Gujarat High Court
Bharat Navnitlal Shah vs Punjab National Bank on 14 September, 2021
Author: Bhargav D. Karia
Bench: Bhargav D. Karia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11330 of 2021
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR VACATING INTERIM RELIEF) NO. 1 of 2021
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11330 of 2021
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
================================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
================================================================
BHARAT NAVNITLAL SHAH
Versus
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK
================================================================
Appearance:
MR AS PANESAR(5390) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
MR. VN. SEVAK(3791) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
Date : 14/09/2021
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard learned advocate Mr.A.S.Panesar for the petitioners/applicants and learned advocate Mr.V.N.Sevak for the respondent.
Page 1 of 16 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 09 06:49:27 IST 2021Order in Special Civil Application :
1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr.Sevak waives service of notice of rule for the respondent.
2. Having regard to the controversy in narrow compass, with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for hearing.
3. By this petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:
"(A) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other writ for directing the Respondent to implement the Restructuring Package already granted by the Respondent to the Petitioner No.1 vide Letter dated 30/03/2021 (Annexure-C) and to quash and set aside entire arbitrary and illegal measures initiated by the Respondent under the Securitisation Act.
(B) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this Petition be further pleased to direct the Respondent not to take any further action under the Securitisation Act and to maintain Status Quo in the matter against the Petitioners and the Properties in question.
(C) Be pleased to grant ex-parte ad-interim reliefs in terms of Para 19-B as stated supra.
(D) To grant any other and further appropriate and just relief(s) as may be deemed necessary & fit on the facts and circumstances of case (E) The cost of this petition may be awarded."
4. The brief facts which are necessary to resolve the controversy raised in this petition are as under:
4.1. The petitioner No.1 was having business operations and dealings with the respondent-Bank. The respondent-Bank sanctioned and granted financial Page 2 of 16 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 09 06:49:27 IST 2021 assistance from time to time which was enhanced lastly on 25th July, 2019 and thereafter on 21st September, 2020. The petitioner No.1 is registered as Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise ('MSME') under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise Development Act, 2006 (for short 'the MSME Act').
4.2. It is the case of the petitioners that due to complete lock down during the Covid-19 pandemic in the year 2020, the business of the petitioner No.1 with regard to the feed supplement business for poultry etc. suffered adversely. The petitioner No.1 therefore approached the respondent-Bank for restructuring of the financial assistance as per the directives dated 6th August, 2020 for restructuring of financial assistance to MSME sector issued by the Reserved Bank of India.
4.3. The respondent-Bank after considering the application made by the petitioner No.1 sanctioned the restructuring proposal on 30th March, 2021. It appears that though the sanctioned letter was issued on 30th March, 2021, as one of the guaranters could not execute the Bank guaranty deed on 31st March, 2021, the respondent-Bank uniletraly cancelled the sanctioned letter dated 30th March, 2021 and thereafter declared the account of the the petitioner No.1 in the category of Nonperforming Asset (for short 'NPA').
4.4. The respondent-Bank thereafter issued a notice dated 16th April, 2021 under Section 13(2) of the Page 3 of 16 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 09 06:49:27 IST 2021 Securitisation and Reconstruction of Finanical Assets and Enforcement of Security Interset Act, 2002 Act (for short 'the SARFAESI Act').
4.5. It is the case of the petitioners that though the respondent-Bank issued the sanctioned letter for restructuring on 30th March, 2021 as per the notice issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, the account was classified as NPA account as on 27 th February, 2021.
4.6. The petitioners by Email dated 24th May, 2021 during the second wave of Covid-19 requested the respondent-Bank to reconsider the declaration of the account of the petitioners as NAP account.
4.7. It appears that various letters were sent by the petitioners to the respondent-Bank to reconsider declaration of NPA status of the petitioner No.1. The respondent-Bank thereafter by letter dated 06.07.2021 informed the petitioners that the restructuring proposal could not be acceded to due to non-
compliance of terms and conditions as per the sanction letter of restructuring.
4.8. The petitioners thereafter filed this petition with aforesaid prayers. This Court (Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Nikhil Kariel) passed the following order on 10.08.2021 :
"Heard learned Advocate Shri A. S Panesar on behalf of the petitioner.
