Delhi District Court
M/S Chanson Motors Pvt. Ltd vs Airline Allied Services Ltd. And Anr on 16 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF ANUBHAV JAIN,
LD. DISTRICT JUDGE-05, NEW DELHI DISTRICT,
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
DLND010105132016
CS No. 58735/2016
In the matter of:
M/s. Chanson Motors Pvt. Ltd.
A-11/12, Keshopur Industrial Area,
Opp. H-Block, Vikaspuri, New Delhi
Also at: 303-305, Garg Plaza, Plot No. 25,
Pitampura, New Delhi-110034 ... Plaintiff
Versus
Alliance Air Aviation Limited
Having its registered Office at:
Alliance Bhawan, Domestic Terminal, 1, IGI Airport,
New Delhi-110037.
...Defendant
Date of Institution : 23.12.2011
Arguments heard on : 10.10.2025
Date of Decision : 16.12.2025
CS 58735/2016 M/s. Chanson Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Alliance Air Aviation Limited Page 1 of 20
JUDGMENT
1. Present suit seeking recovery of Rs. 31,63,917/- alongwith pendente lite and future interest @ 18 % per annum is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants.
FACTS OF THE CASE
2. In brief, facts of the case as stated by the plaintiff in his plaint are that plaintiff is a private limited company involved in the business of trading, sell, purchase, exchange, import, export and dealing all kind of new and used automobiles, including business of rent a cab, car rental services, taxi services and fleet management.
Further, defendant no. 1 is stated to be limited company and a subsidiary of Indian Air Lines Limited while defendant no. 2 is a state within the meaning of article 12 of the Constitution of India.
2.1 It is further stated that plaintiff and defendant no. 1 entered into an agreement dated 07.12.2005 effective from 11.10.2005 whereby plaintiff was required to provide 15 Tata Indigo, Diesel Vehicles to defendant no. 1 for providing surface transportation of their staff. Said agreement was for a period of 2 years which was further extendable. It is further averred that as per the agreement, all the applicable services, tax, VAT shall be reimbursed by defendant no. 1 to plaintiff upon production of proof of actual deposit to the appropriate authorities.
CS 58735/2016 M/s. Chanson Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Alliance Air Aviation Limited Page 2 of 202.2 It is further stated that the agreement between the parties extended from time to time till March 2011 and the plaintiff paid service tax as well as VAT from October 2005 till 31.12.2009. Further, plaintiff submits that challans and receipts with regard to the same with defendant no. 2 within time and defendant no. 1 reimbursed the entire amount of Service Tax and VAT to the plaintiff till December 2009.
2.3 It is further stated that thereafter, plaintiff was in receipt of letter dated 26.07.2010 from defendant no. 1 wherein defendant no. 1 acknowledged that service tax and VAT has been reimbursed to plaintiff till December 2009 and it is further stated that since VAT and service tax are mutually exclusive, defendant no. 1 shall not pay/reimburse any VAT after December 2009 and only Service Tax shall be reimbursed.
2.4 It is further stated that thereafter, plaintiff stopped paying VAT from January 2009 onwards and started getting reimbursed service tax from defendant no. 1. However defendant no. 1 started deducting the amount of VAT which was already reimbursed by them from 2005 to 2009, from the bills send by the plaintiff for services provided by them to defendant no. 1. It is further stated that defendant no. 1 did not pay legitimate amount due to the plaintiff from January 2010 to 31.03.2011 and in the month of April 2011 defendant adjusted the entire amount of VAT which was reimbursed to the plaintiff. It is CS 58735/2016 M/s. Chanson Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Alliance Air Aviation Limited Page 3 of 20 further stated that in the month of April 2010, defendant no. 1 after adjusting the amount, released an amount of Rs. 6,65000.31/- and defendant no. 1 is still liable to pay an amount of Rs. 31,63,917/- to the plaintiff.
2.4 It is further stated that the plaintiff also wrote a letter to Joint Commissioner (Special Zone) Department of Trade and Taxes, Govt. of NCT of Delhi dated 21.10.2010 and same was duly replied by him, wherein he has mentioned about the judgment dated 24.11.2010 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Appeal No. 10/2009.
