Bangalore District Court
South India Steel Industries Employees ... vs The Management Of Ms South India Steels ... on 5 December, 2025
KABC030358822010
IN THE COURT OF THE VI ACJM BENGALURU CITY
C.C.No.35098/2010
Dated this the 05th Day of December, 2025
Before : Sri. MANJUNATH D. R.,
B.sc, LL.B.,
VI Addl. C.J.M BENGALURU CITY.
Complainant : South Indian Steel Industries
Employees Union,
CILC House U-128, 2nd Cross,
Gauthamanagar,
Sriramapuram,
Bengalore - 21.
Represented by its Workman
& Union Office Bearer
Ramanjinappa.
(By Advocate A.J.S.)
-Versus-
Accused The Management of
M/s. South India Steels Industries
Pvt. Ltd.,
White filed Road,
Bangalore.
Represented by its Directors
1. Sanjay Garg, Director,
S/o Ramautar Garg,
2. Smt. Uma, Director
2
C.C.No.35098/2010
3. Pankaj Garg, Director
Sl. No.1 and 3 are
R/at No. L-370, HSR Layout,
7th Sector, 5th Main,
Bangalore - 560 034.
Registered office of
Sl. No.1 to 3 are at
M/s South India Steel Industries,
No.54/28, K. S. Garden,
Lalbagh Road, 4th Cross,
Bangalore - 560 027.
(Shri. J.C.K. Advocate for
Accused)
Date of taking cognizance : 30.07.2010
Offences Registered
against accused : 29 of the Industrial Dispute
Act.
Date of commencing
evidence : 23.08.2024
Date of Judgment
pronounced : 05.12.2025
Duration of 15 04 06
Judgment : Year/s Month/s Day's
(MANJUNATH D.R.)
VI Addl. CJM., Bengaluru City.
**** *
3
C.C.No.35098/2010
JUDGMENT
1. The complainant has filed the private complaint under section 200 of Cr.P.C., against the accused for the offence punishable under section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:-
The complainant is the workman and office bearer of South India Steel Industries Employees Union and contends that, one Chadeswar Rai was employed by the accused management M/s South India Steels Industries Pvt. Ltd., and he was working as workman in the accused Management for several years and he was abruptly refused employment without any valid reasons on 24.04.1992. The complainant took up the dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, before the conciliation and thereafter it was referred to Labour Court for adjudication under section 10(1)(c) and it was numbered as reference No.196/1992 and the 2nd Addl. Labour court adjudicated the dispute and passed the award by its award dated 19.02.2005. Inspite of the award passed by the Labour court, the accused management has not at all implemented the said award. The complainant further 4 C.C.No.35098/2010 contends that, Union made several representation requesting the accused management to implement the award but they have not implemented it. Therefore the complainant union made a representation dated 15.02.2007 to the Labour Commissioner seeking permission to prosecute the accused management for non implementation of the award and after considering the representation and after giving opportunity to the accused, the Labour commissioner passed order dated 26.04.2007 granting permission to the complainant to prosecute the accused management. The complainant submits that, the accused M/s South India Steels Industries Pvt. Ltd., represented by its directors accused no.1 to 3 have not implemented the award passed by the Labour court and thereby violated section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act and therefore the complainant prays for initiating proceedings under section 29 of the Industrial Dispute Act and prays for suitable orders against the accused.
3. After taking cognizance, this court issued summons to the accused and they are appeared through their counsel and enlarged on bail. Plea of the accused is 5 C.C.No.35098/2010 recorded and they have not pleaded guilty of alleged offence and claimed to be tried.
4. The complainant in order to prove the case, examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P1 to 9.
5. 313 statements of the accused No.1 to 3 have been recorded and they have denied all the incriminating materials found against them. The accused no.1 is examined himself as DW1 and got marked Ex.D1.
6. I heard learned counsel for the complainant and and learned counsel appearing for the accused and perused the written arguments.
