SOMNATH CHAKRABORTY Vs APPOLLO GLENEAGLES HOSP. LTD .
Bench: FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA,A.K. SIKRI
Case number: C.A. No.-006683-006684 / 2014
Diary number: 6804 / 2010
Advocates: RANJAN MUKHERJEE Vs
K J JOHN AND CO
Page 1
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS…83-6684 OF 2014 (@ SLP (C) Nos. 8854-8855 of 2010)
Somnath Chakraborty and Anr. … Appellants
VERSUS
Appollo Gleneagles Hospitals Ltd. & Ors. … Respondents
O R D E R
Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals are directed against a common
judgment of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court
passed in F.M.A. No.2393 of 2005 and F.M.A. No.2411 of 2005
dated 08.12.2009.
3. To briefly narrate the facts, the appeals pertain to a
piece of land which is as on date in the possession of the first
Respondent Appollo Gleneagles Hospitals Ltd. (hereinafter
called “Appollo Hospitals”), which was originally owned by one
Narayan Chandra Dutta. He stated to have sold the said lands
CA Nos……of 2014 @ SLP (C) Nos.8854-55/2010 1 of 22
Page 2
to one Tilak Sundari Debi. Her title was confirmed after
prolonged litigation in the judgment of the High Court of
Calcutta dated 25.07.1986 in Second Appeal No. 384 of 1967.
When the said litigation was pending, the heirs of late Tilak
Sunderi Debi sold the said lands to the present Appellants who
became the joint owners of the land consisting of 11 Katha 10
chitaks and 25 square feets, in all 11.659 cottah of land.
4. Be that as it may, the Urban Land (Ceiling &
Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”)
was brought into effect w.e.f. 17.02.1976. The civil litigation
preferred by late Tilak Sundari Debi was resisted by one Orient
Beverages Ltd. also known as Orient Properties Ltd. claiming
to have acquired title in respect of the said lands. At the time
when proceedings under the Act were initiated, the said Orient
Properties Ltd., pursuant to the notices issued under the said
Act agreed to surrender the lands which was the subject
matter of litigation which ultimately came to be notified under
Section 10(3) of the Act by Notification dated 11.05.1990. The
State of West Bengal claimed the said lands as property of the
State as from 05.05.1990 and the Orient Properties Ltd. stated
to have handed over possession on 28.05.1990. Thereafter,
CA Nos……of 2014 @ SLP (C) Nos.8854-55/2010 2 of 22
Page 3
the State handed over the land along with adjacent lands to
one M/s Janapriya Hospital Corp. Ltd. pursuant to a registered
lease deed for 30 years with option for renewal under the
lease deed dated 21.06.1991. Based on the said lease deed,
the Hospital paid a premium of Rs.94,41,300. Later on
Janapriya Hospital Corp. Ltd. became Appollo Gleneagles, the
first Respondent herein. As per the lease deed the lease is to
expire on 2021. Apart from the premium, the lease deed also
obligated a payment of 10% of the said sum by way of annual
lease rent.
5. In July, 1993, the Appellants filed a writ petition being
C.O.No.8616(W) of 1993 challenging the ultimate Notification
issued under the Act. An interim order was initially granted by
the Learned Single Judge on 12.07.1993 directing the
Respondents to maintain status quo. Subsequently, the Writ
Petition itself came to be allowed by order dated 02.05.2005.
Even while the order of status quo was in operation, it appears
that the first Respondent made some constructions and the
Hospital came to be established.
CA Nos……of 2014 @ SLP (C) Nos.8854-55/2010 3 of 22
Page 4
6. Against the judgment of the learned Single Judge,
Appollo Hospitals and the State of West Bengal preferred
separate appeals in F.M.A. No.2393 of 2005 and F.M.A.