2. Learned Advocate Shri Panesar draws the attention of this Court to a document dated 30.03.2021 whereby the restructuring proposal of the petitioner had been approved by the Bank and Page 4 of 16 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 09 06:49:27 IST 2021 whereas learned Advocate further draws the attention of this Court, to a e-mail by the respondent Bank dated 31.03.2021 at 1:39 pm, whereby the Bank had asked the petitioner to provide fresh guarantee of one Shri Amit Trivedi who had stood as part guarantee for the loan in question. At this stage it is pertinent to mention that Shri Trivedi is also the petitioner before this Court in the present petition. Learned Advocate further draws the attention of this Court to the facilities as mentioned in the restructuring policy more particularly under the title of guarantee where it is clearly mentioned that the guarantee by Shri Amit Trivedi has been complied with on 25.07.2019. In this regard, it is submitted by learned Advocate Shri Panesar that the Bank was restructuring the existing credit facilities with regard to the present petitioner and it was not granting a fresh loan for which a fresh guarantee would be required. It is submitted by learned Advocate Shri Panesar that in any case if reasonable time would have been granted, Shri Trivedi was ready and willing to give his guarantee and further more the present petitioners had also proposed the name of one Shri Rakesh Jawar who also had sufficient means as a guarantee for the entire/ part restructuring facility is concerned. Learned Advocate Shri Panesar under such circumstances raises a grievance, that when the bank had restructured the existing credit facility of the present petitioner, in the month of March 2021 and when the issue was only with regard to the part guarantee of Shri Amit Trivedi which was also ready to be complied with by the petitioner. The Bank ought not to have acted hastily and taken out the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act.
2.1 Learned Advocate in response to a pertinent query by this Court has submitted that since the issue in question is with regard to the restructuring of the existing credit facility of the petitioner, the issue would not be one which could be adjudicated by the learned DRT under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act and hence, he submits that this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 would be the only available forum where the petitoner would be able to agitate his grievance in this regard.
2.3 Learned Advocate Shri Panesar further submits that while he is ready and willing to comply with all the requirements of the respondent Bank, he is also as much interested in ensuring that his commercial unit, is not brought to a premature end on account of the SARFAESI proceedings being initiated in which regards he submits that he would be ready and willing to even repay the entire additional facility which had been availed from the bank within a reasonable period of time and to show his bonafide the applicant is ready and willing to deposit an amount of Rs 25 lakhs with the respondent Bank within a period of two weeks from today.
3. Having regard to the submissions made by learned Advocate Shri Panesar issue Notice returnable on 06.09.2021.
4. The applicant to deposit an amount of Rs 25 lakhs under directions of this Court with the respondent Bank within a Page 5 of 16 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 09 06:49:27 IST 2021 period of two weeks from today.
5. Interim relief in terms of para 19(B) is granted till then.
6. Direct service is permitted today."
5.1. Learned advocate Mr.Panesar submitted that the respondent-Bank could not have interpreted the circular of the Reserved Bank of India by not considering the sanction letter as implementation of restructuring of the account of the petitioners by March 31, 2021. It was submitted that the petitioners have complied with all the formalities pursuant to the sanction letter except the guarantee deed of one Mr.Amit Trivedi who had already issued a bank guarantee in the year 2019 at the time of earlier sanction of financial assistance by the respondent- Bank.
5.2. It was further submitted that the respondent- Bank by undue haste issued the notice dated 16.04.2021 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act instead of permitting the petitioners to replace the guarantee with some other person in place of Mr.Amit Trivedi. It was pointed out that the petitioners have shown their willingness to submit the bank guarantee for some other person namely Mr.Rakesh Jawar. It was also pointed out that Mr.Amit Trivedi was also ready and willing to execute the guarantee deed as required by the respondent-Bank. Learned advocate Mr.Panesar therefore submitted that the respondent Bank could not have cancelled the restructuring sanctioned letter dated 30th March, 2021 for restructuring of Loan account of the petitioner No.1.
Page 6 of 16 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 09 06:49:27 IST 20215.3. It was pointed out that if the sanction letter dated 30th March, 2021 is restored then the account of the petitioner No.1 would be regularized as per the restructuring sanctioned letter dated 30th March, 2021. It was submitted that the petitioner No.1 has deposited Rs.10 Lakhs on 30th March, 2021 and Rs.7.5 Lakhs on 31st March, 2021 and has further deposited Rs.25 Lakhs on 24th August, 2021 in compliance of the order dated 10.08.2021 passed by this Court. It was submitted that if the sanction letter is restored, the petitioners shall abide by the terms and conditions of the sanction letter without any default.
6.0. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr.Sevak submitted that the petitioners were aware about the fact that all the documents were to be submitted before 31st March, 2021 which was the last date for implementing of restructuring scheme for MSME as per the RBI circular dated 6th August, 2020.
