REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  2210    OF 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.9322 of 2019)

SHYAM SAHNI                          ...Appellant

VERSUS

ARJUN PRAKASH AND OTHERS                          ...Respondents

J U D G M E N T

R. BANUMATHI, J.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal has been filed assailing the impugned judgment

and final order dated 01.08.2018 passed by the High Court of Delhi

at  New Delhi  in  FAO (OS) No.210 of  2017 in  and by which the

Division Bench of  the High Court  has set  aside the order  of  the

learned Single Judge and allowed the appeal filed by respondent

No.1  (defendant  No.4)  herein  by  holding  that  the  passport  of

respondent No.1 (defendant No.4) ought not to have been ordered

to  be  detained  and  further  directed  return  of  the  passport  of

respondent No.1 (defendant No.4).   

3. Brief facts which led to filing of this appeal are as follows:-  

1

The  appellant  filed  a  civil  suit  being  CS (OS)  No.1134  of  2008

before  the  High  Court  seeking  declaration,  permanent  injunction

and possession of the suit property being the first and second floor

of  the  residential  house  constructed  upon  Plot  No.68,  Friends

Colony (West),  New Delhi. Alternatively, appellant has sought the

partition of the suit property. Case of the appellant is that in 1954,

Late  Niamat  Sahni  acquired  Plot  No.68,  Friends  Colony  (West),

New  Delhi,  measuring  3000  sq.  yards  from  Friends  Colony

Cooperative  Housing  Building  Society  Limited  wherein,  she

constructed a main building having a ground floor and first  floor.

Niamat Sahni herself and with her son Shyam Sahni (appellant) and

his family were residing in the ground floor. Soon after the demise of

Niamat Sahni,  the appellant  came to know that  Sarabjit  Prakash

and respondent No.1 have executed documents purporting to be

sale deeds and other documents in their favour or in favour of other

persons qua first floor and second floor and terrace in the residential

building  constructed  upon  68,  Friends  Colony  (West)  New Delhi

belonging to mother of the appellant, the appellant has filed a civil

suit seeking declaration, possession and permanent injunction and

also for partition in CS (OS)  No.1134 of 2008 which is pending at

the stage of cross-examination of the defendants witnesses.  

2

4. Respondent  No.1  resisted  the  suit  contending  that  first

respondent’s mother Usha Prakash took physical possession of the

first floor and terrace and the second floor in 1974 and the same

was let out. On 13.08.1984, Niamat Sahni made a registered will in

Hindi  dividing  equal  shares  between  her  son-  appellant  Shyam

Sahni and her daughter Usha Prakash (mother of respondent No.1).

On 23.12.1992, Niamat Sahni also made another registered will in

English which was identical to her previous will made in 1984. It is

stated that on 06.12.1999, an Irrevocable Memorandum of Family

Settlement was signed between the appellant  and Usha Prakash

(mother of respondent No.1) which was confirmed by Niamat Sahni

thus,  dividing  50%  of  the  undivided  share  in  the  plot  of  land

between her son and daughter. According to respondent No.1, as

per settlement, ground floor of the suit property was given to the

appellant with the entire parking, garages and servant quarters on

the left side of the property; while the first floor and also subsequent

floors (with entire parking and front entrance on the right side of the

suit  property)  were given to Usha Prakash-mother  of  respondent

No.1.  According to  respondent  No.1,  the family  settlement  dated

06.12.1999  is  an  irrevocable  Family  Settlement  between  the

appellant and Usha Prakash and was also acted upon dividing the

suit property by meets and bounds. Respondent No.1 has further

3

stated that Niamat Sahni had executed a General Power of Attonery

on 03.01.2002 and pursuant to the said Power of Attorney, Usha

Prakash sold three flats on the second floor to separate parties and

first  floor  to  her  husband  Sarabjit  Prakash  by  way  of  separate

registered sale deeds. On 26.06.2005, Usha Prakash passed away

due to cancer.

