, the Board is competent to levy penalty as per the agreement and penalty so levied by the Board GOPAL KRISHAN 2015.05.28 11:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh FAO No.4310 of 2013 (O&M) 10 shall be deducted from the Principle amount payable by the Board and accordingly the balance principal amount, the payable interest shall be calculated.
iv)The interest rate so applicable shall be as provided in the Act.
It is also not denying fact that the said award was challenged before the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala by the appellant and the objections were dismissed. In the meanwhile, final award was passed on 23.12.2008. Since there was no stay by Court nor the law debarred Council from proceeding further despite pendency of appeal against interim award, therefore, there is no illegality in the Council proceeding to pass final award.
It is also not disputed that no further appeal against the interim award was filed by the appellant Board before this Court. In this way, the interim award passed by the Council has become final. It being so, the principles settled therein and the order of the Council that the appellant is liable to pay interest on the delayed payment has become final. Terms and conditions settled therein have also become final. In the impugned award, both the parties were directed to submit calculations within 30 days from the receipt of order. The respondent submitted the calculations but the appellant Board failed to submit the same. It is to be noted that Act of 1993 was repealed and Act of 2006 came into force on 2.10.2006. However, as per Section 32 of the Act of 2006 the action taken under the earlier Act were deemed to be taken under the corresponding provisions. Therefore, the Council constituted under the Act of 2006 further GOPAL KRISHAN 2015.05.28 11:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh FAO No.4310 of 2013 (O&M) 11 proceeded with the matter. The calculations submitted by the petitioner were sent to the Punjab Financial Corporation. The prime lending rates were also submitted by the State Bank of India and in terms of prime lending rates and as per verification of the calculations submitted by the Punjab Financial Corporation, the impugned award was passed by the Council, consisting of its Chairman and two members.
Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that in this case under the Act of 1993, the Council was not competent to decide the matter. It has been stated that there was an arbitration clause in the agreement. It has been argued that the entire payment was accepted by the respondent and at that time, no objection, regarding interest on the delayed payment was raised. It has been argued that the respondent undertook not to make any claim.
A look at the Section 3 of the Act of 1993 shows that there was a statutory liability to make the payment of interest to the supplier in case of delayed payment. Section 4 lays down the liability to pay the interest It provides as under:-
"4. Date from which and rate at which interest is payable- Where any buyer fails to make payment of the amount to the supplier, as required under section3, 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 interest to GOPAL KRISHAN the supplier on that amount from the appointed day or, as 2015.05.28 11:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh FAO No.4310 of 2013 (O&M) 12 the case may be, from the date immediately following the date agreed upon, at one-and-half time of Prime Lending Rate charged by the State Bank of India.
Explanation- For the purposes of this section, "Prima Lending Rate" means the Prime Lending Rate of the State Bank of India which is available to the best borrowers of bank"
Section 6 of the said Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the party to a dispute may make a reference to the Industrial Facilitation Council for acting as an arbitrator or conciliator in respect of the matters referred to in that sub-section and the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 shall apply to such disputes as if the arbitration or conciliation were pursuant to the arbitration agreement referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 4 of that Act. In this way, Act of 1993 provided a statutory right to a supplier to make a reference to the Industrial Facilitation Council for claiming interest on the delayed payment. There is no estoppel against the law. Once the Act vested right in a party, it could claim the same by making reference before Industrial Facilitation Council. Contention of learned counsel for the appellant is without any force that Industrial Facilitation Council had no jurisdiction to enter into the question of grant of interest on delayed payment.
Subsequently Act of 2006 repealed the earlier Act of 1993 and under Section 32(2) of the Act of 2006, anything done or action taken under the Act so repealed under sub-section (1) shall be GOPAL KRISHAN 2015.05.28 11:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh FAO No.4310 of 2013 (O&M) 13 deemed to have been taken under the corresponding provisions of this Act. It is to be noted that in new Act of 2006, provided for higher rate of interest. Under Section 16 of the Act of 2006, the interest payable is 3 times of the bank rate notified by the Reserve Bank. Therefore, as far as the jurisdiction of the Council is concerned, it was there to decide the matter.
It is to further observe that even the grounds of appeal of the appellant shows that prayer has been made for setting aside the impugned award dated 23.12.2008 as well as the impugned judgment and order dated 17.4.2013 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala. No prayer has been made for setting aside the interim award passed on 30.7.2007. Even before the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala, the learned counsel for the appellant has confined his arguments only towards correctness of the calculations. So far as the calculations are concerned, it is not that the calculations were arbitrarily accepted. Council got it verified from the Punjab Financial Corporation. The lending rates were also sought from the State Bank of India and only thereafter, order was passed. Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to point out as to what is the error in the calculations.
Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that Act of 1993 has prospective application. When the supply order is made prior to the effective date of the Act, the Act of 1993 has no application. To support his contention, he has relied upon the authority of the Supreme Court in Shakti Tubes Ltd. v. State of Bihar and others, (2009) 7 Supreme Court Cases 673. I am of the view that GOPAL KRISHAN 2015.05.28 11:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh FAO No.4310 of 2013 (O&M) 14 the matter whether the Council has jurisdiction or not has already been discussed above and it is held that the Council had the jurisdiction. Moreover the interim award has already become become final between the parties and cannot be re-opened particularly, when the same is not under challenge in the present appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that no effort was made by the Council to effect the conciliation between the parties. It was held by the Gauhati High Court in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. and another v. Government of Assam and others, 2010 (8) RCR (Civil) 2452 that where the Council had not made any effort for conciliation, the proceedings conducted by the Council and consequential award is infraction of law. I am of the view that the provisions for making efforts for conciliation are directory in nature and if the efforts for re-conciliation were not made or proper efforts for re-conciliation were not made and the same was not objected to by any of the parties, the proceedings of the Council will not be vitiated.
The authority in the case of Purbanchal Cables and Conductors Private Limited v. Assam State Electricity Board and another, (2012) 7 Supreme Court Cases 462 has no application in the present case, as in the said case the suit was filed claiming the higher rate of interest under the Act of 1993, whereas in the present case, it is award passed by the Council constituted under the Act of 1993.
GOPAL KRISHAN
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent 2015.05.28 11:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh FAO No.4310 of 2013 (O&M) 15 has argued that this Court has a very limited jurisdiction for interfering in the arbitration award. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the authority of the Supreme Court titled as Associate Builders v. Delhi Development Authority, (2015) 3 Supreme Court Cases 49, in which the Supreme Court has laid down the principles, violation of which will justify interference by the Court in the arbitration award. In the said authority, the Apex Court has also defined the heads of the public policy of India, wherein (i) compliance of the statute and judicial precedents, (ii) need for judicial approach, (iii) natural justice compliance, (iv) reasonableness, (v) interest of India, (vi) Justice or Morality and patent illegality i.e. the contravention of substantive law of India, (vii) contravention of arbitration and conciliation Act and (viii) contravention of the terms of contract were held to be the grounds on which the Court can interfere in the award. It has been argued that none of the said clauses are attracted in the present case, wherein in the present case, in which the interim award has become final. In the final award, only the calculations submitted by the parties were to be examined and the amount was to be determined and there is no illegality in determining the amount which was determined after getting it cross-checked from Punjab Financial Corporation.
Learned counsel for the respondent has also relied upon Single Bench authority in the case of M/s Singhania Industries and another v. Punjab State Electricity Board and others, 2012 (5) RCR (Civil) 735, wherein in a similar case, higher rate of interest under the Act of 1993 was allowed.
GOPAL KRISHAN2015.05.28 11:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh FAO No.4310 of 2013 (O&M) 16
Learned counsel for the respondent has also relied upon the observations of the Supreme Court in Snehadeep Structures Private Limited v. Maharashtra Small Scale Industries Development Corporation Limited, 2010 (1) RCR (Civil) 705, wherein the Apex Court has observed as under:-
"34. The preamble of Interest Act shows that the very objective of the Act was "to provide for and regulate the payment of interest on delayed payments to small scale and ancillary industrial undertakings and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto." Thus, as far as interest on delayed payment to Small Scale Industries as well as connected matters are concerned, the Act is a special legislation with respect to any other legislation, including the Arbitration Act. The contention of the respondent that the matter of interest payment will be governed by Section 31(7) of the Arbitration Act, hence, is erroneous. Section 4 of the Interest Act endorses the same which sets out the liability of the buyer to pay interest to the supplier 'notwithstanding anything contained in any agreement between the buyer and the supplier or in any law for the time being in force'. Thus, Interest Act is a special legislation as far as the liability to pay interest, or to make a deposit thereof, while challenging an award/ decree/ order granting interest."
Learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 will override the provisions GOPAL KRISHAN 2015.05.28 11:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh FAO No.4310 of 2013 (O&M) 17 of Act of 1993 and Act 2006. It has been argued that the Arbitration Act is later in time and therefore, it will have overriding effect on the earlier Act of 1993. I am of the view that the said argument is without any force. Act of 1993 is the special Act, whereas the Arbitration Act is the general Act covering the arbitration matters. Act of 1993 covers only the limited aspect of interest on the delayed payments to the Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings and later on Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises. Therefore, the special Act will override the general Act. It does not matter in which year the Act was passed. The Section 6(2) of Act of 1993 starts with non- obstante clause regarding reference to the Industrial Facilitation Council which could act as arbitrator. It is not a disputed fact that the payments were delayed by the present appellant and therefore, under the Act of 1993, which is succeeded by subsequent Act of 2006, the interest on the delayed payment could be awarded by the Council.
Learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that some of the respondents had filed a Civil Suit but the perusal of the same shows that it was not filed by the respondent but it was one of the defendants with the present appellant. It was filed by NSIC. Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the letter dated 12.4.2008 in which payment in principle was accepted without making any objection. However, mere acceptance of payment in principle does not mean that the payment of interest was waived by the respondent.
The grounds on which this Court can interfere in the award are very limited. From its face, there is no illegality or infirmity GOPAL KRISHAN 2015.05.28 11:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh FAO No.4310 of 2013 (O&M) 18 in the impugned award dated 23.12.2008 and the order dated 17.11.2013 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala. Consequently, I do not find any merit in the present appeals and the same are accordingly dismissed.
27.05.2015 (Kuldip Singh)
gk Judge
GOPAL KRISHAN
2015.05.28 11:57
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
High Court Chandigarh