No.2411 of 2005. The Division Bench by the judgment
impugned in these appeals held as under in paragraph 12.1:
“12.1 The second appellate decree might be binding only upon the parties to the said proceedings. However, it is otherwise a judgment in rem, at least against any person claiming title derived from the judgment debtor. Hence, State deriving title by way of vesting from Orient was not entitled to deny the right, title and interest of the respondents in question.” (underlining is ours)
Again in paragraph 12.2 the Division Bench observed as
under:
“12.2…….The title was in dispute. Hence the doctrine of lis pendence would apply. During the pendency of the second appeal, the present respondents purchased the interest of the then owner of the said land in question which was yet to be adjudicated upon. They stepped into the shoes of their predecessor in interest. The declaration was made in their favour by the Division Bench of this Court. Hence, the State was obliged to proceed against them under the provisions of the said Act of 1976. The learned Single Judge rightly observed as such and we are in full agreement with His Lordship on that score.” (underlining is ours)
Again in paragraph 12.3 the Division Bench made further
observations to the following effect:
CA Nos……of 2014 @ SLP (C) Nos.8854-55/2010 4 of 22
Page 5
“12.3 It is true that the hospital was constructed by Appollo by spending huge sum. They did it at their own risk and peril as it was a lease for 30 years which is going to expire in 2021. The Hospital authority took that risk before proceeding further. Hence, the contention made by Mr. Mitra on that score cannot be accepted.”
Further observation was made by Division Bench in
paragraph 12.4 as under:
“12.4 We however, feel that although it is a private hospital it is serving people of the State giving medical services and it would not be proper to stop such activity at this stage. We are prompted to say so as we also find the respondents guilty of laches. They did not approach the appropriate authority at the right moment. They should have raised objection contemporaneously. However, such laches cannot take away their right to claim appropriate relief without disturbing the hospital, if possible.” (underlining is ours)
Ultimately the Division Bench issued the following direction in paragraphs 13.1 and 13.2. The same are extracted as under:
“13.1 The order of the learned Single Judge is thus modified to the extent that the hospital authority need not hand over actual physical possession to the State before a final declaration, if any, is made under Section 10 (3) considering the return to be submitted by the respondents in terms of the liberty granted by His Lordship to them.
13.2 The hospital authority would be obliged to compensate the respondents to the extent of the
CA Nos……of 2014 @ SLP (C) Nos.8854-55/2010 5 of 22
Page 6
land, if any allowed to be retained by them, by the competent authority under the said Act of 1976 and for the balance part of the land the State would be obliged to pay compensation in accordance with law.”
7. The abovesaid judgment of the Division Bench is the
subject matter of challenge in these appeals.
8. When these appeals were moved, while issuing notice,
this Court gave the following directions in the orders dated
27.08.2012 and 05.10.2012:
“In the facts of the case, the concerned learned District Collector at Mayukh Bhavan, 2nd Floor, Salt Lake, Kolkata is requested to file his own calculations taking into consideration the calculations submitted by the present petitioner before him. For his convenience, the petitioner shall remain present before him on 4th September, 2012. He shall be heard and understood as to what is his grievance and then final report may be prepared and submitted before us within four weeks. List the matter in the first week of October, 2012.”
“Order dated 27th August, 2012 is modified to the extent that the phrase “learned District Collector” be replaced by the “Competent Authority” under the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976. This exercise may be done by the learned Competent Authority within a period of six weeks. List after eight weeks.”
CA Nos……of 2014 @ SLP (C) Nos.8854-55/2010 6 of 22
Page 7
9. At this juncture, it will have to be noted that neither
the first Respondent nor the State of West Bengal have chosen
to challenge the impugned judgment before this Court.
Therefore, the same has become final as against both of them.
By virtue of this Court’s orders dated 27.08.2012 and
05.10.2012, the competent authority went into the question as
to whether the Appellants were in possession of any surplus
land under the provisions of 1976 Act. An order came to be
passed by the competent authority on 30.10.2012 by which it
was declared that the Appellants are not in possession of any
surplus land in the agglomerated area and, therefore, the
question of compensation to be given by the competent
authority Kolkata under the Act does not arise. In the light of
the said order, going by the ultimate direction of the Division
Bench, it is now for the Appollo Hospitals to bear the entire
compensation. In other words, the Appollo Hospitals is now
liable to bear the compensation payable for the entire extent
of the land namely 11.66 cottah (11.659 cottah).