2.5 It is further stated that plaintiff wrote a letter dated 14.12.2010 and 22.12.2010 requesting defendant no. 1 to refund the amount which they have illegally deducted from the bills of the plaintiff from the period January 2010 to 31.03.2011 however, defendant no. 1 did not pay any heed upon the request of the plaintiff. Plaintiff further issue a legal notice dated 12.02.2011 upon the defendant no. 1 with respect to the same and the same was duly replied by defendant no. 1, however, they denied their liability towards the plaintiff.
2.6. By way of present suit plaintiff has sought recovery of amount 31,63,917/- along with pendente lite and future interest @ 18 % per annum.
CS 58735/2016 M/s. Chanson Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Alliance Air Aviation Limited Page 4 of 20WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT NO. 1:
3. In reply thereof, Written Statement was filed by defendant no. 1, wherein defendant no. 1 admitted the averments so made by the plaintiff in his plaint that an agreement dated 07.10.2005 was entered into between the parties, in pursuance of which plaintiff provide 15 Tata Indigo, Diesel Vehicles to defendant no. 1. It is further admitted that plaintiff deposited service tax and VAT till December 2009 and same was duly reimbursed by defendant no.1.
3.1 It is further stated by defendant no. 1 that since service tax and VAT are merely exclusive, the plaintiff has wrongfully deposit the VAT amount and that defendant no. 1 wrongfully, upon representation of plaintiff, reimbursed the amount of VAT to the plaintiff till December 2009. It is further stated that the said amount was rightfully deducted by defendant no. 1 from the payments to be made to the plaintiff.
3.2 It is further stated that present suit is not maintainable before this court and is barred in terms of provision of DVAT ACT 2004. Answering defendants further prayed for dismissal of the suit filed by the plaintiff.
CS 58735/2016 M/s. Chanson Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Alliance Air Aviation Limited Page 5 of 20WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT NO. 2:
4. Further in the Written Statement so filed by defendant no. 2, again it is stated that the jurisdiction of this court is barred under Section 72 of DVAT Act and that grievance of plaintiff, if any, has to be considered in terms of Section 28 and 38 of DVAT Act. Answering defendants further prayed for dismissal of the suit so filed by the plaintiff.
APPLICATIONS AND OTHER PROCEEDINGS:
5. Perusal of record reveals that an application under Order VII Rule 11 (d) CPC was moved on behalf of defendant no. 2 seeking their name be deleted from the array of parties. The said application was allowed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 21.02.2014 and defendant no. 2 was deleted from the array of parties thereof.
6. Further as per the record, vide order dated 19.02.2016, the present file was transferred to District Court.
7. Further, as per the record, an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was filed by defendant no. 1 seeking rejection of the plaint.
CS 58735/2016 M/s. Chanson Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Alliance Air Aviation Limited Page 6 of 20However, same was dismissed by Ld. Predecessor Court vide order dated 24.08.2017.
8. It is pertinent to state in here that initially suit was filed by the plaintiff against "Airlies Allied Services Ltd.", however, defendant no.1 moved an application seeking to change its name from "Airline Allied Services Ltd." to "Alliance Air Aviation Limited" which was allowed vide order dt. 02.07.2025.
ISSUES
9. After completion of pleadings, following issues were framed by Ld Predecessor Court vide order dated 22.04.2019:
1) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in view of the provision of Delhi Value Added Tax 2004? OPD
2) Whether the defendant is estopped from denying the payment to the plaintiff as per agreement and as admitted vide letter dated 26.07.2010 written by the defendant to the plaintiff? OPP
3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of an amount of Rs.
31,63,917/- along with pendente lite and future interest @ 18 % per annum from the date of first demand? OPP
4) Relief.
CS 58735/2016 M/s. Chanson Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Alliance Air Aviation Limited Page 7 of 20PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
10. That, thereafter the matter was listed for PE and the plaintiff in support of its case, filed affidavit in evidence of Sh. Baldev Negi, Director of the plaintiff company, Ex.PW1/A and relied upon the following documents:
1) Original resolution dated 28.09.2011 as Ex.PW1/1.