5. Respondent  No.1  further  stated  that  in  October,  2007,

M/s. Soul & Attires Creations Private Limited (a company formed by

first  respondent,  his wife and his  father Sarabjit  Prakash)  took a

term loan for Rs.4.25 crores from Bank of India. Sarabjit Prakash

also stood as the Guarantor for the said project funding loan from

the Bank of India and an equitable mortgage has been created on

the first floor of the property as the secondary collateral security to

Bank of India as per RBI guidelines. In the written submission, first

respondent has further alleged that the appellant had filed a civil

suit  being  CS  (OS)  No.1134  of  2008  concealing  the  factum  of

irrevocable Memorandum of Family Settlement on 06.12.1999. In

October,  2008,  an  additional  Working Capital  Limit  (stated to  be

against  Stocks  and  Book  Debts)  was  granted  to  the  aforesaid

company by the Bank of India for Rs.5 crores. By end of 2009, the

account  of  M/s.  Soul  &  Attires  Creations  Private  Limited  was

4

declared as Non-performing Assets by Bank of India and Bank of

India took physical possession of the first floor on 31.10.2011. Since

the loan has become Non-performing Assets,  Bank of  India  had

filed O.A. No.297 of 2011 before DRT, New Delhi and the same was

decreed by DRT and RC No.172/2012 was issued by the Bank of

India and the recovery  proceedings are still  going on before the

Recovery Officer.  

6. The grievance of respondent No.1 is that the loan facility was

availed and equitable mortgage was created even in the first week

of October, 2007 much prior to the ex-parte order dated 02.06.2008.

Further grievance of the first respondent is that they were not heard

before granting the ex-parte stay on 02.06.2008.  

7. The  learned  Single  Judge  vide  order  dated  02.06.2008

granted interim injunction restraining the defendants from selling,

alienating  or  creating  any  third  party  rights  in  the  suit  property.

Taking note  of  the  plaint  averments  that  defendant  No.1-Sarabjit

Prakash and respondent No.1 are raising further construction on the

suit property and they have been creating documents executed by

Usha  Prakash  and  other  defendants,  the  learned  Single  Judge

found  that  the  balance  of  convenience  lies  in  favour  of  the

5

appellant-plaintiff  thereby,  granted  the  ex-parte order  of  stay  on

02.06.2008.  

8. Aggrieved by the disobedience of the injunction order by the

defendants, the appellant filed an application being I.A. No.19801 of

2011 under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC read with Sections 10 and

12 of  the  Contempt  of  Courts  Act  for  breach  of  injunction  order

dated 02.06.2008.   It  is  alleged that  in  spite  of  above injunction

order,  respondent  No.1  (defendant  No.4)  and  defendant  No.1

(Sarabjit Prakash) who is father of respondent No.1 availed financial

facilities from Bank of India by mortgaging the first floor of the suit

property to the tune of Rs.4.20 crore to Rs. 5.20 crore which was

enhanced  on  two  different  occasions  i.e.  when  the  defendants

created charge over suit property to Rs.9.24 crore and later on, to

Rs.11 crore.  

9. The contempt petition was heard by the learned Single Judge

on various dates and number of orders came to be passed. Though

number of orders have been passed, we will only refer to those of

the orders which are relevant for consideration of this appeal. On

05.12.2011, when the matter came up for hearing, learned Single

Judge confirmed the injunction order dated 02.06.2008 directing the

parties to maintain status-quo with respect to the suit property. In

6

the subsequent hearing, by order dated 21.05.2013, learned Single

Judge  held  defendant  No.1  guilty  of  contempt  and  directed

defendant  No.1  and  defendant  No.4-respondent  No.1  to  appear

before the Court disclosing the list of assets. On 02.07.2013, both

defendant  No.1  and  defendant  No.4-respondent  No.1  submitted

that the charge so created on the suit property will be cleared by

them  within  four  months  from  their  own  funds  and  resources.

Accordingly,  the  Court  directed  defendant  No.1-Sarabjit  Prakash

and respondent No.1-defendant No.4 to file an undertaking in this

regard.  The  said  direction  was  complied  with  and  both  of  them

submitted their respective undertakings on 15.07.2013. However, on

16.12.2013,  Court  recorded  that  despite  submitting  their

undertaking to  that  effect,  both  Sarabjit  Prakash and respondent

No.1 (defendant No.4) have failed to comply with the undertakings

given by them.  

10. Being  aggrieved,  appellant  filed  I.A.  No.41  of  2013  under

Order XXXIX Rule 2A read with Section 151 of CPC with Sections

10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act against respondent No.1

(defendant No.4) and his father Sarabjit Prakash (defendant No.1)

for  not  complying  with  the  respective  undertaking/statement.