10. Having regard to the said position and the further fact
that the land in question is situated in land-locked area, even
the Appellants have no option than to accept the
CA Nos……of 2014 @ SLP (C) Nos.8854-55/2010 7 of 22
Page 8
compensation for the lands which is in the possession of the
Appollo Hospitals right from the year 1991 when the lease
deed came to be entered as between the Appollo Hospitals
and the State of West Bengal. Realizing the said position, both
the parties agreed for fixing the valuation of the lands in order
to determine the compensation. By this Court’s order dated
28.01.2013, the consensus ad idem of both the parties for the
appointment of Class-A Valuer approved by the Calcutta High
Court who can be directed to determine the value. List of the
approved Valuers was called for and by order dated
15.03.2013, from the list of Class-A Valuers approved by the
Calcutta High Court, Mr. Sandip Nandi Majumdar was
appointed as Valuer and he was directed to associate the
competing parties while submitting the report.
11. Pursuant to the said orders, the Valuer submitted his
report sometime in July, 2013. Thereafter the parties took
time to examine the report of the Valuer. Copies of the report
were also directed to be furnished to the parties. After the
submission of the reports, parties filed their statements.
12. From the above facts, the following factors emerge:
CA Nos……of 2014 @ SLP (C) Nos.8854-55/2010 8 of 22
Page 9
a. Appellants are the absolute owners of 11.66 (11.659) cottah lands situated at premises No.59, Canal Circular Road, Kolkata.
b. There was no surplus lands which were capable of being acquired under the provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976.
c. Appollo Hospitals which was put in possession of 34,147 square metres of land pursuant to the registered lease deed dated 21.06.1991 included the 11.66 (11.659) cottah of lands comprising of 743.21 square metres and that Appollo Hospitals is in enjoyment of this property till this date.
d. The said lands, namely, 11.66 (11.659) cottah are land-locked lands surrounded by the other lands for which the Appollo Hospitals is having a valid lease hold rights by virtue of the registered lease deed dated 21.06.1991.
e. Inasmuch as the Appellants have agreed to abide by the judgment of the Division Bench and since there was no challenge to the said order at the instance of Appollo Hospitals or the State of West Bengal, it has now become imperative that the ultimate directions issued by the Division Bench will have to be carried out.
CA Nos……of 2014 @ SLP (C) Nos.8854-55/2010 9 of 22
Page 10
f. By virtue of the order of the competent authority dated 30.10.2012, since Appellants were not holding any surplus lands in the urban agglomeration, the entire extent of land, namely, 11.66 (11.659) cottah belonged to the Appellants and the compensation payable for the said lands will have to be borne by Appollo Hospitals alone.
13. Keeping the above factors in mind, when we examine
the stand of the respective parties, in the first instance, we
wish to note the categoric stand taken by the Appellants in
their additional affidavit dated 25.03.2014. In the said
additional affidavit, the Appellants have accepted the value
fixed by the approved Valuer wherein the value has been
arrived at a sum of Rs.24,04,188 per cottah as of 2013 (after
providing land locked allowance). In fact according to the
Valuer, when he took into account the three Exhibits namely,
Exhibits 5, 6 and 7 the value per cottah was found to be Rs.25
lacs in Exhibit 5, Rs.58,34,133 in Exhibit 6 and 24,30,889 in
Exhibit 7 and all the three exhibits were issued by the
certifying authority of the State Government. The certificates
were dated 05.03.2013, 10.6.2013 and 27.05.2013.
CA Nos……of 2014 @ SLP (C) Nos.8854-55/2010 10 of 22
Page 11
14. We heard Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, learned counsel for
the Appellants and Mr. C.U. Singh Senior Advocate for the
Appollo Hospitals, Mr. Pijush K. Roy, counsel for the 5th
Respondent and Mr. Avijit Bhattacharjee, counsel for
Respondent Nos.1 to 3 in SLP (C) No.8855 of 2010. It will be
advantageous to refer to the additional affidavit filed on behalf
of the petitioners pursuant to the order dated 09.12.2013. The
said affidavit was filed on 24.04.2014. While Exhibit 5 dated
05.03.2013 was collected by the State-Respondent, Exhibits 6
and 7 dated 10.06.2013 and 27.05.2013 respectively were
collected by the Valuer himself. It is based on the above
materials placed before by the Valuer, he ultimately arrived at
the sum of Rs.25,04,188 per cottah after providing the land-
locked allowance. As stated by us earlier, the Appellants have
stated in paragraph 13 of their additional affidavit to the effect
“the petitioners accepted current market value of land at
Rs.24,04,188 per cottah as valued by Valuer as of 2013 (after
providing land locked allowance)”. Therefore, as far as the
Appollo Hospitals is concerned, in their written submissions,
there is statement to the effect that the Respondent No.1-
hospital is in agreement that it shall pay the present market
CA Nos……of 2014 @ SLP (C) Nos.8854-55/2010 11 of 22
Page 12
value of land at Rs.24,04,188 per cottah as ascertained by the
Valuer in his report of July, 2013. Therefore, as regard the
value of the land per cottah, there is no scope for any further
probe and, therefore, it will have to be valued at the rate of
Rs.24,04,188 per cottah for 11.66 (11.659) cottah of lands.