2) Original General Power of Attorney dated 28.09.2011 in my favour as Ex.PW1/2.
3) Copy of Agreement dated 20.09.2005 as Ex.PW1/3 (Same is de-exhibited being photocopy and marked as Mark А).
4) Copy of DVAT return/receipt of payment of VAT by the plaintiff from September 2005 to December 2009 as Ex.PW1/4 (Same is de-exhibited being photocopy and marked as Mark B).
5) Copy of letter dated 26.07.2010 as Ex.PW1/5 (Same is de-
exhibited being photocopy and marked as Mark C).
6) Copy of letter dated 21.10.2010 as Ex.PW1/6 (Same is de-
exhibited being photocopy and marked as Mark D).
7) Copy of letter dated 09.11.2010 as Ex.PW1/7 (Same is de-
exhibited being photocopy and marked as Mark E).
8) Copy of reply dated 24.11.2010 as Ex.PW1/8 (Same is de-
exhibited being photocopy and marked as Mark F)
9) Copy of reminder dated 14.12.2010 as Ex.PW1/9 (Same is de-
exhibited being photocopy and marked as Mark G);
CS 58735/2016 M/s. Chanson Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Alliance Air Aviation Limited Page 8 of 2010) Copy of reminder dated 22.12.2010 as Ex.PW1/10 (Same is de-exhibited being photocopy and marked as Mark H).
11) Copy of notice dated 12.02.2011 as Ex.PW1/11 (Same is de-
exhibited being photocopy and marked as Mark I).
12) Original Courier & postal receipt dated 14.02.2011 & 15.02.2011 as Ex.PW1/12.
13) Copy of reply dated 24.03.2011 as Ex.PW1/13.
14) Office copy of notice dated 21.07.2011 as Ex.PW1/14
15) Original postal receipts dated 22.07.2011 and acknowledgment dated 24.07.2011 as Ex.PW1/15.
16) Copy of Balance Confirmation letter dated 19.08.2011 asEx.
PW1/16 (Same is de-exhibited being photocopy and marked as Mark J).
17) Copy of Ledger Account for the period from 31.07.2009 to 31.03.2011 as Ex.PW1/17.
11. It is pertinent to state in here that right of defendant to cross examine the plaintiff witness was closed by ld. Predecessor Court vide order dated 28.11.2022, after which defendant moved an application under Section 151 CPC to recall the said order. The said application was allowed on 12.07.2023, subject to cost of Rs. 20,000/-. That thereafter, defendant cross examined the plaintiff witness on 20.10.2023 and PE was closed after which matter was listed for defence evidence.
CS 58735/2016 M/s. Chanson Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Alliance Air Aviation Limited Page 9 of 20DEFENDANT EVIDENCE
12. Defendant in support of its evidence, filed affidavit in evidence of Sh. Bhuvan Singh, Ex. DW-1/A and relief upon the document:
i) Authorization letter for Sh. Bhuvan Singh to represent and sign on behalf of defendant in the present suit Ex. DW-1/1.
13. The said witness was duly cross examined by the plaintiff counsel. Thereafter, defence evidence was closed vide order dated 25.07.2025 and matter was listed for final arguments.
14. I have heard arguments so led by the parties and perused the case file carefully. My issue wise findings are as follows:
ISSUE NO. 1, 2 & 3:
1) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in view of the provision of Delhi Value Added Tax 2004? OPD
2) Whether the defendant is estopped from denying the payment to the plaintiff as per agreement and as admitted vide letter dated 26.07.2010 written by the defendant to the plaintiff? OPP
3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of an amount of Rs.
31.63,917/- along with pendente lite and future interest @ 18 % per annum from the date of first demand? OPP CS 58735/2016 M/s. Chanson Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Alliance Air Aviation Limited Page 10 of 20
15. Since all the issues required common discussion of law and fact, all the issues are dealt herein with together. While burden to prove issue no. 1 lies upon the defendant, burden to prove the issue no. 2 and 3 lies upon the plaintiff.
