Madras High Court
V.Gnanarajapushpam vs M/S.Bbc Foundation Private Limited on 29 December, 2008
1
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on Delivered on
17~06~2019 05~07~2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
Original Petition Nos.27 & 111 of 2009
O.P.No.27 of 2009
V.Gnanarajapushpam ... Petitioner/Respondent
Vs
1. M/s.BBC Foundation Private Limited,
Represented by its Managing Director,
Mr.Vummidi Barath,
No.20, Mylai Ranganathan Street,
T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. ... Respondent/Claimant
2. Dr.A.K.Rajan,
Sole Arbitrator,
S-79, Anna Nagar, New No.5,
16th Street, 'S' Block,
Chennai – 600 040. ... Respondents/sole Arbitrator
O.P.No.111 of 2009
M/s.BBC Foundation Private Limited,
Represented by its Managing Director,
Mr.Vummidi Barath,
No.20, Mylai Ranganathan Street,
T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. ... Petitioner/Claimant
Vs.
V.Gnanarajapushpam ... Respondent/Respondent
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
Prayer in O.P.No.27 of 2009 :- This Original Petition has been filed
under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to set aside the
award dated 29.12.2008 passed by Justice Dr.A.K.Rajan, Judge (Retd.)
in the Arbitration Proceedings pursuant to Arb.O.P.No.593 of 2006 (on
the file of Madras High Court) in the matter of dispute between the
petitioner and the respondent and consequently allow the Counter
claim made by the petitioner.
Prayer in O.P.No.111 of 2009 :- This Original Petition has been filed
under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to set aside the
award dated 29.12.2008 passed by the Sole Arbitrator, Dr.A.K.Rajan,
Judge (Retd.) of the High Court arising out of Arb.O.P.No.593 of 2006,
in so far as Issue No.5-B and clause 14.05 of the Award is concerned
and consequently permit the petition to adjust the 6000 Sq.ft. of
constructed area and its proportionate undivided share of land towards
the dues payable by the respondent to the petitioner as covered in
Clause 12 of the Development Agreement dated 17.06.2004 and costs
of the proceedings.
For Petitioner in O.P.No.27 of 2009 & : Mr.P.L.Narayanan
For Respondent in O.P.No.111 of 2009
For Respondent in O.P.No.27 of 2009 & : Mr.G. Masilamani
For Petitioner in O.P.No.111 of 2009 Senior Counsel for
M/s. Rajnish Pathiyil
COMMON ORDER
http://www.judis.nic.in 3 O.P.No.27 of 2009 has been filed by the Respondent challenging the Award of the sole Arbitrator directing the Respondent to execute sale deed in respect of 75% of the undivided share in the property and also to execute Power of Attorney in respect of 75 % of the undivided shares in favour of the Claimant. In nutshell specific performance was granted by Award dated 29.12.2008.
2. O.P.No.111 of 2009 filed by the claimant challenging the arbitral Award finding that Clause 12 of the Joint Development Agreement is null and void and rejecting the claim of the claimant for direction to sell 6000 sq.ft out of 55% share of the owner. Since the entire award relates to the Joint Development Agreement between the parties, both the Original Petitions are disposed of in a common order and the facts are one and the same, the parties referred as per their own rankings before the Arbitral Proceedings.
3. The Respondent is the owner of the 1.11 Acre of land (comprising S.No.1/14B6 measuring 23 cents, S.No.1/14E measuring 52 cents and S.No.1/14D measuring 36 cents), in Chitlapakkam Village, Saidapet Taluk, Chenglepet District. The claimant and respondent entered into a Development Agreement on 17.6.2004 for http://www.judis.nic.in 4 the development of a portion of the land i.e., 14.17 grounds out of 1.11 Acres. It is the admitted fact that at the time of the agreement that 14.17 grounds has not been identified. Whereas boundaries for entire 1.11 Acres was shown in the agreement. The Claimant agreed to construct and complete the residential complex, specified in Schedule C of the agreement subject to the Development control Rules and statutory approval and regulations of CMDA and other authorities. As per the agreement the claimant shall, at his cost, construct the entire building and allot 25% out of the total built up area, together with the proportionate undivided share of the land to the owner/respondent and 75% of the constructed area together with its proportionate undivided share of the land could be sold or retained by the Claimant.