15. What remains to be ascertained is the claim of the
Appellants for utilization charges, interest and costs. Insofar as
the utilization charges are concerned, according to the
Appellants they were deprived of the use of their land by the
Appollo Hospitals at least from the year 1991 when the
hospital was put in possession pursuant to the registered lease
deed dated 21.06.1991. It is, therefore, contended that when
the Appollo Hospitals agreed to pay 10% of the value of the
salami of land, namely, Rs.98,41,300 i.e. sum of Rs.9,84,130
per annum by way of lease rent for the entire extent of lands
at least insofar as the Appellants’ lands are concerned, they
are entitled for normal return on the average value of land
from June, 1991. Referring to the land value which was
prevailing in June, 1991 at sum of Rs.3,15,997 per cottah and
the land value in June, 2013 at Rs.24,04,188 per cottah, the
average land value was claimed to be Rs.13,60,092.50 per
CA Nos……of 2014 @ SLP (C) Nos.8854-55/2010 12 of 22
Page 13
cottah and on that basis 10% of the said value is claimed as
utilization charges i.e. the sum of Rs.1,36,009 per annum per
cottah.
16. As against the above claim, on behalf of the Appollo
Hospitals, it is contended that what was agreed to be paid by
way of annual lease amount at the rate of 10% on the total
salami of land was taken into account the larger extent of
34,147 square metres within which the Appellant’s land which
was a small portion of 743.21 square metres. It is further
stated that the lands were marshy lands in 1991 totally
undeveloped till the Appollo Hospitals made improvements by
constructing the hospitals and, therefore, if at all, any
utilization charges is to be considered, it should be the normal
economic rent of 6% on the investment/capital value which
would be on a sum of Rs.10,001 per annum.
17. Having considered the respective submissions and
having noted the salient factors in the case on hand, it will
have to be borne in mind that after strenuous fight in the Court
proceedings the rights of the Appellants came to be
crystallized as regards their ownership in the Second Appeal
CA Nos……of 2014 @ SLP (C) Nos.8854-55/2010 13 of 22
Page 14
No.384 of 1967 which was decreed on 25.07.1986. That was
the first round of litigation where the Appellants could
ultimately succeed and establish their right of ownership over
the lands in question. Thereafter, when they were confronted
with the subsequent proceedings under the provisions of the
Act, they had to launch the present proceedings again by
approaching the High Court and this time by way of writ
petition, in which the present impugned order ultimately came
to be passed by the Division Bench on 08.12.2009. Therefore,
for establishing their right to their property, enormous time,
energy and money has been spent by the Appellants. The right
to property is protected under Article 300A of the Constitution.
In view of the nature of the location of the land which is in a
land-locked position, the Division Bench has rightly found that
the grievance of the Appellants can be redressed by giving
directions as contained in paragraph 13 of the impugned
judgment by which the Respondents were directed to
compensate the Appellants for use of the lands.
18. Keeping the above factors in mind, we are of the view
that to formulate the basis for fixing the utilization charges the
method adopted in the lease deed dated 21.06.1991 as
CA Nos……of 2014 @ SLP (C) Nos.8854-55/2010 14 of 22
Page 15
between the Appollo Hospitals and the State of West Bengal
can be followed. As per the said lease deed the Appollo
Hospitals agreed to pay 10% of the value of the salami land
value, namely, Rs.98,41,300 which worked out in a sum of
Rs.9,84,130 per annum as lease rent during the period of
lease, namely, 30 years. The total land for which the lease rent
was fixed was 34,147 square metres. Applying the very same
formula for arriving the rental value of the lands of the
Appellants which is 743.21 square metres, we find that the
same will work out to Rs.21,355.62 per annum [(i.e.) 743.21 ÷
34147 x 100 = 2.17 : 9,84,130 x 2.17 ÷ 100 = 21,355.62]. On
that basis, we are convinced that the utilization charges can
be fixed by rounding it off to Rs.21,500. Accordingly, we hold
that the utilization charges shall be fixed in a sum of Rs.21,500
per annum (rounding off Rs.21,355.62 as Rs.21,500) and for a
period of 23 years, namely, between 1991 and 2014, the
utilization charges can be arrived at. The same comes to
Rs.4,94,500.
