Karnataka High Court
Manjushri Kabra vs Maya Tradelinks Limited on 24 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:28516-DB
WA No. 257 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
WRIT APPEAL NO. 257 OF 2025 (BDA)
Digitally
signed by BETWEEN:
SRIDEVI S
Location:
High Court 1. MANJUSHRI KABRA
of Karnataka AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
WIFE OF SHRI KIRTI KUMAR KABRA
RESIDING AT NO. A-906
R.N.S. SHANTI NIVAS
YESHWANTHPURA, TUMKUR ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 022.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. JAYNA KOTHARI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. NAVEEN CHANDRA V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MAYA TRADELINKS LIMITED
COMPANY INCORPORATED
UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 2013
VAIBHAV, 4, LEE ROAD
KOLKATA - 700 020.
2. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 020
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI DHANANJAY V. JOSHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
Ms. KAVITHA DAMODARAN, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 &
SRI. AJAY KUMAR M., ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:28516-DB
WA No. 257 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DTD. 15.01.2025 PASSED IN W.P.No.10696 OF 2023 & ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)
1. The appellant has filed the present intra Court appeal impugning the order dated 15.01.2025 [impugned order] passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.10696/23 captioned Maya Tradelinks Ltd. v. Bangalore Development Authority and others. The learned Single Judge has directed Bangalore Development Authority [BDA] which is arrayed as respondent No.2 in the present appeal, to inform the appellant the specific date on which it would execute sale deeds in respect of two sites described as Sites No. 5544 and 5573 forming a part of Sy.No.3, situated at K. Krishnasagara Village, Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout, measuring 360 sq.mtrs., each [hereafter the subject sites]. And, proceed to execute the sale deeds accordingly, within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of -3- NC: 2025:KHC:28516-DB WA No. 257 of 2025 HC-KAR the certified copy of the order. The BDA has also been directed to furnish a compliance report to the Court on or before 24.04.2025.
2. It is not the appellant's case that she does not desire that the sale deeds for the subject sites be executed in her favour or desires to relinquish her entitlement to the allotment of the subject sites. In fact, the appellant does not have any objections to the execution of the sale deeds in her favour. This Court had pointedly asked the learned Senior Counsel Smt. Jayna Kothari appearing for the appellant to take a firm stand if the appellant does not wish to acquire the title of the sites in question and object BDA executing the sale deeds in her favour. The learned Senior Counsel answered in the negative. She submitted that the appellant is not declining to accept conveyance of the sites in her favour. However objects to the locus of respondent No.1 securing an order to that effect from the learned Single Judge.
3. It is clear from the above whilst the appellant has no grievance regarding BDA executing sale deeds of the subject sites in her favour. Her objection is confined to the impugned order to the said effect being passed at the instance of respondent No.1. -4-
NC: 2025:KHC:28516-DB WA No. 257 of 2025 HC-KAR The learned Senior Counsel earnestly contended that respondent No.1 had no locus to file a writ petition for seeking any relief as granted by the learned Single Judge. She contended that the writ petition was not maintainable and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
4. The learned Senior Counsel referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ayaaubkhan NoorKhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra and others: (2013) 4 SCC 465 and on the strength of the said decision contended that the learned Single Judge had erred in entertaining the writ petition filed by respondent No.1 as he had no legal right against BDA. She also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhaven Construction v. Executive Engineer, Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited and another: (2022) 1 SCC 75 and contended that the learned Single Judge erred in not considering that recourse to proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are not available to enforce an arbitral award.
5. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel at length. -5-
NC: 2025:KHC:28516-DB WA No. 257 of 2025 HC-KAR Prefatory Facts
6. The appellant along with her husband and her mother-in-law were owners of certain parcels of land situated in the village of Kommaghatta, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru Urban District, Bengaluru. Some parcels of the land in question were notified for acquisition by the BDA. Additionally, certain lands owned by the appellant along with her mother-in-law were also notified for acquisition by Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board [KIADB].
7. Apparently, the appellant (and her family members) had entered into agreement(s) to sell the lands in question. In the context of those agreement(s), one Sri. Narendra Kumar Mohta had filed a suit being O.S.No.1585/2007 before the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District for seeking specific performance and a decree of sale of certain properties which were owned by the appellant and her mother-in-law. The appellant, her mother-in-law and her husband were arrayed as defendants in the said suit. The parties to the suit entered into a compromise and the suit was decreed in terms thereon. In terms of the settlement, the defendants had agreed to sell the properties, which were subject -6- NC: 2025:KHC:28516-DB WA No. 257 of 2025 HC-KAR matter of the suit, to the plaintiff Sri. Narendra Kumar Mohta for an aggregate sum of ₹ 7.5 Crores. Sri. Narendra Kumar Mohta assigned all his rights and obligations under the decree in favour of the respondent [hereafter MTL]. The same was also informed to the appellant and her family members and they acknowledged the same.