7. The points that arose for my consideration are:
:: P O I N T S ::
Point No.1 : Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, the accused being a company M/s South India Steels Industries Pvt. Ltd., employed one Sri. Chandeswar Rai and he worked for several years and he was abruptly 6 C.C.No.35098/2010 removed from the employment without any valid reasons and inspite of the conciliation and award passed by the Labour court in Ref. No.196/1992 dated 19.02.2005, the accused have not implemented the award passed by the Labour court and thereby the accused have committed the offence punishable under section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act ?
Point No.2. What order?
8. After going through the records and hearing the learned counsel for the complainant and learned counsel for the accused and after going through the written arguments. I answer the above points as under :
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative Point No.2 : As per final order, for the following:
REASONS
9. Point No.1 : The complainant in order to prove the case examined himself as PW1 and got marked certified copy of the award passed by the Labour court in Ref. No.196/1992 at Ex.P1, show cause notice at Ex.P2, certified copy of the permission order at Ex.P3, the documents containing 5 pages to 7 C.C.No.35098/2010 show that, accused company is functioning at Ex.P4, the documents containing the accused company details at Ex.P5, the documents showing that, accused no.1 to 3 are the directors of the accused company at Ex.P6, documents pertaining to the accused no.3 at Ex.P7, the documents pertaining to accused no.1 at Ex.P8, section 65B certificate for production of the Ex.P4 to 8 at Ex.P9. On the other hand, the accused no.1 is examined as DW1 and got marked a copy of the order of Board for Industrial and Financial reconstruction at Ex.D1.
10. The complainant is examined as PW1 and in his evidence has deposed that, he is the office bearer of the South India Steels Industrial Union and the accused is a company M/s South India Steels Industries Pvt. Ltd., represented by accused no.1 to 3 directors and one Chandeswar Rai was employed by the accused management and he was discharged his duties for several years and he was abruptly refused employment without any valid reasons on 24.04.1992. The complainant took up the dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, before the conciliation and thereafter it was referred to Labour 8 C.C.No.35098/2010 Court for adjudication under section 10(1)(c) and it was numbered as reference No.196/1992 and the 2 nd Addl. Labour court adjudicated the dispute and passed the award by its award dated 19.02.2005. Inspite of the award passed by the Labour court, the accused management has not at all implemented the said award. The complainant further contends that, Union made several representation requesting the accused management to implement the award but they have not implemented it. Therefore the complainant union made a representation dated 15.02.2007 to the Labour Commissioner seeking permission to prosecute the accused management for non implementation of the award and after considering the representation and after giving opportunity to the accused, the Labour commissioner passed order dated 26.04.2007 granting permission to the complainant to prosecute the accused management. The complainant submits that, the accused M/s South India Steels Industries Pvt. Ltd., and its director accused no.1 to 3 have not implemented the award passed by the Labour court and thereby committed offence punishable under section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act.
9C.C.No.35098/2010
11. The PW1 has produced the certified copy of the order of the Labour court at Ex.P1 which discloses that, the 2 nd Addl. Labour court, Bengaluru in its Ref. No.196/1992 by award dated 19.02.005 allowed the reference and directed the accused management to reinstate the workman Chandeswar Rai in his original post together with full back wages continuity of service and other consequential benefits with cost of Rs.1000/-. PW1 has produced Ex.P2 which is a show cause notice issued by the Labour Commissioner to the accused directing him to comply the order passed by the Labour court and if it is not complied permission will be granted for prosecution for the offence punishable under section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act. PW1 has further produced the order of the Labour Commissioner at Ex.P3 dated 26.04.2007 which has authorized employees union to prosecute the accused for the offence punishable under section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Acts. Further the PW1 in his evidence deposed that, the accused company is still functioning and he has produced the documents pertaining to the same along with 65B certificate at Ex.P4 to 8 which discloses that, the accused 10 C.C.No.35098/2010 company is still functioning. PW1 is cross-examined and in the cross-examination, the counsel for accused has not at all denied the chief evidence of the complainant and nothing worthy was elicited in the course of the cross-examination in favour of the accused.