19. The claim of the Appellants that utilization charges
should be at the rate of Rs.5 lacs or on the basis of the
average value of the land which was claimed at a sum of
CA Nos……of 2014 @ SLP (C) Nos.8854-55/2010 15 of 22
Page 16
Rs.1,36,009 cannot be accepted, inasmuch as, it will have to
be noted that the Appellants will be getting the value of the
entire 11.66 cottah of lands as per the present day market
value which has been fixed at Rs.24,04,188 per cottah. It
cannot be lost sight that the value of the land in 1991 was far
lower than what is now arrived at based on the Valuer’s report
which is for the year 2013. If the Appollo Hospitals is to pay
the lease rent per annum based on the salami, namely, the
royalty value of Rs.98,41,300 it will be more appropriate to fix
the lease rent on the very same basis on which it was fixed
under the lease dated 21.06.1991. In that way, Appollo
Hospitals cannot also have any grievance inasmuch as apart
from salami of Rs.98,41,300 for the land, they agreed to pay
10% of its value by way of lease rent for the first 30 years.
20. We, therefore, hold that utilization charges so arrived
at shall be in the sum of Rs.21,500 and for the period between
1991 and 2014, namely, for 23 years. The first Respondent
Appollo hospital is liable to pay a sum of Rs.4,94,500.
21. With that we come to the next claim of the Appellants
which is the interest payable on the value of the land now
CA Nos……of 2014 @ SLP (C) Nos.8854-55/2010 16 of 22
Page 17
determined by the Valuer. Since the market value as of the
years 2013 has been fixed as payable for the 11.66 (11.659)
cottah of the lands, we find that the deprivement of the use of
the land of the Appellants and the State is certainly a right
which is a Constitutional Right and the same was deprived for
no fault of theirs. It is true that the land value has been fixed
based on the value which was prevailing in the year 2013
while the Appollo Hospitals was put in possession of the lands
in the year 1991 and the stand of the Hospital that the land
value should have been fixed in 1991 though is not
acceptable, the said stand can certainly be taken into account
while considering the claim of the Appellants for payment of
interest. Here again, we wish to reiterate that in the whole
process, the Appellants have lost their property rights once
and for all and on the other hand Appollo Hospitals will get
absolute ownership right in respect of 11.66 (11.659) cottah of
land which it can always cherish and enjoy without any
hindrance from any quarters. Therefore, taking an overall view
of the grievances of the Appellants, we are convinced that
Appellants are entitled for payment of interest though not to
the extent they claimed.
CA Nos……of 2014 @ SLP (C) Nos.8854-55/2010 17 of 22
Page 18
22. According to the first Respondent even if interest is to
be granted that can only be on the value that was prevailing in
1991 which according to the first Respondent was Rs.10,001
per cottah and on that value interest at the rate of 6% per
annum can be made. Instead, we hold that the Appellants are
entitled for a nominal interest at the rate of 2% per annum on
the total value of the land as accepted by both the parties,
namely, Rs.2,80,32,832/-. On that basis, the interest payable
by the first Respondent will work out to a sum of
Rs.1,28,95,102 for 23 years.
23. With that the only other claim to be considered is
costs. As stated by us earlier, the Appellants have been
fighting this litigation by stepping into the shoes of their
predecessor in interest from the year 1960 onwards in Title
Suit No.79 of 1960 which was ultimately decreed in Second
Appeal No.384 of 1967 by the decree dated 25.07.1986. Even
thereafter the Appellants had to initiate the second round of
litigation for ascertaining their rights as against the
proceedings issued under the provisions of the Act of 1976
which has taken another two decades. Thereby the Appellants
are knocking at the doors of the Court for the past 54 years.