6.1. Learned advocate Mr.Sevak further submitted that the petitioner waited for sufficient long time though the circular was in operation for one year and did not apply till January, 2021 for restructuring and after issuing the sanctioned letter by respondent- Bank, the petitioners have not complied with the terms and conditions by submitting the documents before 31st March, 2021. It was therefore submitted that in such circumstances, there was no option for the respondent-Bank but to cancel the sanctioned Page 7 of 16 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 09 06:49:27 IST 2021 letter of restructuring.
6.2. Learned advocate Mr.Sevak further submitted that the account of the petitioners became irregular and hence, it was classified as NPA as per the guidelines of Reserved Bank of India due to default in repayment of dues and hence, such account cannot now be regularized once it is declared NPA by restoring the sanction letter.
6.3. Learned advocate Mr.Sevak further relied upon the following averments made in the affidavit-in- reply filed on behalf of the respondent-Bank :
"06. The respondent draws the attention of the Hon'ble Court for the few dates DATE PARTICULARS 27/02/2021 Account became Non Performing Asset and PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK recall the facilities of Rs.6,68,05,174=05 (Rupees Six Crore Sixty Eight Lacs Five Thousand One Hundred Seventy Four Rupees and Five Paisa) 30/03/2021 Sanction of Restructuring Proposal accepted by the Petitioner No. 1 with all terms and conditions 31/03/2021 Respondent intimated the Petitioner No.1 for the awaited guarantee of Amit Trivedi (Petitioner No.4) & intimated the time limit of Restructuring Proposal as per Government Guidelines. 06/07/2021 Respondent intimated the Petitioner No 4 about not compliance of the Terms and Conditions of the Sanction letter dated 30/03/2021 and hence the restructuring could not be acceded. Respondent proceed under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security interest Act, 2002. 12/07/2021 Respondent put the properties of the Petitioners for Public Auction and against which Petitioner preferred this Petition while challenging the decision of non provided the restructuring to the Petitioners "07. Now I deal with the Petition Paragraph-wise with a view to bring the correct and true facts to the notice of this Hon'ble Court.Page 8 of 16 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 09 06:49:27 IST 2021
08. With reference to averments averred in the Paragraph No.1, I submit that the Petitioners have given the introduction of the Petitioner No. 1 and the respondent.
09. With reference to averments averred in the Paragraph No. 2, I submit that the averments averred in the Paragraph are matter of record.
10. With reference to averments averred in the Paragraph No. 3 & 4, I submit that the Petitioners were failed in complying the accepted terms and conditions of the Sanction of Restructuring Proposal dated 30/03/2021. I submit that the Petitioners were failed to provide the guarantee of the concern person (AMIT RAVINDRAKUMAR TRIVEDI -- PETITIONER NO. 4) and delaying the process. In view of the said facts the Petitioners were not bona-fide at their part and hence the time period of the Sanctioned Restructuring Proposal dated 30/03/2021 was over as per the circular/notification of the RBI.
11. With reference to averments averred in the Paragraph No. 5, I submit that the account of the Petitioner No. 1 became Non Performing Asset as per the directives of the Reserve Bank of India and hence the respondent has initiated the proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
12. With reference to averments averred in the Paragraph No. 6, I submit that the averments averred in the Paragraph are matter of record.
13. With reference to averments averred in the Paragraph No. 7, I submit that the misconceived facts are averred in the Paragraph and in the letter dated 03/06/2021 about receiving of the letter dated 30/06/2021. I submit that the respondent by the email dated 31/03/2021 intimated to the Petitioners about the time limit of the Sanctioned Restructuring Proposal and further by the Letter dated 06/07/2021 also again intimated.
14. With reference to averments averred in the Paragraph No. 8, I submit that the misconceived facts are averred in the Paragraph about the objections/representation raised by the Petitioner No. 1 by the Letter dated 18/06/2021. I submit that STATUTORY ALTERNATIVE REMEDY is available to the Petitioner No. 1 if the respondent has not complied the mandatory provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.
15. With reference to averments averred in the Paragraph no. 9, I submit that the Petitioners were aware about the facts since 31/03/2021 when the respondent has email to the Petitioner No. 1 and intimated about the time limit of the Sanctioned Restructuring Proposal, Hence the Petitioner No. 1 would not shock when the respondent again intimated that the Petitioners have not complied the accepted Terms and Conditions of the Sanctioned Restructuring Proposal dated 30/03/2021. I submit that the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 are independent proceedings as the Petitioners were failed in compliance of the accepted Terms and Conditions of the Sanctioned Restructuring Proposal dated 30/03/2021.
16. With reference to averments averred in the Paragraph Nos. 10 & 11, I submit that STATUTORY ALTERNATIVE REMEDY is available to the Petitioner No. 1 if the respondent has not complied the mandatory provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.