12. The accused no.1 on the other hand is examined as DW1 and in his evidence he has deposed that, he has been the director of the company since 2014 and his father established the accused company and accused no.2 and 3 are also the directors of the accused company and he has further deposed that, the company closed all its operations in the year 1998 and it gone into loss and therefore in the year 1999 Bankers and KSFC took over all the assets of the company and in the year 2000 the company was referred to BIFR (Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction) and the case number was 80/2000 and the BIFR by order dated 25.01.2001 declares the company as sick industry and he has produced the copy of the BIFR order at Ex.D1 and he has deposed that, the company is not at all operative since 1998 and he 11 C.C.No.35098/2010 does not know whether the complainant and its members are the employees of his company and deposed that, he is not liable for any relief claimed by the complainant and its members and prays for the dismissal of the complaint.
13. DW1 is cross-examined and in the cross- examination he has clearly admitted that, the company is still in existence and he has further admitted that, the company is showing profit and loss statement of the company to the Registrar of the company and further admitted that, the accused no.1 to 3 are the directors of the company.
The very admissions made by the DW1 in the cross-examination is extracted below for better appropriation.
" ಕಂಪನಿ ಈಗಲೂ ಅಸ್ದಿತ್ವದಲ್ಲಿದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಪ್ರತಿ ವರ್ಷ ಕಂಪನಿಯು ಪ್ರಾಫಿಟ್ ಅಂಡ್ ಲಾಸ್ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಸ್ಟೆೇಟ್ಮೆಂಟ್ ಗಳನ್ನು ರಿಜಿಸ್ಟ್ರರ ರ್ ಆಫ್ ಕಂಪನಿಗೆ ಕಳುಹಿಸುತ್ತಿದ್ದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ."12
C.C.No.35098/2010
14. DW1 in his cross-examination has further deposed that, he has given reply to the memo of calculation submitted by the counsel for the complainant and further it is relevant to mention that, the counsel for accused has not at all disputed the evidence given by the PW1 and he has not at all suggested anything contrary to the evidence of PW1 and further the PW1 has produced Ex.P4 to 8 documents to show that, the company is still functioning and the counsel for accused has not at all cross-examined the PW1 on the documents Ex,P 4 to 8 regarding functioning of the accused company and further DW1 in the cross-examination has admitted that the company is still functioning. Therefore the evidence of PW1 and the evidence of DW1 and documents placed on record clearly proved that, the accused company has not at all implemented the award passed by the Labour court dated 19.02.2005.
15. The counsel for the accused argues that, the complainant is not at all the authorized person to file the complaint and complaint is not maintainable under law and prays for dismissal of the complaint. I 13 C.C.No.35098/2010 have carefully perused Ex.P3 is an authorization given by the Labour Commissioner by his order dated 26.04.2007 and he authorized the employee Union, CILC house, U128, 2 nd Cross, Gowthamnagar, Bengaluru to prosecute the accused for not honouring the award passed by the Labour court and Labour commissioner has authorized the Union to prosecute the accused for the offence punishable under section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The original complainant Shri. M. B. Ramu the president of the employee union filed the complaint and during pendency of the case, he was died and complaint is amended and the employee cum office bearer of the union namely Ramanjanappa has continued the complaint. Therefore the complainant is the office bearer of the M/s South India Steels Industries Pvt. Ltd., and complainant union is authorized by the Labour Commissioner to prosecute the case against the accused on behalf of the workman Chandeswar Rai. Therefore complaint is maintainable under law.