16. It is the case of the plaintiff, that as per clause 7.6 of the agreement dt. 07.10.2005, defendant no.1 undertook to reimburse all applicable VAT and service tax paid by the plaintiff on production of proof of actual deposit of the same to the appropriate authorities. It is further the case of plaintiff that for the period of 2005-2009, all such payments towards VAT and service tax were reimbursed by the defendant no.1. Subsequently, vide letter dt. 26.07.2010, defendant no.1 informed the plaintiff that they shall only make reimbursement for service tax paid following the payments made after 2009 as VAT and Service Tax are mutually exclusive and only one can be applied to transactions. However, for the bills raised by plaintiff in the period of 2010-11, the defendant no.1 deducted the amount that they reimbursed against VAT paid by plaintiff for the period 2005-09.
JURISDICTION BARRED UNDER DVAT ACT:
17. With regards to the contentions that this court does not have jurisdiction to try the present suit, it is strongly averred by defendant that the present suit is not maintainable since this Court being a civil court does not have jurisdiction over the present matter owing to an CS 58735/2016 M/s. Chanson Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Alliance Air Aviation Limited Page 11 of 20 alternative remedy existing in DVAT Act, 2004 as against claims for refund of VAT.
18. It is true that DVAT Act 2004 is a comprehensible and complete code having its own processes and procedures for adjudication and resolution of disputes regarding claims for seeking refunds for discrepancies in paid VAT and other issues. It is also true that for claims that can be made under DVAT Act, said Act expressly bars the jurisdiction of the civil courts.
19. However, present suit so filed by the plaintiff is for recovery of the amount of Rs. 31,63,917/- against the defendant for alleged undue deduction of an already reimbursed amount and not for recovery of VAT erroneously paid to the appropriate authorities.
20. It is pertinent to note in here that it is not the question before this court as to whether the VAT paid by the plaintiff was correct and as per the law or not. This court is not even of competent jurisdiction to determine the same. The question which requires determination by this court is whether defendant no. 1 has acted illegally and beyond its authority/agreement to deduct the amount of VAT which was already reimburse by it to the plaintiff.
21. As such, this court is of the view that the jurisdiction of this court to determine the present suit is not covered under the provision CS 58735/2016 M/s. Chanson Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Alliance Air Aviation Limited Page 12 of 20 of DVAT Act as stated by the defendant. In view of the same, issue no. 1 is decided against the defendant and in favour of plaintiff herein.
PLEA OF ESTOPPEL:
22. It is argued by Ld. counsel for plaintiff that in terms of letter dated 26.07.2010 issued by defendant no. 1 to the plaintiff, they were estopped from making any deduction from the amount payable to the plaintiff, towards allegedly wrongfully paid VAT amount.
23. The doctrine of estoppel, enshrined under Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, constitutes a pivotal rule of evidence designed to uphold the sanctity of representations made by parties, thereby fostering equity, good faith and consistency in judicial proceedings. It operates to preclude a person who, by his words, conduct or omission, has intentionally induced another to believe in the existence of a certain state of facts and to act thereon to his prejudice, from subsequently denying the truth of those facts when sought to be asserted against him. This principle, rooted in the maxim allegans contraria non est audiendus (he who alleges the contrary shall not be heard), does not engender a new cause of action or confer substantive rights but serves as a shield against the admission of inconsistent pleas, ensuring that no party may approbate and reprobate at their whim, thereby preventing injustice and promoting transactional certainty.CS 58735/2016 M/s. Chanson Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Alliance Air Aviation Limited Page 13 of 20
24. Plaintiff in support of his contentions and in order to prove that he was entitled to be reimbursed of service tax and VAT from defendant no.1 upon production of receipts thereof, has placed on record, an attachment of award letter no.