Respondent No.1 along with his father Sarabjit Prakash-defendant

7

No.1 filed a joint reply pleading their insolvency and difficulties in

clearing  the  charge  and  furnished  another  undertaking  to  clear

charge over suit property from the amount received from selling the

suit property and another property at 33, Sundar Nagar, New Delhi.

In the meanwhile, defendant No.1 died on 28.10.2015.  

11. On  the  next  date  of  hearing,  the  Court  recorded  that

respondent  No.1  (defendant  No.4)  had  left  Delhi  and  shifted  to

Singapore  with  his  family  and  counsel  for  respondent  No.1  was

directed  to  file  fresh  address of  respondent  No.1 along  with  the

relevant documents to establish the proof of his residence. The said

direction  was  again  reiterated  on  28.07.2016.  Respondent  No.1

filed an affidavit wherein he claimed that he is still living in Delhi and

did not mention his Singapore resident details. On the next date of

hearing i.e. on 29.09.2016, the Court recorded that respondent No.1

has till date not liquidated the amount as stated by him, therefore,

his  personal  presence  was  directed  in  the  court  on  04.11.2016.

Despite such direction,  respondent  No.1-defendant  No.4 was not

present before the court  and on the next  date of  hearing i.e.  on

13.02.2017,  the  proceedings  were  set  ex-parte qua  respondent

No.1.  

8

12. On 02.03.2017, the court recorded that the charge on the suit

property has still  not been cleared till  date and respondent No.1-

defendant  No.4  was  asked  to  deposit  his  passport  and  furnish

security. Accordingly, respondent No.1-defendant No.4 offered three

properties situated in Amritsar owned by his mother-in-law (Rama

Khanna)  as  a  security  and  his  passport  was  deposited  in  the

custody  of  Court  Master.  Respondent  No.1  thereafter  filed  an

undertaking to the effect that passports of his family members be

revoked and proceedings for extradition can be initiated on his not

returning to India. The court vide order dated 22.03.2017 accepted

the undertaking given by respondent No.1 and directed the Court

Master  to  hand over  the passport  to  respondent  No.1 and court

directed him to appear on 26.05.2017. Adopting the same attitude,

respondent No.1 did not comply with the undertaking furnished by

him  this  time.  Noting  non-compliance  of  the  earlier  order  and

noticing breach of  repeated undertakings given by him,  by order

dated 26.05.2017, the Court restrained him from leaving the country

and  directed  him  to  deposit  his  passport  with  the  Assistant

Registrar.  

13. Aggrieved by the order dated 26.05.2017,  respondent  No.1

filed  I.A.  No.6907  of  2017  seeking  recall  of  the  order  dated

9

26.05.2017. As the matter was listed, respondent No.1 once again

did not mark his presence before the Court. It was informed to the

Court by the counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 that

he had not left the country as directed by the Court vide order dated

26.05.2017  and  that  the  passport  of  respondent  No.1  would  be

deposited today itself. Vide order dated 30.05.2017, learned Single

Judge  in  Para  (5)  of  the  order  directed  the  Registry  to  send

communication  relating  to  his  passport  details  to  the  concerned

authorities in terms of Para (4) of the order dated 26.05.2017. Under

the same order, respondent No.1 was restrained from leaving the

country and the matter was adjourned. It was later revealed from

the  inspection  of  court  file  that  a  report  from  the  Immigration

Department  was  received  reflecting  that  respondent  No.1  was

detained while returning to India on 05.07.2017.  

14. The appellant once again filed an application being I.A. No.

7557 of 2017 under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC read with Section

151 of CPC with Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act

seeking  initiation  of  contempt  proceedings  and  for  appropriate

directions against respondent No.1.  

15. Respondent No.1 thereafter approached the Division Bench of

the High Court by filing FAO (OS) No. 210 of 2017 challenging the

10

Para (4) of the order dated 26.05.2017 and Para (5) of the order

dated  30.05.2017  passed  by  the  learned  Single  Judge.  Vide

impugned judgment, the Division Bench allowed FAO (OS) No.210

of 2017 by holding that the bank with which the charge was created

on the property was not a party before the learned Single Judge

and that there was no reason to take any coercive steps against

respondent  No.1-defendant  No.4  for  his  failure  to  honour  his

commitment  qua  the  bank.  Likewise,  there  was  no  reasonable

justification to impose any restriction like retention of passport and

the Division Bench directed return of  the passport  to respondent

No.1-defendant No.4. Aggrieved by the order of the Division Bench,

the appellant came before us.