8. The parties [the appellant, her husband and her mother-in- law Smt. Lalitha Devi Kabra] and MTL entered into an agreement of sale dated 17.07.2014 in respect of the land in question. MTL states that in terms of the agreement, it also paid a sum ₹ 2.25 crores to persons mentioned in clause 6.1 of the sale agreement.
9. The appellant's mother-in-law Smt. Lalitha Devi Kabra, expired on 11.12.2015. In the meantime, BDA also completed the acquisition proceedings in regard to certain properties and declared that compensation would be payable to affected landowners in the form of developed sites. Thereafter, the appellant and her husband entered into a Supplemental Sale Agreement dated 24.11.2017 with MTL and agreed to sell certain sites to MTL on the terms and conditions as set out in the said agreement. -7-
NC: 2025:KHC:28516-DB WA No. 257 of 2025 HC-KAR
10. In July 2019, BDA issued allotment letters in respect of twenty one number of sites in favour of the appellant. The said allotments were made by way of compensation for acquisition of the lands in question. Thereafter, BDA executed sale deeds in favour of the appellant in respect of nineteen sites. The execution of the sale deeds in respect of the subject sites are pending.
11. It is MTL's case that it called upon the appellant to specifically perform her obligation and convey the nineteen sites in its favour. However, the appellant declined to do so. However, according to the appellant she was ready and willing to perform the obligations under the agreement(s) but MTL was not ready and willing to do so at the material time.
12. In view of the aforesaid dispute, MTL invoked the arbitration agreement and sought reference of the dispute to Arbitration. It filed a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration Conciliation Act [A&C Act] being CMP No. 152 of 2021 in this Court. This Court appointed a sole arbitrator and constituted the Arbitral Tribunal for adjudication of the disputes that had arisen between MTL on one part and appellant and her husband on the other part, in relation to -8- NC: 2025:KHC:28516-DB WA No. 257 of 2025 HC-KAR and in connection with the Supplemental Sale Agreement dated 24.11.2017.
13. The arbitral proceedings culminated in an arbitral award dated 10.10.2022 [the Award] in favour of MTL. The Arbitral Tribunal, inter alia directed the appellant and her husband to execute the sale deeds in respect of nineteen sites that were allotted by BDA and in respect of which BDA had executed sale deeds in favour of the appellant. The appellant and her husband were also directed to register sale deeds in respect of the subject sites [Site Nos. 5544 and 5573, Kommaghatta Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru Urban District, Bengaluru], which were described under Items Nos. 20 and 21 in Schedule 'B' to the Statement of Claims. The dispositive part of the Award is set out below:
"Award The claims put forth by Claimant in SOC are allowed with cost in the following terms:
(i) It is declared that the termination of the Agreements dated 17.07.2014 and 24.11.2017 (Exs.P2 and P3) by Respondents on 30.01.2021 through notice-Ex. P7 is untenable, null and void;
(ii) Respondents are directed to execute the sale deeds and get them registered in favour of -9- NC: 2025:KHC:28516-DB WA No. 257 of 2025 HC-KAR Claimant in respect of 19 Awarded Sites which are described at item Nos.1 to 19 in Schedule B of SOC, for which the sale deeds have already been executed by BDA, within a period of 3 months from the date of this Award;
(iii) Respondents are directed to execute and register the sale deeds in favour of Claimant in respect of two awarded sites viz., site bearing Nos.5544 and 5573 carved out in Sy. No.3 in Krishnasagara Village, each measuring 360 sq. meters and described at item Nos.20 and 21 of schedule-B to SOC, within a period of two months from the date of BDA executing the sale deeds in respect of these two sites in favour of Respondent No.2;
(iv) Respondents shall receive ₹1.50 Crores kept in deposit in Karnataka Bank, City Civil Court Branch, Bangalore, along with accrued interest therein, towards the balance amount payable for the sale of all the 21 awarded sites, after the execution of sale deeds in respect of 19 Awarded Sites described at Item Nos. 1 to 19 of Schedule B to SOC in favour of Claimant within a period of 3 months from the date of this Award as stipulated at (ii) above and after execution of sale deeds in favour of Claimant in respect of the remaining two Awarded Sites within the time as stipulated at (iii) above.