17. With reference to averments averred in the Paragraph No. 12, I submit that the Petitioner No. 1 not ready to comply the Sanctioned Restructuring Proposel dated 30/03/2021 and delaying the process. I submit that time period of Sanctioned Restructuring Proposal dated 30/03/2021 was already over as per the circular/notification of the RBI."Page 9 of 16 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 09 06:49:27 IST 2021
6.4. Relying upon the aforesaid averments it was submitted that the petitioners have an alternative efficacious remedy to file an application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal if the petitioners are aggrieved by the notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. It was also pointed out that in view of the notice issued under Section 13(2) of the SAEFAESI Act, the sanction letter issued by the Bank on 30 th March, 2021 cannot be restored as it would amount to cancellation of the notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act by the respondent-Bank.
6.5. It was also pointed out that the petitioners have prayed for the quashing and setting aside the notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act and it is an ingenuine way on part of the petitioners to file this petition so as to circumvent the notice issued by the respondent-Bank under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act.
6.6. Learned advocate Mr.Sevak relying upon the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh reported in AIR 2013 Himachal Pradesh 63 in case of Shri Amar Nath v. ICICI Bank Ltd. & Ors submitted that in similar facts, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissed the Writ Petition by holding that the High Court cannot grant the prayer compelling the respondent-Bank to settle the matter and make rescheduling of the outstanding loan amount or fix installments or grant time for payment of dues.
Page 10 of 16 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 09 06:49:27 IST 20216.7. Learned advocate Mr.Sevak relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Joshi Technologies International Inc. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors reported in (2015) 7 SCC 728 submitted that the Writ Petition is not maintainable to avoid contractual obligation. Occurance of commerical difficulty, inconvenience or hardship in performance of the conditions agreed to in the contract can provide no justification in not complying with the terms of contract which the parties had accepted with open eyes. It cannot ever be that a licensee can work out the license if he finds it profitable to do so and he can challenge the conditions under which he agreed to take the license, if he finds it commercially inexpendient to conduct his business. It was further pointed out that the Apex Court has held that where there is a breach of contract, the party complaining of such breach may required to file a suit for specific performace of the contract, if contract is capable of being specifically performed. It was further relied upon the said decision to submit that if the contract between private party and the State/instrumentality of the State is under the realm of the private law and there is no element of public law, the normal course for the aggrieved party, is to invoke the remedies provided under ordinary civil law rather than approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
6.8. Learned advocate Mr.Sevak further submitted that the petitioners have with open eyes accpeted all the terms and conditions of the sanction letter dated Page 11 of 16 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 09 06:49:27 IST 2021 30th March, 2021 and therefore, now the petitioners cannot make a complaint for such terms and conditions which are not complied with and if the petitioners have any complaint, the alternative remedy of filing a suit for specific performance of such contract is available as well as the petitioners have also not challenged the notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act before Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the said Act and in view of such circumstances, the petition deserves to be dismissed.
7. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and considering the material on record as well as the provisions of the SARFAECI Act, it appears that the respondent-Bank has issued the sanctioned letter dated 30th March, 2021 permitting the restructuring of the existing facility provided to the petitioner No.1.
8. As per the circular issued by the Reserved Bank of India on 6th August, 2020 which provides for restructuring of advances to MSME sector stipulates that the restructuring of the borrower account is required to be implemented by March 31, 2021. It would therefore be germane to refer to the relevant portion of the said circular which reads as under :
"2. In view of the continued need to support the viable MSME entities on account of the fallout of Covid19 and to align these guidelines with the Resolution Framework for COVID 19 -- related Stress announced for other advances, it has been decided to extend the scheme permitted in terms of the aforesaid circular. Accordingly, existing loans to MSMEs classified as 'standard' may be restructured without a downgrade in the asset classification, subject to the following conditions:Page 12 of 16 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 09 06:49:27 IST 2021
i. The aggregate exposure, including non-fund based facilities, of banks and NBFCs to the borrower does not exceed Rs.25 crore as on March 1, 2020.
ii. The borrower's account was a 'standard asset' as on March 1, 2020.
iii. The restructuring of the borrower account is implemented by March 31, 2021.
iv. The borrowing entity is GST-registered on the date of implementation of the restructuring. However, this condition will not apply to MSMEs that are exempt from GST-registration. This shall be determined on the basis of exemption limit obtaining as on March 1, 2020.
v. Asset classification of borrowers classified as standard may be retained as such, whereas the accounts which may have slipped into NPA category between March 2, 2020 and date of implementation may be upgraded as 'standard asset', as on the date of implementation. of the restructuring plan. The asset Classification benefit will be available only if the restructuring is done as per provisions of this circular.
vi. As hitherto, for accounts restructured under these guidelines, banks shall maintain additional provision of 5% over and above the provision already held by them."