16. Learned Senior counsel for the appellant has contended that

upon  initiation  of  contempt  proceedings  by  the  appellant,

respondent  No.1  gave  an  unconditional  undertaking  to  clear  the

charges  created  over  a  portion  of  the  suit  property  within  four

months; however, such undertaking turned out to be mere words

and no such charge was cleared by the first respondent within the

period which he has undertaken. It was submitted that respondent

No.1 was repeatedly giving evasive replies and undertakings; but

failed to comply with the same. Drawing our attention to the affidavit

11

dated  27.08.2016,  learned  Senior  counsel  for  the  appellant  has

submitted that in the said affidavit, respondent No.1 has stated that

he is still residing in Delhi, when in fact he had already shifted along

with  his  family  to  Singapore  in  May,  2016 itself.  Learned Senior

counsel further submitted that  the present  case is not  a case of

impounding  of  passport;  rather  the  present  case  is  where  the

learned  Single  Judge  directed  respondent  No.1  to  deposit  the

passport  as  per  his  undertaking  in  terms  of  his  affidavit  dated

10.03.2017 so as to ensure the presence of respondent No.1 since

the Court was of the view that respondent No.1 would leave India

for  Singapore.  It  was  contended  that  while  dealing  with  the

contempt petition, in order to ensure compliance of the orders of the

Court and make sure that the parties adhere to the undertakings

filed before the Court, the Court has the power to direct deposit of

the passport and the Division Bench erred in setting aside the order

of the learned Single Judge.

17. Per  contra,  learned counsel  appearing  for  the  respondents

has submitted that  respondent  No.1 and his  father  Late  Sarabjit

Prakash has made all the efforts to clear the bank dues; but due to

unavoidable circumstances, they could not  clear the charge. The

learned counsel submitted that  the equitable market value of the

12

suit property No.68, Friends Colony (West), New Delhi was made

even in October, 2017 much prior to the alleged ex-parte stay order

dated 02.06.2008.  It was submitted that the learned Single Judge

was not right in passing various orders restricting the jurisdiction of

the DRT for recovery of the Bank dues when the Bank of India is not

made  a  party  to  the  suit.  It  was  further  submitted  that  there  is

already an order of status-quo passed in the suit being CS (OS)

No.1134 of 2008 and therefore, there was no need for the learned

Single Judge to direct respondent No.1 to deposit his passport and

issue direction for not leaving the country. It was submitted that in

2012, the bank sought the permission of the Court to sell the first

floor to recover its dues but the bank did not pursue and resultantly,

the said application was dismissed and while so, it was not justified

for the learned Single Judge to take the burden of the bank and

directing respondent No.1 to clear the dues. It was submitted that

coercive directions given by the learned Single Judge compelling

respondent No.1 to clear the dues was not warranted and rightly set

aside  by  the  Division  Bench  and  the  impugned  order  does  not

warrant interference.

13

18. We  have  carefully  considered  the  submissions  of  both  the

sides and perused the impugned judgment and other materials on

record.

19. Sarabjit Prakash was directed to be personally present before

the  Court  on  30.05.2013.  On  the  next  date  of  hearing  i.e.

30.05.2013, Sarabjit Prakash was not present in the Court and the

matter was listed for 02.07.2013. By the order dated 02.07.2013,

Sarabjit Prakash (defendant No.1) and respondent No.1-defendant

No.4 who were present in the Court stated that if four months’ time

is given to them, they will ensure that the dues of Bank of India are

discharged and part of the suit property which is charged with the

Bank of India namely, First floor of 68, Friends Colony (West), New

Delhi, shall be freed of all charges/encumbrances. Sarabjit Prakash

and respondent No.1 have also stated that they will file appropriate

affidavit to that effect and on such statement, the contempt petition

was kept in abeyance for four months. Accordingly, Sarabjit Prakash

and respondent No.1 have filed affidavit of undertaking before the

Court  on 15.07.2013 undertaking that  they will  clear the dues of

Bank of India when the property bearing No.68, First Floor, Friends

Colony  (West),  New  Delhi  shall  be  freed  of  all

charges/encumbrances within a period of four months and that they

14

will make arrangement of the loan amount to be paid to the Bank of

India from other moveable and immoveable properties in the name

of Sarabjit Prakash.  