CA Nos……of 2014 @ SLP (C) Nos.8854-55/2010 18 of 22
Page 19
Therefore, they are surely entitled for cost of the litigation
which we want to quantify in a lump sum of Rs.5 lacs.
Accordingly, we hold that the Appellants are entitled and the
first Respondent Appollo Hospitals is liable to pay the following
amounts:
i. Compensation towards value of land Rs.24,04,188 per cottah for 11.66 (11.659) cottah which comes to Rs.2,80,32,832 (Rupees Two Crores Eighty Lakhs Thirty Two Thousand Eight Hundred and Thirty Two only).
ii. Interest at the rate of 2% per annum for 23 years which works out to Rs.1,28,95,102 (Rupees One Crore Twenty Eight Lakhs Ninety Five Thousand One Hundred and Two only).
iii. Utilization charges at the rate of Rs.21,500 per annum equal to Rs.4,94,500 (Rupees Four Lakhs Ninety Four Thousand Five Hundred only).
iv. Costs Rs.5 lacs (Rupees Five Lakhs only).
Total Rs.4,19,22,434. We round it off to Rs.4,20,00,000 in all to be payable by the first Respondent to the Appellants in full and final settlement of all the claims of the Appellants in respect of their lands admeasuring 11.66 (11.659) cottah.
24. Having regard to our above conclusion, we want to
consider the various directions prayed for by the Appollo
CA Nos……of 2014 @ SLP (C) Nos.8854-55/2010 19 of 22
Page 20
Hospitals in their written submissions and we accordingly, pass
the following order:
a. The first Respondent shall deposit the sum of Rs.4,20,00,000 with the Secretary General of this Court within four weeks from today.
b. The Appellants shall make all arrangements to produce the original title deeds and specify the schedule of the land and the sketch from the competent authority of the revenue department and furnish the same within eight weeks from this date.
c. On submission of such records, by the Appellants to this court, the first Respondent shall inspect those records and express its confirmation.
d. On such confirmation being submitted by the first Respondent within two weeks of the submission of the records by the Appellants, within two weeks thereafter the Appellants will execute a deed of conveyance of the land admeasuring about 11.66 (11.659) cottah of land in favour of first Respondent.
e. All stamp duty and registration charges and other incidental expenses for the conveyance shall be borne by the first Respondent Appollo Hospitals.
CA Nos……of 2014 @ SLP (C) Nos.8854-55/2010 20 of 22
Page 21
f. On such registration of the conveyance deed, the Appellants will be at liberty to seek for release of Rs.4,20,00,000 with whatever interest accrued thereon.
g. The State of West Bengal shall direct its authorities to ensure that the lands involved in this appeal, namely, 11.66 (11.659) cottah is issued necessary certificate of such demarcation.
h. The above said directions are without prejudice to the rights of the first Respondent hospital in relation to the rest of the lands which is governed by the registered lease deed dated 21.06.1991 as between the first Respondent hospital and the State of West Bengal which is stated to be for a period of 30 years with provision for option for further renewal for additional two terms of 30 years each. It is needless to state that the said rights of the first Respondent hospital under the registered lease deed dated 21.06.1991 would be governed by the terms and conditions contained therein in respect of the lands, namely, 34,147 - 743.21 square metre = 33,403.79 square metres.
CA Nos……of 2014 @ SLP (C) Nos.8854-55/2010 21 of 22
Page 22
i. On deposit of the sum of Rs.4,20,00,000 with the Secretary General of this Court as per paragraph “a” of these directions, the Secretary General shall invest the same in UCO Bank initially for a period of six months. It shall be renewed periodically pending further orders to be passed by this Court.
25. With the above directions, these appeals will stand
disposed of. However, in order to ensure compliance of the
directions by all the parties concerned, call these appeals for
passing final orders in the first week of December, 2014.
However, in the meantime, if all formalities are complied with,
it is open to the parties to mention for posting the above
appeals for passing final orders.
...……….…….………………………………J. [Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim
Kalifulla]
………….……….…………………………..J. [A.K. Sikri]
New Delhi; July 23, 2014.
CA Nos……of 2014 @ SLP (C) Nos.8854-55/2010 22 of 22