9. On perusal of the above stipulation it is clear that the respondent-Bank has issued the sanctioned leter on 30th March, 2021 which is prior to the last date i.e. March 31, 2021. The interpritation of the respondent-Bank therefore is not legal and tenable by interpriting the circular that the restructuring of the borrower account is to be implemented by March 31, 2021 means all the formalities are required to be completed by March 31, 2021. Once respondent-Bank has issued the sanction letter of March 30, 2021, it would mean that the restructuring of the borrower acount is implemented subject to the fulfilment of the terms and conditions of the sanction letter.
10. Moreover, in the facts of the case, the respondnet-Bank has never informed the petitioners about the cancellation of the sanction letter dated 30th March, 2021 except by issuing the Email dated 31st March, 2021 calling upon the petitioners to submit the guarantee deed of Mr.Amit Trivedi. The Page 13 of 16 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 09 06:49:27 IST 2021 petitioners were lightly taken by a shock when the petitioners received the notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAECI Act dated 16th April, 2021 issued by the Bank considering the account of the petitioner No.1 as NPA account with effect from 27th February, 2021. The respondent-Bank never replied to any of the letters issued by the petitioner till 6th July, 2021. The respondent-Bank by letter dated 6th July, 2021 has also given a vague reason and it would therefore be necessary to reproduce the said letter dated 6th July, 2021 which reads as under :
"M/S SHREEJI SALES CORPORATION (Prop. Sh. Bharat Shah) Date: 06-07-2021 (Res) 16, Anand Sagar Apartment, Urmi Society, BPC Road, Vadodara-390007 Ref: Your letter dated 11-06-2021.
Reg: Restructuring Proposal - M/S SHREEJI SALES CORPORATION Dear Sir, Regarding the captioned matter we, wish to inform you that, in pursuance to the reply received from MCC-Vadedara (also intimated to you vide letter Ref: No MCC/8099/2021-22/8 Dated 29-05-2021) restructuring proposal of M/S. Shree Ji sales Corporation was considered under One -Time Restructuring of MSME Advances scheme. The same could not be acceded to due to Non-Compliance of terms and condition as per sanction letter of restructuring.
Submitted for your necessary information please. "
11. It is apparent from the contents of the letter dated 06.07.2021, the respondent-Bank has not stated as to which of the terms and conditions as per the sanction letter of the restructuring is not fulfilled by the petitioners.
Page 14 of 16 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 09 06:49:27 IST 202112. In view of the above facts and taking into consideration the fact about the issuance of the sanction letter dated 30th March, 2021 as well as considering the RBI circular dated 6th August, 2020, it cannot be said that the restructuring of the borrower account is not implemented by March 31, 2021.
13. With regard to the decision relied upon in case of Shri Amar Nath v. ICICI Bank (Supra) , the same would not be applicable in the facts of the case as in the said case before the Himachal Pradesh High Court, the writ applicant had prayed for issuance of direction to the Bank for making the reschedulement of the outstanding loans, whereas, in the facts of the case, there was already a sanction letter issued by the Bank on 30th March, 2021 for restructuring of the loan pursuant to the RBI circular dated 6th August, 2020. Similarlary, the decision relied upon in the case of Joshi Technologies International Inc. Vs. Union of India (Supra) is also not applicable in the facts of the case as there is no breach of the contract committed by the petitioners inasmuch as it is the respondent-Bank who has misinterpreted the RBI circular dated 6th August, 2021 to deny the benefit of sanction letter dated 30th March, 2021 for restructuring of the loan account of the petitioners and with undue haste the respondent-Bank issued notice dated 16th August, 2021 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act within two weeks.
Page 15 of 16 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 09 06:49:27 IST 202114. In view of the foregoing reasons, the petition deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The impugned action of respondent-Bank to cancel the sanction letter dated 30th March, 2021 as well as the letter dated 6th July, 2021 informing the petitioners about such cancellation are hereby quashed and set aside. The sanction letter dated 30th March, 2021 is held to be in operation. The petitioners and the respondent-Bank are directed to implement the same at the earliest and all the consequences will be followed pursuant to the restoration of the sanction letter dated 30th March, 2021. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
Order in Civil Application :
In view of the order passed in the main matter i.e. Special Civil Application No.11330 of 2021, the Civil Application stands disposed of.
(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J) PALAK Page 16 of 16 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 09 06:49:27 IST 2021