4. It is also agreed between the parties that the claimant should pay Rs.50 lakhs as security deposit to the respondent which was refundable. On the date of agreement Rs.10 lakhs has to be paid and the remaining amount of Rs.40 lakhs be paid to discharge the loan of the Respondent in the Indian Overseas Bank. The claimant has paid Rs.10 lakhs on the date of agreement and paid Rs.34,28,923/- and settled the loan account of IOB relating to the property on 12.7.2004. http://www.judis.nic.in 5 The claimant also raised a loan from one M/s.Aarkay Associates by mortgaging the property on 12.7.2004 besides he has also paid certain tax arrears to the Chitlapakkam Panchayat to enable the sub-division of the land. The claimant has obtained Patta and paid all the arrears. However, due to some procedural delay in the CMDA, there was a delay in sub-division and approval of the building from CMDA which was beyond the control of the claimant. Immediately after getting Patta the land was surveyed on 3.8.2004 and the detailed drawings were received from the Architect on 22.10.2004 and the claimant forwarded the drawing to the structural engineer on 25.10.2004 as the structural engineer wanted to make some changes in the plan/drawing. The corrected drawings were sent to the Architect on 4.11.2004.
5. Thereafter application was submitted to the statutory authorities for approval of plan. The application was made in the name of respondent seeking permission to construct residential apartments without subdividing the property as the proposed development was joint venture. Since the Respondent was retaining the portion of the constructed area, the claimant after consultation with certain authorities submitted the application without seeking sub-division. http://www.judis.nic.in 6 However, the authorities informed the claimant that the sub-division has to be made officially. Therefore, application dated 25.11.2004 could not be proceeded further. Thereafter, there was a delay in processing the application submitted by the claimant by the authorities. The authorities has not sanctioned the claim due to deviation at the existing buildings. The delay in obtaining necessary statutory approvals were entirely beyond the control of the Claimant, since there is a clause in the agreement that in the event of promoter/claimant has not obtained necessary approval within six months from the date of agreement the agreement will be terminated. The respondent taken advantage in the above clause and demanded more money and issued a notice dated 31.3.2006 informing that Power of Attorney dated 17.6.2004 was cancelled. The Power of Attorney deed was cancelled when the boomi pooja was scheduled to take place. Since the respondent renewed the attempts to interfere with the claimant's possession, police complaint was lodged. Thereafter, the arbitration clause invoked and the claimant sought a direction, directing the Respondent to execute sale deeds in respect of 75% U.D.S. of Schedule 'B' property in favour of the Claimant or their nominees and directing the Respondent to revalidate or in the alternative execute a fresh power of attorney in respect of 75% http://www.judis.nic.in 7 U.D.S.of Schedule "B" property in favour of the Claimant or their nominees, containing the same terms. similarly, for a direction directing the respondent to issue suitable letters/documents for the 6000 sq.ft. of constructed area together with the undivided share of land from 25% to be allotted to her besides sought permanent injunction.
6. Denying the claim it is the contention of the Respondent that the Respondent was naïve to the extent of believing that the builder has universal right to obtain a General Power of Attorney and to mortgage the property to be developed and he has believed that the normal ratio between the owner and builder is only 25 : 75. The respondent cannot have any right over the subject property after the termiantion of the agreement due to the claimant’s inaction and inability. When the agreement itself got terminated, thre is no question of specific performance of any of its covenants and conditions and specific performance of the agreement at this point of time will be inequitable. The Claimant could not perform even the basic acts expected in the matter which caused enormous mental agony to the Respondent. There http://www.judis.nic.in 8 was inordinate delay in the proposed project caused due to the dilatory tactics of the Claimant. Both the parities had clear intention that planning permission should be obtained within six months from the date of agreement. If no such permission being obtained, the agreement shall stand terminated without any claim against each other. Similarly glaring unequal distribution between the builder and the owner in the ratio of 75 : 25 is an illustration of the Respondent’s ignorance in property development matters. Clause 12(b) of the agreement gives unfair advantage to the claimant. It is his further contention that the possession of the property was not handed over to the claimant. The claimant never had any funds to go ahead with the project. He did not take any steps for development of the property. The claimant had deliberately delayed the matters. The Power of Attorney given by the Respondent was to enable smooth development work under the project. But the claimant incorporated covenant misleading the Respondent.