20. When the matter was taken up by the Court, the Court noted

that as per undertaking, the amount has not been paid to the Bank

and Sarabjit Prakash and respondent No.1 have failed to clear the

charge  over  the  suit  property  as  per  undertaking.  The  appellant

again filed I.A No.41 of 2013 under Order XXXIX Rule 2A against

Sarabjit  Prakash and respondent No.1 for not complying with the

respective  undertaking/statement  made  before  the  Court.  On

24.01.2014, Sarabjit Prakash and respondent No.1 filed a joint reply

stating that due to unavoidable circumstances, they are unable to

clear the charge over the suit property and undertaking to clear the

charge over the suit  property from the amount received from 33,

Sundar Nagar, New Delhi.

21. On application filed by the appellant in I.A. No.21764 of 2015,

on  20.10.2015,  the  High  Court  directed  that  amount  of  Rs.3.50

crores will not be utilized by Sarabjit Prakash and respondent No.1

except to the extent of meeting the medical expenses of Sarabjit

Prakash. One week after the above order, Sarabjit Prakash passed

15

away on 28.10.2015 at Apollo Hospital, New Delhi due to multiple

heart arrests.  

22. On 28.07.2016, the Court directed respondent No.1 to furnish

his current address and also the extent of bequest in his favour to

the  estate  of  deceased  Sarabjit  Prakash.  It  is  alleged  by  the

appellant that respondent No.1 filed a false affidavit claiming to be

residing at B-334, New Friends Colony, Ground floor, Delhi without

disclosing  the  Singapore  address.  On  02.03.2017,  the  Court

recorded  that  the  encumbrances  on  the  suit  property  were  not

cleared  till  date  and  directed  respondent  No.1  to  deposit  his

passport and furnish the security. On the next date of hearing i.e.

07.03.2017, respondent No.1 offered three properties owned by his

mother-in-law  (Rama  Khanna  from  Amritsar)  by  depositing  title

deeds stating that he has no other security to offer. Observing that

respondent  No.1  has  failed  to  comply  with  his

undertakings/statements, on 26.05.2017, the learned Single Judge

directed  respondent  No.1  to  deposit  his  passport  and  made  an

order restraining respondent No.1 from leaving India.  

23. According to respondent No.1, he has shown his bonafide by

producing additional security before the Court by depositing original

title deeds of three properties belonging to his mother-in-law (Rama

16

Khanna  from  Amritsar)  to  the  tune  of  Rs.4.45  crores.  Learned

counsel for respondent No.1 has submitted that equitable mortgage

of the suit property (i.e. 68, Friends Colony (West), First Floor, New

Delhi) was made even in the first week of October, 2007 which was

much prior to the  ex-parte stay order dated 02.06.2008. Learned

counsel further submitted that in October, 2008, additional Working

Capital was granted to the company-M/s. Soul & Attires Creations

Private Limited for Rs.5 crores (against Stock and Book Debts) as

per  banking  regulations.  According  to  respondent  No.1,  this

enhanced limit is never a loan against the property; but only against

Stocks and Book Debts. Learned counsel appearing for respondent

No.1 has submitted that respondent No.1 is a bonafide legal owner

of the suit property by means of registered will made in his favour by

his father-Sarabjit Prakash dated 29.09.2006 who had the legal title

in his name by way of registered sale deed executed by his wife

Usha Prakash in exercise of the power vested in her through the

registered Power of Attorney dated 03.01.2002 given to her by her

mother Niamat Sahni and thus, respondent No.1 claims title over

the suit  property  No.68,  Friends Colony (West),  First  Floor,  New

Delhi.  The  question  regarding  the  correctness  of  the  sale  deed

executed by Usha Prakash – mother of respondent No.1 in favour

of Sarabjit Prakash and the dispute raised regarding the title of the

17

property could be determined only in the suit after parties adduced

oral and documentary evidence.