16. The counsel for accused argues that, accused company was declared as Sick Industry by BIFR and therefore the workman cannot reinstate 14 C.C.No.35098/2010 with the full back wages and as per sec.22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special provisions) Act 1985. No legal proceedings can be initiated against a Sick Industrial Company and the workman is not at all entitled for any relief ordered by the Labour court and he is not at all entitled for reinstatement with full back wages and in order to support to his contention he has relied upon the decisions of Honb'le Supreme Court of India passed in U.P. State Brassware Corp. Ltd., and ano., Vs., Udai Narain Pandey reported in 2006 (I) SCC 479, further relied upon the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in J.K. Synthetics Ltd., Vs., K. P. Agrawal & Ano., reported in 2007(2) SCC 433 and he has also relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in General Manager, Haryana Roadways Vs., Rudhan Singh reported in 2005 AIR SCW 4634, further relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Bharat Forge Company Limited Vs., A.B. Zodge and another reported in 1996 SCC (4) 374 and further relied upon the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in Industrial Finance Corporation of .. Vs., 15 C.C.No.35098/2010 Thletdc. An & Naonrosr.E Spinning reported in AIR 2002 SC 1841.
17. I have carefully perused the above decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in which the order of the Labour court and the Appellate court was challenged in the said decisions. In this instant case, the order of the Labour court was passed on 19.02.2005 in Ref. No.196/1992 and the said order was not all challenged by the accused company and award passed by Labour Court has attained the finality. It is relevant to mention that, as per section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act. this court is empowered to impose penalties for breach of settlement or award passed under the Industrial Disputes Act. The section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act is exacted below for better appreciation.
" Sec.29 Penalty for breach of settlement or award Any person who commits a breach of any term of settlement or award, which is binding on him under this Act, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 16 C.C.No.35098/2010 six months and with a fine which may extend to fifty thousand rupees and where the breach is a continuing one, with a further fine of five hundred rupees for every day during which the breach continues after the conviction for the first, and the court trying the offence. If it fines the offender, may direct that the whole or any part of the fine realized from shall be paid by way of compensation, to any person who, in its opinion has been insured by such breach."
18. I have perused the above section which clearly discloses that, this court can impose penalties for the breach of settlement or award passed under the Industrial Dispute Act and this court cannot go against the award passed by the Labour court.
19. The award passed by the Labour court with regard to the reinstatement with full back wages is illegal or legal cannot be looked into by this court and this court can only impose penalties under section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act If there is any breach of the award passed by the Labour court.
17C.C.No.35098/2010
20. The counsel for complainant has relied upon the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in Deepali Gundu Surwase Vs., Kranti Junior Adhyapak and Ors reported in Civil Appeal No.6767/2013.
21. I have carefully perused the above cited decision which clearly declared that, once termination is declared as illegal the employee is deemed to have been in service all along and therefore reinstatement, continuity of service and full back wages are the natural consequences. Therefore the records clearly established that, the accused company has never challenged the award passed by the Labour court as per Ex.P1 and even the judgments relied upon by the counsel for the accused is not at all applicable to the case on hand for the above stated reasons. On the other hand, the Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment relied upon by the counsel for the complainant passed in Deepali Gundu Surwase Vs., Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya is applicable to the case on hand. Further the section 29 of the Industrial Dispute Act 18 C.C.No.35098/2010 has empowered the Magistrate to impose penalty for breach of award.
22. The counsel for the accused argues that, the accused industry is declared as Sick Industry as per the order of BIFR and he has produced the same at Ex.D1 and contend that, the proceedings against the accused company cannot be continued and no legal proceedings for execution or recovery or enforcement of monetary or service claims can proceed against a Sick Industrial Company without approval of BIFR and contends that, complaint is not maintainable against the accused and prays for dismissal of the complaint and in order to support his contentions, the counsel for the accused has relied upon the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Raheja Universal Ltd., Vs. NRC Ltd., & Ors., reported in (2012) 4 SCC 148 and Gram Panchayat Vs., Shree Vallabh Glass Works Ltd., reported in (1990)2 SCC 440.