7. Based on the above pleadings the learned Single Arbitrator has framed the following issues:
http://www.judis.nic.in 9 "1. Whether the agreement dated 17.06.2004 stands automatically terminated, in view of the clause 5 of the agreement, since the competent authority did not grant planning permission?
2. Whether the power of attorney is not coupled with interest?
3. Whether the respondent is entitled to cancel the registered power of attorney deed, document No.1317 of 2004 dated 17.06.2004 at Sub-
Registrar Office, Tambaram?
4. The property is in whose possession?
5. Is not the claimant entitled to get sale deed registered in respect of 75% of the undivided share of the property and also the proportionate undivided share of the land towards 6000 sq.ft. of built up area in terms of the agreement?
6. Whether the claimant is entitled for specific performance of the agreement?
7. Whether the claimant is not bound to return the title deeds to the Respondent?
8. Whether the respondent is entitled for http://www.judis.nic.in 10 damages?
9. Which of the parties are entitled for permanent injunction?
10.Whether the claimants are entitled for the costs?
11.Whether the respondent is entitled for the cost?
12.To what relief the parties are entitled?"
8. The learned Arbitrator answered the issues in favour of the claimant except the issue No.5 and consequently passed an Award directing the respondent to execute the sale deed in respect of 75% of undivided share in respect of ‘B’ Schedule property and also to execute the Power of Attorney. Challenging the same O.P.No.27 of 2009 filed by the Respondent. The Arbitrator negatived the claim in respect of the claimant for proportionate undivided share of the land towards 6000 sq.ft. of the built up area towards the security amount, as against which O.P.No.111 of 2009 has been filed by the claimant. http://www.judis.nic.in 11
9. The learned counsel Mr.P.L. Narayanan appearing for the Petitioner in O.P.No.27 of 2009 would submit that the learned Arbitrator has taken irrelevant consideration and ignored the relevant materials and passed an Award. The subject property was not identified and admittedly there is a school running in the property by the Trust. Without identifying the properties, directing the specific performance cannot be valid in the eye of law and the Trust also not made a party. Admittedly, there is evidence to show that school being run in the Trust property. 14.17 grounds has not been identified even in the agreement. Further as per the agreement the builder has not obtained valid planning permission within six months. Even assuming that such condition cannot be made as time is essence of contract, the conduct of the claimant not making any efforts to get the approval from the authorities makes it very clear that the claimant hss not interested in the project. The Arbitrator has gone beyond the terms of the contract and passed Award. Learned Arbitrator has totally ignored Ex.B.17 communication from CMDA, to the effect that the complainant has not complied http://www.judis.nic.in 12 the material things to get the plans. In nutshell, it is the contention of the learned counsel Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act is totally ignored in granting specific performance and Section 20 of the Act is also has not taken into consideration and Section 14 of the Act is also not at all considered by the Arbitrator. When the Specific Performance has granted, contrary to the substantial provision of law such award cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Certainly it is fall under the violation of public policy of Indian Law. Hence submitted that the Award cannot be sustained in the eye of law the same has to be set aside.
10. In support of his contention the learned counsel relied upon the following judgments;
1. Nagoor Rowther v. Abdul Rahim [AIR 1973 Madras 369]
2. J.P.Builders and another v. A.Ramadas Rao and Another [(2011) 1 SCC 429]
3.Pentakota Satyanarayan & others v. Pentakota Seetharatnam & others [2006 (2) L.W.658]
4. I.S.Sikandar v. K.Subramani [(2013) 15 SCC http://www.judis.nic.in 13 27]
5. A.C.Arulappan v. Ahalya Naik [(2001) 6 SCC 600]
6. Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., v. Saw Pipes Ltd. [(2003)5 SCC 705]
7. MD, Army Welfare Housing Organisation v. Sumangal Services (P) Ltd., [(2004) 9 SCC 619]
11. Learned Semopr Counsel Mr.Masilamani appearing for the Respondent in O.P.No.27 of 2009 and Petitioner in O.P.No.111 of 2009 contended that with regard to specific performance defence it has not been raised before the learned Arbitrator. Identity of the property has also not disputed. The parties have reached the consensus ad idem and entered the agreement. Immediately after the agreement sub-division has been taken place and the pathway has been identified. Merely because the permission has not been granted within six months, it cannot be said that the entire agreement has frustrated. The permission is still in the process, it has been cleared. Possession also handed over to the claimant. Time is not the essence of http://www.judis.nic.in 14 contract and the site is approved lay out. All these facts have taken into consideration by the learned Arbitrator and it is the contention that the Arbitrator has considered the entire evidence and also assessed the materials and gave a finding. This court cannot re-appreciate the evidence once again. It is the further contention of the learned counsel that learned Arbitrator reason that Clause 12 of the agreement is void is not correct. In that aspect the Arbitrator has gone beyond the terms of the contract.