AASL/ADMN/Tpt-Del/2k5/1980 dt. 07.10.2005, issued by defendant no.1 to plaintiff. Clause 7.6 of the said agreement states as follows:
"7.6 AASL will pay an all-inclusive charge per km, which will be inclusive of cost of fuel, driver's and supervisor's salary and other labour law related payments thereon, telephone expenses, office expenses, permit cost, road tax, comprehensive insurance, maintenance of vehicles, toll tax, cess, octroi, communication (GPRS/mobile of each car) expenses, parking and any other related expenses. The applicable service tax and VAT shall be reimbursed on production of proof of actual deposit to the appropriate authorities."
Said clause indicates a clear undertaking on the part of defendant no.1 to reimburse to the plaintiff for all charges and applicable taxes paid by the plaintiff upon production of proof of actual deposit to the appropriate authorities. Said award letter is never disputed by the defendant no. 1 during the course of the trial.
25. Further, plaintiff has placed on record DVAT returns from September 2005 till December 2009 in support of payments made towards VAT during this period on the requisite transactions.
CS 58735/2016 M/s. Chanson Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Alliance Air Aviation Limited Page 14 of 2026. Plaintiff further, in support of his contentions as to applicability of principle of estoppel, has also placed on record the letter of defendant no.1 dt. 26.07.2010 (Ex. PW-1/5) which states:
"Please refer to your discussions on the matter of applicability of appropriate tax i.e., VAT and/or Service tax on the services provided by you, since you have already deposited both VAT and Service Tax with the Tax Authorities up to December 2009 and have produced relevant documents and the reimbursement of the same has been made up to December 2009.
Please note that it has been determined that VAT and Service Tax are mutually exclusive and as such both VAT and Service Tax cannot be attracted. In this case, no VAT only Service Tax is payable. In view of above, we shall be reimbursing service tax only after December 2009."
27. From the bare perusal of abovesaid letter dated 26.07.2010, the defendant herein has clearly admitted to the fact that they have reimbursed both VAT and Service Tax to the plaintiff till December 2009. Further, it is apparent that the defendant no.1 has indicated their willingness to reimburse only service tax paid by the plaintiff from December 2009 onwards.
28. It is the contentions of plaintiff that the defendant no.1 based on the representation made in the award letter dt. 07.10.2005 and letter dt. 26.07.2010 have estopped themselves from taking back the amount that they have paid to the plaintiff towards reimbursement of VAT paid by plaintiff during the period of 2005-09.
CS 58735/2016 M/s. Chanson Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Alliance Air Aviation Limited Page 15 of 2029. Co-joint reading of Clause 7.6 of award letter dated 07.10.2005 and letter dated 26.07.2010 clarify that defendant was liable to reimburse applicable Service Tax as well as VAT to the plaintiff upon production of proof to authorities. Further, in pursuance of the same, the defendants have reimbursed the said amount to the plaintiff till December 2009.
30. The said letter dated 26.07.2010 is completely silent with regard to recovery of VAT amount which was duly reimbursed by defendant to plaintiff till December 2009. Further, defendant during the entire evidence or during the course of arguments did not point out towards any clause or provision in award letter dated 07.10.2005 which would entitled them to deduct any amount from the bills of plaintiff, which is wrongly reimburse to the plaintiff herein.
31. As such, considering the averements made by the defendant in the letter dated 26.07.2010 that they have duly reimbursed the Service Tax and VAT to plaintiff till December 2009 and further that they shall be reimbursing only service tax after December 2009 this Court cannot disagree with the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant no.1 has indeed estopped themselves vide letter dt. 26.07.2010 from further retracting payment of reimbursement already made towards the VAT paid by plaintiff during the period of 2005-06.
32. In contrast to the plaintiff's averments, defendants repeatedly argued that the plaintiff had erroneously made payment towards the CS 58735/2016 M/s. Chanson Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Alliance Air Aviation Limited Page 16 of 20 VAT during the period of 2005-09 and since as per the agreement, the defendant was only required to reimburse the amount of "applicable VAT", the actions of defendant for retracting the reimbursed amount for 2005-09 is not in any form a breach of their obligations under the agreement.
33. Even if the said contention of the defendant is taken to be true, the defendant has not placed on record any material which may go on to show that the plaintiff had erroneously made payment of VAT during the period of 2005-09.