23. I have carefully perused the section 22(3) of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act 1985 which is extracted below for better appreciation 19 C.C.No.35098/2010 " Suspension of legal proceedings, contracts, etc (1) Where in respect of an industrial company, an inquiry under section 16 is pending or any scheme referred to under section 17 is under preparation on consideration or a sanctioned scheme is under implementation or where an appeal under section 25 relating to an industrial company is pending, then, notwithstanding anything contained in the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), or any other law or the memorandum and articles of association of the industrial company or any other instrument having effect under the said Act or other law, no proceedings in for the winding up of the industrial company or for execution, distress of the like against any of the properties of the industrial company or for the appointment of a receiver in respect thereof (and no suit for the recovery of money or for the enforcement of any security against the industrial company nor of any guarantee in respect of any loans or advance granted to the industrial company) shall lie or be proceeded 20 C.C.No.35098/2010 with further, except with the consent of the Board or, as the case may be, the Appellate Authority.
(2) Where the management of the sick industrial company is taken over or changed (in pursuance of any scheme sanctioned under section 181 notwithstanding anything contained in the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) or other law or in the memorandum and articles of association of such company or any instrument having effect under the said Act or other law-
(a) it shall not be lawful for the shareholders of such company or any other person to nominate or appoint any person to be a director of the company.
(b) no resolution passed at any meeting of the shareholders of such company shall be given effect to unless approved by the Board. (3)[Where an inquiry under section 16 is pending or any scheme referred to in section 17 is under preparation or during the period) of 21 C.C.No.35098/2010 consideration of any scheme under section 18 or where any such scheme is sanctioned thereunder, for due implementation of the scheme, the Board may by order declare with respect to the sick industrial company concerned that the operation of all or any of the contracts, assurances of property, agreements, settlements, awards, standing orders or other instruments in force, to which such sick industrial company is a party or which may be applicable to such sick industrial company immediately before the date of such order, shall remain suspended or that all or any of the rights, privileges, obligations and liabilities accruing or arising thereunder before the said date, shall remain suspended or shall be enforceable with such adaptations and in such manner as may be specified by the Board:
Provided that such declaration shall not be made for a period exceeding two years which may be extended by one year at a time so, however, that the total period shall not exceed seven years in the aggregate."22
C.C.No.35098/2010
24. The section 22(3) of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act clearly discloses that, the Board has got authority to declare that, the operation of the company remained suspended and such declaration should not be made for a period exceeding two years and which may be extended by one year at a time. However the total period shall not exceed 7 years in the aggregate. The section 22 (3) has clearly established the BIFR shall declare that, operation of the company is suspended and declaration shall not exceed 7 years in the aggregate. In this instant case, the counsel for the accused has not placed any record before the court to show that, such declaration is made by the BIFR not to proceed against the accused for implementation of the award passed by the Labour Court and there is no declaration under section 22(3) of the Sick Industrial companies Act by the BIFR. The records and the admissions made by the accused DW1 clearly discloses that, the company is still functioning and there is no bar under law to implement the award passed by the Labour court. Therefore the above cited decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Raheja Universal Ltd., Vs., NRC Ltd., & Ors 23 C.C.No.35098/2010 and Gram Panchayat Vs., Shree Vallabh Glass Works Ltd., stated supra are not applicable to the case on hand in view of the different facts and circumstance of the case.
25. The complainant has proved that, the Labour court by order dated 19.02.2005 passed an award against the accused company directing the company to reinstate the employee Chandeswar Rai into its original post together with full back wages, continuity of the service and other consequential benefits as per the order produced at Ex.P1 and the complainant has proved that, inspite of award passed by the Labour court and inspite of the notice issued by the Labour Commissioner, the accused company has not implemented the award. The complainant has proved that, he is the authorized person to prosecute the accused company for the offence punishable under Sec.29 of the Industrial Disputes Act and the complainant has proved that, the accused company has not implemented the award and thereby the accused has commited the offence punishable under section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act.
24C.C.No.35098/2010
26. The accused no.1 to 3 who are the directors of the company have failed to show that, they are not concerned with the management of the company and they have failed to show that, offence committed without their knowledge. Therefore the accused company and the accused no.1 to 3 are liable for the breach of the terms of the award under section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act clearly discloses that, any persons who breach any terms of award shall be punishable with imprisonment for a period of 6 months or with fine or with both and the complainant has proved that, the accused company has breached the terms of the award passed by the Labour court. Therefore the accused company and its director accused no.1 to 3 are liable under section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore the complainant has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.