(v) In the event of Respondents' failure to execute the sale deeds in respect of the properties described in schedule-B to SOC, within the periods as stipulated at (ii) & (iii) above, Claimant is at liberty to enforce this Award in accordance with Section 36 of the Act before the jurisdictional Court.
(vi) Claimant is entitled to recover from Respondents ₹6,72,000/- towards costs of
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:28516-DB WA No. 257 of 2025 HC-KAR this Arbitral Proceedings. Respondents shall pay to Claimant the said costs within a period of 3 months from the date of this Award, failing which the amount shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of this Award till the date of payment.
(vii) The order dt.31-05 2021 passed by the Court of LXXXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangaluru (CCH.83) in Com.A.A. No.4 of 2021 restraining the Respondents from alienating or creating third party rights in respect of Awarded Sites till the disposal of this Arbitral proceedings, is ordered to be continued till all the terms of this Award are fully satisfied.
(viii) The Counter Claims put forth by Respondents are dismissed with costs.
(ix) Respondents shall bear their costs incurred by them in this Arbitral Proceedings.
(x) The claimant is directed to pay requisite stamp duty on the award as per the provisions of Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957. With the pronouncement and publication of the Award, this arbitral proceeding stands terminated as per Section 32(1) of the Act. This award is signed and issued in 3 originals, one for the record of Arbitration & Conciliation Centre and rests to each of the parties.
(This award was typed by me on my personal laptop, at my Home Office, then edited and corrected and then signed in the Arbitration & Conciliation Centre on this day i.e., 10th October 2022)."
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:28516-DB WA No. 257 of 2025 HC-KAR
14. The appellant preferred an application under Section 34 of the A&C Act [Comp A.P.No.26/2023] to set aside the Award, before the learned Commercial Court. However, the same was dismissed in terms of judgment dated 03.03.2025. The appellant has appealed the said judgment before this Court under Section 37(1)(c) of the A&C Act [COMP Appeal No.160/2025]. The said appeal is stated to be pending but no interim orders have been passed.
15. MTL has also filed the proceedings under Section 36 of the A&C Act for enforcement of the Award.
16. In the meantime, MTL made enquiries with BDA regarding execution of the sale deeds in respect to the subject sites. The appellant had taken no steps to get the sale deeds in respect of the two sites in question executed in her favour. Apprehending protracted inaction on the part of BDA and the consequent delay in conveyance of the two sites in question in favour of the appellant, and in turn in its favour, MTL filed the writ petition praying that the BDA be directed to execute sale deeds in respect of the sites in question.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:28516-DB WA No. 257 of 2025 HC-KAR
17. As stated above, learned Single Judge allowed the appeal and directed the BDA to execute the sale deeds in favour of the appellant.
Reasons and Conclusions
18. It is clear from the facts obtaining in the present case that the appellant can have no legitimate grievance against the impugned order. There is no dispute that in terms of the allotment letters issued to the appellant, BDA is required to execute conveyance in respect of the subject sites in her favour. The appellant may dispute her obligation to convey the subject sites to MTL. But, she can have no grievance regarding conveyance of the subject sites in her favour.
19. As noted above, the appellant has not prevailed in the arbitration proceedings and MTL's claim has been adjudicated in its favour and against the appellant by the Arbitral Tribunal in terms of the Award. The appellant has also not prevailed in her challenge to the said award under Section 34 of the A&C Act.
20. It is clear that the objective of the appellant is to obstruct issuance of directions to BDA to execute sale deeds in respect of
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:28516-DB WA No. 257 of 2025 HC-KAR the subject sites and delay the proceedings by enforcement of the arbitral award. The present appeal is yet another step by the appellant towards the said objective.
21. The learned Single Judge was persuaded to issue a direction to the BDA to execute the sale deed in favour of the appellant, as the said order did not create any right in favour of the MTL. This is apparent from the following extract of the impugned order:
"8. Learned Senior counsel for the respondent No.2 vehemently oppose such a request as the petitioner is not entitled as yet for such a direction.
9. There is an award in favour of the petitioner as noted above and the same is also subject matter of appeal pending consideration. The direction sought for by the petitioner against respondent No.1-BDA is only to execute the deeds of sale in respect of the aforesaid two sites in favour of respondent No.2, which even executed would not create any right, title and interest in favour of the petitioner in any manner whatsoever until disposal of the appeal which is stated to have been pending consideration.