24. The short point falling for consideration is whether respondent

No.1  is  to  be  proceeded  for  contempt  and  whether  the  learned

Single Judge was right in directing the deposit of first respondent’s

passport.  Of  course,  on  15.07.2013,  Sarabjit  Prakash  and

respondent No.1 filed an undertaking that they shall clear dues of

Bank  of  India  and  the  suit  property  shall  be  cleared  of  all

charges/encumbrances within a period of four months and that they

shall make arrangement of the loan amount to be paid to the Bank

of  India  from  other  moveable  and  immoveable  properties.

Subsequently also, Sarabjit Prakash and respondent No.1 filed an

undertaking before the Court. Having filed the undertaking, it was

required of the first respondent to keep up to his undertaking filed

before the Court. On behalf of respondent No.1, learned counsel

submitted that respondent No.1 was making genuine efforts to pay

the amount to the Bank and clear the charge on the property; but

due to unavoidable circumstances, they could not clear the charge

over the suit property. As pointed out earlier, Sarabjit Prakash was

suffering from illness and passed away within one week after the

order was passed on 20.10.2015.  

18

25. Since repeated undertakings were filed and the same were

not complied with, learned Single Judge directed respondent No.1

to surrender his passport. The said order was passed to ensure the

presence of the first respondent and compliance of the order of the

Court. It cannot be said that the learned Single Judge exceeded the

jurisdiction  or  committed  an  error  in  ordering  surrender  of  the

passport.  In  order  to  ensure  the  presence  of  the  parties  in  the

contempt proceedings, the Court is empowered to pass appropriate

orders including the surrender of passport. While dealing with child

custody matter, in David Jude vs. Hannah Grace Jude and Another

(2003) 10 SCC 767, the Supreme Court directed Union of India to

cancel the passport of contemnor No.1 and to take necessary steps

to secure the presence of contemnor No.1 with the child in India

and  to  ensure  her  appearance  before  the  Court  on  the  date  of

hearing.  

26. It is pointed out that the Division Bench proceeded as if the

learned Single Judge has ordered impounding of the passport of

respondent  No.1;  whereas,  the  learned  Single  Judge  has  only

directed respondent No.1 to deposit his passport in the Court. As

discussed  earlier,  the  purpose  of  directing  respondent  No.1  to

surrender  his  passport  was  only  to  ensure  the  presence  of

19

respondent No.1 who was filing repeated undertakings before the

Court but was not complying with the same. In our view, the Division

Bench was not right in setting aside the order of the learned Single

Judge in directing respondent No.1 to deposit his passport before

the  Court  and  the  judgment  of  the  Division  Bench  cannot  be

sustained. In order to ensure the presence of respondent No.1 and

to ensure further progress of the trial, the order of the learned Single

Judge directing respondent No.1 to deposit his passport before the

Court stands confirmed.

27. On behalf of the appellant, it is stated that in view of the order

of the Division Bench, the contempt petition has been disposed of

by  the  learned  Single  Judge  on  04.12.2018  and  prayed  for

restoration of  the contempt petition.  Since the suit  is  of  the year

2008 and much of the court’s time has been spent on the interim

orders and on the contempt petition, we are not inclined to issue

direction for restoration of the contempt petition. Since, the suit is of

the year 2008 and the trial has already commenced and the matter

is  said  to  have  been  pending  for  cross-examination  of  the

defendants  witnesses,  it  is  suffice  to  direct  early  expeditious

disposal of the suit at the same time, ensuring that respondent No.1

20

will be available at the stage when the suit is disposed and in case

he suffers an adverse decree.

28. The impugned order of the Division Bench dated 01.08.2018

passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in FAO (OS) No.210

of 2017 is set aside and this appeal is allowed. In order to ensure

the presence of respondent No.1 and to ensure further progress of

the trial, the order of the learned Single Judge directing respondent

No.1 to deposit his passport before the Court stands confirmed. The

learned Single Judge is requested to take up the civil suit being CS

(OS) No.1134 of 2008 and continue with the trial and dispose the

same expeditiously preferably within a period of nine months. No

costs.

……………………….J.       [R. BANUMATHI]

...…………………….J.        [A.S. BOPANNA]

New Delhi; March 19, 2020.

21