27. It is relevant to mention that, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Bhagwan Jaganath Markand v/s State of Maharashtra reported in 2016 (1) SCC 537 has clearly held that;
25C.C.No.35098/2010 "the burden of proof is always on the prosecution and accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty and prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt and further held that, the degree of proof need not reach certainty but must carry a high degree of probability."
I have carefully perused the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and also the materials on record, the evidence produced by complainant has carried a high degree of probability with regard to the alleged offence committed by the accused. Therefore, the complainant has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, with the above observations, I hold point No.1 in the Affirmative.
28. Point No.2: For the reasons stated and discussion made above, I proceed to pass the following ;
26C.C.No.35098/2010 ORDER The accused company and accused no.1 to 3 are CONVICTED U/s 255(2) of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable U/s 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
For Hearing whether to apply probation of offenders Act or to pass sentence.
VI ACJM ORDER ON SENTENCE Counsel for accused argues that, the accused is a company accused no.1 to 3 are the directors of the company and they are first time offenders and they have family to take care of and the probation of offenders Act can be extended and they may be released by admonition under the probation of offenders Act.
Counsel for the complainant on the other hand argues that, the accused company and its directors have not at all implemented the award in spite of several years have been lapsed and it is the question of life of the workman and therefore 27 C.C.No.35098/2010 the accused company and the directors liable for breach of terms of award and they are liable to implement the award and if benefits of probation of offenders Act is given, the accused company will not implement the award and therefore prays for punishment provided under the law.
I have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and counsel for the accused. The records clearly disclose that, in spite of the award passed by the Labour court as per Ex.P1, the accused company and its director have failed to implement the award for more than 20 years and the award of the Labour court clearly discloses that, the accused company is directed to reinstate the workman Chandeswar Rai into his original post together with full back wages, continuity of service and other consequential benefits and the terms of award is not implemented by the accused company and if benefit is given under the probation of offenders Act, the very purpose of filing this case would be defeated and if the 28 C.C.No.35098/2010 accused company and its directors are not punished, they would not implement the award of the labour court, therefore the counsel for accused has failed to make out grounds to extend the benefits provided under the probation of offenders Act.
On the other hand the complainant has made out grounds that, the accused company and its directors are liable to be punished for non implementation of the award of the labour court, under section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act. Hence I pass the following ORDER The accused no.1 to 3 are sentenced to undergo six months simple imprisonment and the accused company and accused no.1 to 3 are directed to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each, (Rs. Ten Thousand Only totally Rs.40,000/- (Rs. Forty Thousand Only) in default of payment of fine, the accused no.1 to 3 shall undergo simple imprisonment for 1 month for the offence 29 C.C.No.35098/2010 punishable 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act. Out of the fine amount, Rs.20,000/-, (Rs.
Twenty Thousand Only) shall be paid as compensation to the workman Chandeswar Rai.
Supply a free copy of the Judgment to the accused.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 05 th day of December, 2025).
(MANJUNATH D.R.) VI Addl. CJM., Bengaluru City.
ANNEXURE
1. The witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution:-
1. P.W.1. : B. Ramanjanappa
2. The List of documents marked on behalf of prosecution:-
1. Ex.P1. : Certified copy of the award
2. Ex.P2 : Show cause notice
3. Ex.P3 : Certified copy of the permission order
4. Ex.P4 to 8. : Documents relating to functioning of the accused company 30 C.C.No.35098/2010
5. Ex.P9 : Section 65B certificate
3. The witnesses examined on behalf of accused :-
1. D.W.1. : Sanjay Garg
4. The List of documents marked on behalf of accused:-
1. Ex.D.1. : Copy of the order of Board for Industrial and Financial reconstruction
5. The list of material objects marked on behalf of prosecution.
- Nil-
Digitally signed by MANJUNATH MANJUNATH D R DR Date: 2025.12.10 15:45:59 +0530 (MANJUNATH D.R.) VI Addl. CJM., Bengaluru City.