10. In view of the aforesaid fact situation of the matter, and in view of submission made by learned counsel for respondent No.1-BDA, respondent No.1-BDA is hereby directed to issue an intimation to respondent No.2 specifying the date on which it would execute the deeds of sale in her favour and shall execute the deeds of sale accordingly. Such exercise shall be done within an outer limit of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and compliance report in this regard be submitted to this Court on or before 24.02.2025.
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:28516-DB WA No. 257 of 2025 HC-KAR
11. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the rights of the parties. It is only in furtherance to the allotment letters issued by respondent-BDA the aforesaid direction is issued.
With the above observation writ petition is disposed of".
22. As observed by the Constitution bench of the Supreme Court in Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M.V. Dabholkar: (1975) 2 SCC 702:
"a person will be held to be aggrieved by a decision if that decision is materially adverse to him. Normally, one is required to establish that one has been denied or deprived of something to which one is legally entitled in order to make one "a person aggrieved".
Again a person is aggrieved if a legal burden is imposed on him."
23. In our view the present appeal is liable to be dismissed on the short ground that the appellant has no legitimate grievance in respect of the impugned order.
24. The contention of the appellant that MTL did not have a locus to file the writ petition is also unpersuasive. The BDA was not a party to the Arbitral proceedings. It is also clear that it is necessary for the appellant to secure the execution of sale deeds by BDA in her favour in order for MTL to enforce the relief as secured before the Arbitration. Although the MTL does not have any contractual
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:28516-DB WA No. 257 of 2025 HC-KAR arrangement with BDA and is not the allottee under the allotment letters issued by BDA, we are unable to accept that MTL has no vestige of interest in BDA performing its obligation to convey the sites in question in favour of the appellant. Undeniably, MTL has interest in ensuring that the title to subject sites are conveyed by BDA. It is relevant to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Asst. G.M., Central Bank of India v. Commr., Municipal Corpn. for the City of Ahmedabad: (1995) 4 SCC 696, whereby the Court held that a tenant is entitled to impugn increase in property tax, although the levy was on the landlord. The Court reasoned that the burden of such increase may be passed by the landlord to the tenant. And, in the given facts, there was an agreement between the landlord and the tenant in terms of which the tenant had the obligation to pay the property tax.
25. It is equally relevant to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in case of I.D.L Chemicals v. Union of India:(1996) 5 SCC
373. The appellant in that case was engaged in manufacture of explosives and had purchased ammonium nitrate 80% melt from SAIL for the said purpose. Ammonium nitrate was classified as a fertilizer and enjoyed exemption of excise duty. Subsequently, the
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:28516-DB WA No. 257 of 2025 HC-KAR Central Board of Customs and Excise reclassified ammonium nitrate 80% melt and thus the exemption from excise was not available. Consequently a demand of excise was raised on SAIL, which in turn demanded the amount from the appellant. The appellant challenged the reclassification and withdrawal of exemption by filing a writ petition, which was dismissed. The High Court did not entertain the petition and relegated the appellant to file a suit. The Supreme Court faulted the decision of the High Court and held that the appellant suffered civil consequences and thus was entitled to maintain the writ petition.
26. The decision in the case of Ayaaubkhan NoorKhan Pathan, reliance placed by the petitioner is misplaced in the said case. The writ petitioner is arrayed as respondent No.5 before the Supreme Court and sought to challenge the caste certificate issued in favour of the appellant in that case certifying that he belongs to Schedule Tribe. The appellant was granted employment and was appointed as a Senior Clerk in Municipal Corporation of Aurangabad. Prior to appointment, the appellant's caste certificate had been duly verified. Respondent No. 5 - [the complainant] had filed a complaint after a lapse of 9 years challenging the validity of
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:28516-DB WA No. 257 of 2025 HC-KAR the caste certificate. The Scrutiny Committee examined the complaint and rejected it. Thereafter, respondent No. 5 filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court impugning the decision of the Scrutiny Committee to reject his complaint. The Bombay High Court disposed of the petition without examining the merits of the case. However, directed the Scrutiny Committee to decide afresh after hearing all concerned parties. In the aforesaid context the Supreme Court faulted the locus of respondent No. 5 [the complainant], to pursue the challenge to the appellant's caste certificate. The Supreme Court had observed that "it was the settled legal proposition i.e., a stranger cannot be permitted to meddle in any proceedings". We also consider apposite to refer to paragraph 14 of the said decision which is set out below.