34. Further, defendant itself never challenged or questioned the VAT department in this regard nor have sought any clarification from the said department as to whether the VAT is applicable in the present circumstances or not.
35. Further, as per the reply letter of Joint Commissioner, the same stated that the determination of VAT for the plaintiff will depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case and whether such circumstances fall within the purview of the ruling of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Commissioner VAT, Trade and Taxes Department v. International Travel House Ltd. (2009) 25VST653 (Delhi). Further, the defendant has not brought on record anything that may go on to show that VAT was not applicable on the plaintiff during the period of 2005-09 even as per the aforementioned judgment.
CS 58735/2016 M/s. Chanson Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Alliance Air Aviation Limited Page 17 of 2036. Even for the sake of arguments, it is believed that the VAT was inapplicable for the period of 2005-09, defendant never raised such an issue with the plaintiff nor with the appropriate authorities to claim a refund over such allegedly erroneous amount of VAT paid by the plaintiff during this period. Further, for reasons best known to defendant no.1, they also did not mention in the said letter dt. 26.07.2010 that they will retract the reimbursement made towards the payment of VAT for the period of 2005-09 from the plaintiff but only mentioned that they will make reimbursement for only service tax to be paid by plaintiff post December 2009.
As such, defendant no.1 did not duly inform the plaintiff before retracting the reimbursement for period of 2005-09 when they had the opportunity to do so in the said letter itself.
37. Following the changed circumstances surrounding VAT applicability, defendant could not have retracted such reimbursement without following any proper and formal process, irrespective of whether the payments made by plaintiff towards VAT during 2005-09 were erroneous or not. If the concern of defendant rests on the fact that the VAT was inapplicable for such a period, it was upon them to put plaintiff to proper notice of the same and file for refund with the appropriate authority or take other course of action as per law. The said action would have given appropriate opportunity to the plaintiff to provide clarification to the defendant and further to take appropriate steps with the department concerned, for recovery if any.
CS 58735/2016 M/s. Chanson Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Alliance Air Aviation Limited Page 18 of 2038. Furthermore, the defendant herein cannot shift the entire liability, to ensure correct payment of tax, upon the plaintiff only. Defendant being the only signatory to the agreement dated 07.12.2005 was also under the duty to ensure that only applicable taxes are being paid. The defendant who reimbursed the tax amount from period 2005 to 2009 to the plaintiff towards VAT and Service Tax, cannot shift the burden upon the plaintiff that it was the plaintiff who erroneously deposited the VAT.
39. In view of the discussion made above, this court is of the view that defendant herein have unilaterally without following due process of law or natural justice have illegally deducted the amount of VAT, duly reimbursed to plaintiff till December 2009, from the subsequent bills of the plaintiff.
40. It is further pertinent to note in here that the defendant apart from admitting to the fact that he has deducted the amount of reimbursed VAT from the subsequent bills of the plaintiff, however, he never denied or questioned the amount of Rs. 31,63,917/- as mentioned by the plaintiff in his plaint.
41. In view the discussion made above, both the issues no. 2 and 3 are decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant. As such, plaintiff is entitled to recovery amount of Rs. 31,63,917/- duly deducted by the defendant from the bills of the plaintiff towards already reimbursed VAT amount.
CS 58735/2016 M/s. Chanson Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Alliance Air Aviation Limited Page 19 of 2042. Plaintiff has further sought pendente lite and future interest @ 18 % per annum upon the said amount. Same being exorbitant, this court is of the view that the pendente lite and future interest @ 6 % shall serve the interest of justice.
43. In view of the above said discussion, suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed.
44. No order as to cost. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
45. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by ANUBHAV ANUBHAV JAIN
JAIN Date:
Announced in the open Court 2025.12.16
15:55:13 +0530
on 16.12.2025 (Anubhav Jain)
District Judge -05, NDD,
PHC/ND/16.12.2025
Note: This judgment contains 20 pages and each page has been signed by me.
CS 58735/2016 M/s. Chanson Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Alliance Air Aviation Limited Page 20 of 20