12. In support of his contention he relied upon the following citiations:
1. G. Ramachandra Reddy v. Union of India [(2009)6 SCC 414.]
2. Steel Authority of India Ltd., v. Gupta Brother Steel Tubes Ltd.[(2009)10SCC 63]
3. Ravindrfa Kumar Gupta v. Union of India [(2010)1 SCC 409.]
4. Chief Engineer WRO /PWD Madurai Region v. Chandragiri Construction Co.[2011 (2) CTC 669 ] http://www.judis.nic.in 15
5. Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd., v. Dewanchand Ram Saran. [(2012) 5 SCC 306]
6. Balasahid DAyandeo Naick v. Appasaheb Dattatraya Pawar [(2008) 4 SCC 464.]
7. Madhya Pradesh Housing Board v. Progressive Writers and Publishers. [(2009) 5 SCC
678.]
13. In G. Ramachandra Reddy's case (supra) the Apex Court has held that Award cannot be interfered merely because the court is taking different view. From the judgment cited by the respondent counsel following law has emerged that the Court cannot re-appreciate the entire evidence to set aside the Award. Similarly the award cannot be set aside merely because the court to take a different view. Similarly court can not ordinarily substitute the interpretation for that of the Arbitrator. However,when the Arbitrator is acted without jurisdiction and has put an interpretation on the clause of agreement which is wholly contrary to the law then in that case there is no prohibition for the courts to set things right. Similarly, when the view taken by http://www.judis.nic.in 16 the Arbitrator is plausible, the Courts will not normally interfere in the judgments. Now the law is well settled in this aspect.
14. In Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.case (Supra) it is held as follows:
"31. Therefore, in our view, the phrase 'Public Policy of India' used in Section 34 in context is required to be given a wider meaning. It can be stated that the concept of public policy connotes some matter which concerns public good and the public interest. What is for public good or in public interest or what would be injurious or harmful to the public good or public interest has varied from time to time. However, the award which is, on the face of it, patently in violation of statutory provisions cannot be said to be in public interest. Such award/judgment/decision is likely to adversely affect the administration of justice. Hence, in our view in addition to narrower meaning given to the term 'public policy' in Renusagar's case (supra), it is required to be held that the award could be set aside if it is patently illegal. Result would be - award could be set aside if it is contrary to: -
(a) fundamental policy of Indian law; or
(b) the interest of India; or http://www.judis.nic.in 17
(c) justice or morality, or
(d) in addition, if it is patently illegal.
Illegality must go to the root of the matter and if the illegality is of trivial nature it cannot be held that award is against the public policy. Award could also be set aside if it is so unfair and unreasonable that it shocks the conscience of the Court. Such award is opposed to public policy and is required to be adjudged void."
15. From the above judgments and settled position of law, the Award could be interfered if it is contrary to the fundamental policy of Indian Law or the interest of India or justice of morality or in addition to it is legal. If it is illegal such illegality must go to the root of the matter and the if the illegality is of trivial nature it cannot be held that award is against the public policy. Award could also be set aside if it is so unfair and unreasonable that it shocks the conscience of the Court.
16. In the light of the above settled position now, the issue on hand is seen, the claimant sought to enforce the agreement dated 17.06.2004, entered between himself and respondent. http://www.judis.nic.in 18 Admittedly, the respondent is owner of 1.11 Acres out of which agreement was entered in respect of 14.17 grounds for development and construct and build the residential buildings in Ground + 3 upper floors in several blocks. It is actually admitted between the parties as per the agreement the claimant at his cost construct building and 75% of the built up area shall be allotted to the promoter/claimant and the 25% of the built up area shall be allotted to the respondent along with undivided share in the vacant land.