"14. This Court has consistently cautioned the Courts against entertaining public interest litigation filed by unscrupulous persons as such meddlers do not hesitate to abuse the process of Court. The right of effective access to justice, which has emerged with the new social rights regime, must be used to serve basic human rights, which purport to guarantee legal rights and, therefore, a workable remedy within the framework of the judicial system must be provided. Whenever any public interest is invoked, the Court must examine the case to ensure that there is in fact, genuine public interest involved. The Court must maintain strict vigilance to ensure that there is no abuse of the process of Court and that, "ordinarily meddlesome
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:28516-DB WA No. 257 of 2025 HC-KAR bystanders are not granted a visa". Many societal pollutants create new problems of non- redressed grievances, and the Court should make an earnest endeavour to take up those cases, where the subjective purpose of the lis justifies the need for it. (Vide P.S.R. Sadhanantham v. Arimachalam : (1980) 3 SCC 141, Dalip Singh v. State of U.P.: (2010) 2 SCC 114, State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal : (2010) 3 SCC 402 and Amar Singh v. Union of India: (2011) 7 SCC
69)."
27. Clearly, in the facts of the said case, the complainant had no locus to pursue the challenge to the caste certificate issued to the appellant. It had not suffered any legal injury and had no personal interest in the subject matter. In the present case, MTL is rightly interested in ensuring that BDA performs its obligation and executes the conveyance deed of the subject property in favour of the appellant. Smt. Jayna Kothari's contention that the BDA must have a direct obligation towards MTL for maintaining the writ petition is unsustainable.
28. The reliance placed by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant in the case of Bhaven Constructions (supra) is also misplaced. In that case [Bhaven Construction] appointed an arbitrator. The respondent [Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited] had challenged the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal by filing an application under Section 16 of the A&C Act,
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:28516-DB WA No. 257 of 2025 HC-KAR which came to be rejected by the Arbitral Tribunal. Respondent No. 1 preferred to file a writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat, which was rejected. The High Court held that the writ petition interdicting the arbitral proceedings, was not maintainable and it was necessary for the petitioner to wait till the arbitral award is passed by the Arbitral Tribunal to challenge the same under Section 34 of the A&C Act. However, the Division Bench of the Court set aside the said order on an appeal preferred by the respondent against the decision of the learned Single Judge. The appellant (Bhaven Constructions) appealed the said decision of the Division Bench before the Supreme Court. In the aforesaid context, the Supreme Court had referred to Section 5 of the A&C Act and faulted the Division Bench in interfering with the arbitral process. The Supreme Court observed that:
"If the Courts are allowed to interfere with the arbitral process beyond the ambit of the enactment, then the efficiency of the process will be dismissed".
29. According to Smt. Jayna Kothari, the writ petition filed by MTL amounts to interfering with the arbitral process. In our view
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:28516-DB WA No. 257 of 2025 HC-KAR the said contention is insubstantial. The writ petition filed by the MTL does not in any manner interfere with the arbitral process. The Arbitral Tribunal has delivered the Award. The appellant's application under Section 34 of the A&C Act to set aside the award has been rejected. The appellant has filed an appeal under Section 37(1)(c) of the A&C Act, which is pending. And MTL has initiated proceedings under Section 36 of the A&C Act to enforce the Award. The said proceedings continue and are not prejudiced in any manner. Neither the petition preferred by MTL nor the impugned order interferes in any manner with the arbitral process. The impugned order does not affect the appellant adversely in any manner. In the event the appellant prevails in its appeal under Section 37(1)(c) of the A&C Act and the Award is set aside, the appellant would not be required to convey the sites in question in favour of MTL. The impugned judgment does not adversely affect the appellant's rights in any manner.
30. The impugned order is not materially adverse to the appellant. The appellant has not been denied or deprived of anything that she is legally entitled to. No legal burden is imposed on her. It is apparent that the entire purpose of resisting the petition
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:28516-DB WA No. 257 of 2025 HC-KAR and filing the present appeal is an attempt to unfairly prejudice MTL by delaying the inevitable consequences of not prevailing in the arbitration, in the event the appellant fails in its appeal against the decision of the learned Commercial Court rejecting the appellant's application to set aside the Award.
31. In our view, the present appeal is an unjustified imposition on judicial time.
32. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed with costs quantified at ₹ 20,000/-. The appellant shall deposit the costs with the Karnataka State High Court Legal Services Committee within a period of two weeks from date.
Sd/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
(C M JOSHI) JUDGE SD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40