17. In Clause 5 of the agreement it is agreed that the promoter namely the claimant shall obtain necessary sanction/permission for constructin of a maximum permissible floor area as per the development control rules in the schedule ‘B’ property from the competent authority within but not later than six months from the date of the agreement. In the event of the competent authority not permitting the construction of the residential complex, the agreement shall be considered as terminated or cancelled and neither the promotor nor the landowner shall be liable to each other for any loss or damage. http://www.judis.nic.in 19
18. Clause 7 deals with the time limit for completion of the construction. As per Clause 7, after approval the promotor shall complete the construction work and handover the area allotted to the owner in a deliverable state within 15 months from the date of all statutory approvals.
19. In clause 12 the promotor also agreed that towards Rs.50 lakhs refundable security deposit as security for the due repayment of the said security the owner has to sell 6000 sq.ft. of built up area and its proportionate undivided share of land from the 25% apportioned share allotted to the owner in favour of the claimant. Undisputed facts are that a sum of Rs.10 lakhs security deposit has been paid at the time of singing agreement. For the remaining Rs.40 lakhs a sum of Rs.34,28,923/- said to have been paid to the bank viz., Indian Overseas Bank towards the discharge of loan of the respondent. These facts are not in dispute. Similarly, to pay the abvoe amount the claimant has raised loan from M/s. Arkay Associates by mortgaging the property on 12.07.2004. Admittedly due to certain difficulties http://www.judis.nic.in 20 faced with the authorities the plan could not be obtained till 2006. These are all admitted facts. However, on 31.3.2006 the Power of Attorney given by the Respondent was cancelled. Though there is time limit for obtaining statutory approval and it is agreed upon between the parties it is well settled that the said time cannot be the essence of contract. Therefore, merely on the basis of the time stipulated under Clause 5 of the agreement one cannot contend that time is essence of contract. Learned Arbitrator has rightly discussed the above aspect.
20. Now in the above back ground whether the specific performance have been granted in conformity with the Specific Relief Act has to be seen.
21. The agreement itself in the nature of joint venture and development. The property has not been identified in the agreement. Only subsequently it appears that sub-divisions have been taken place. It is also admitted and established before the arbitrator a school building also very much existence in the 'A' Schedule property viz., 1.11 acres. the subject matter of the http://www.judis.nic.in 21 agreement is 14.11 grounds out of 1.11 acres. However, at the time of agreement the exact area where 14.17 grounds lie has not been identified. These facts clearly indicate and establish that even to obtain approval certain existing buildings viz., school buildings sought to be demolished. This fact clearly indicate that a school was very much existence in 'A' schedule property. It is further to be noted that on 8.3.2006 the CMDA has sent a communication to the effect that if the particulars are not received within 7 days from receipt of that letter the planning permission application will be returned unapproved.
22. Learned Arbitrator has not even considered this material document whereas he has taken note of other documents to show that the claimant was all along pursuing his obligation to pursue the plan sanction. Though time stipulated to get the approval of plan cannot be taken as a time is essence of contract. To assess the readiness and willingness on the part of the claimant, the learned Arbitrator ought to have taken note of the document dated 8.3.2006 which is very much vital in deciding the mandate of the law under Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act http://www.judis.nic.in 22 which has not been considered by the learned Arbitrator. It is also to be noted that though six months time mentioned in the agreement to get the statutory approval cannot be made time is essence of contract, the parties intended to complete the transaction within 15 months from the date of approval Though the evidence indicate that certain clarifications given and application has processed till 2006 whether thereafter the claimant has taken steps to pursue the application after 8.3.2006, has not discussed by the Arbitrator. In fact though in the normal circumstances this Court would not re-appreciate the entire evidence. Since the relevant document has omitted to be taken note of by the Arbitrator which is in fact, have bearing in deciding the mandatory provisions of the Act viz., Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act, this court cannot ignore the above document. Though the Arbitrator has considered several documents, Ex.R.17 was ignored. In fact Ex.R.17 dated 8.3.2006 coupled with the admitted evidence before the arbitrator is taken note of. This makes it clear that ready and willingness is totally absent on the part of the claimant from the very beginning. In fact the claimant himself admitted before the Arbitrator that http://www.judis.nic.in 23 since he has no funds to complete the project, he has mobilised the funds and even on the day one of agreement he paid the security deposit, he raised loan and he has also admitted to the effect that he is relying upon source to raise the funds and also mobilise the funds from the prospective buyers.
23. Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act makes it mandatory that readiness and willingness not only be proved but also to be established. Admittedly, the evidence adduced before the Arbitrator clearly indicate that the claimant has not proved the readiness and willingness. Readiness is capacity to mobilise funds and willingness is mental attitude. Both should go with each other. Only then specific performance can be enforced. In fact the mandatory provision of Section 16 has not followed by the learned Arbitrator. It is further to be noted that the claimant has sought direction for specific performance for directing the respondent to execute the sale deed in respect of 75% undivided shares of Schedule 'B' property and also Power of Attorney in respect of the above extent and similarly, 6000 sq.ft. of constructed area. The entire allotment of the respective portion http://www.judis.nic.in 24 would be completed only on the construction of the building. If such a direction is granted, sale deed is executed in respect of only 75% and the building is constructed that area alone and the remaining area is left unperformed without any building being put up by the claimant, there would be a series hardship would be caused to other side. Keeping in mind with the above aspect and also keeping in min of Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, the learned Arbitrator ought to have decided the issue. If such situation arises it give unfair advantage to the claimant and the respondent put into serious hardship which has not been discussed by applying section 20 of the Specific Relief Act. Similarly section 14 of the Act deals with enforcing a contract for the construction of any building or the execution of any other work on land. Specific Performance can be granted on such a contract only the building or other work described in contract in terms sufficiently precise to enable the Court to determine the exact nature of the building or work and the defendant in pursuance of the contract obtained possession of the whole or any part of the land and the building is to be constructed or other work is to be executed. Admittedly as per the facts before the http://www.judis.nic.in 25 Arbitrator and also as per the contract 14.17 grounds has not been identified. The boundaries has given for the entire area and agreement also does not indicate the nature of the identification with sufficient precise and the entire agreement also silent about the sub-division of the property. Therefore, merely on the basis of sub-divisions carried out subsequently it cannot be said that the property has been identified. Therefore enforcing a contract is also against Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act. Similarly, Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act deals with the enforcement of part of contract provided a party seeks to enforce contract relinquishes all claims to the performance of the remaining part of the contract and all right to compensation, either for the deficiency or for the loss or damage. Such relinquishment has not done in this case. Therefore, granting specific performance contrary to substantive provision of law certainly violation of public policy of India. Hence, the award in respect of direction to execute the sale deed and Power of Attorney in favour of the claimant is contrary to substantive provision of law and the same has to be set aside.
http://www.judis.nic.in 26
24. Since the respondent has admitted to pay Rs.50 lakhs, loan raised by the claimant with interest thereon before the Arbitrator. I am of the view to give quietus to the matter the respondent is directed to return Rs.50 lakhs refundable security deposit with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of agreement till the date of realisation. Accordingly, the Respondent/claimant is entitle to return of Rs.50 lakhs along with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of agreement 12.07.2004 till the date of realisation. [Rate of interest is fixed considering the nature of the contract entered into the parties.]
25. In view of the above, no further order is required in O.P.No.111 of 2009 filed by the Claimant and O.P.No.27 of 2009 filed by the respondent in the Arbitration Award is partly allowed setting aside Award of the Arbitrator in respect of the direction to the respondent/petitioner herein to execute the sale deed and power of Attorney in favour of the claimant. The Respondent in the Arbitration Award shall return Rs.50 lakhs to the claimant with interest at the rate or 12% from the date of agreement till the date of realisation. The rest of the Award is confirmed. http://www.judis.nic.in 27
26. In the result O.P.No.27 of 2009 is partly allowed and O.P.No.111 of 2009 is dismissed. No costs.
05.07.2019
Index : Yes/ No
Internet : Yes
Speaking/Non-speaking Order
ggs
http://www.judis.nic.in
28
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
ggs
Order in
Original Petition Nos.27 & 111 of 2009
05.07.2019
http://www.judis.nic.in