S.Chand & Co. vs M/S Bharat Carpets Ltd.
2011 Latest Caselaw 5684 Del

$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+      CO.PET. 50/1984

S.CHAND & CO.                   ..... Petitioner
                   Through      None.

                   versus

M/S BHARAT CARPETS LTD.      ..... Respondent
             Through  Mr. Rajiv Bahl, Advocate for
                      Official Liquidator.
                      Ms. Prema Priyadarshini, Advocate
                      for Propounders.
                      Mr. A.K. Thakur, Advocate with
                      Mr. Aqub Ali , Advocate for
                      applicant/Mr. Akhilesh Gupta.
                      Mr. Bharat Gupta, Advocate for
                      Objector/Mr. R.N. Gupta and
                      Guptajee Charitable Trust.
                      Mr. S.M. Saxena, Advocate for
                      Mr. Puneet Gupta.

%                            Date of Decision: 24th November, 2011

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

                            JUDGMENT

MANMOHAN, J : (Oral)

CO. APPL. 1876/2011 IN CO. PET. 50/1984

1. Present application has been filed by the propounders of the

Scheme under Section 536(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short

'Act') read with Rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959

seeking validation of purchase of shares after the winding up order

dated 18th May, 1987. It has further been prayed in the application

that the Official Liquidator be directed to make necessary

amendment in the Company's Register of Members.

2. Mr. S.M. Saxena, learned counsel for Mr. Puneet Gupta and

five others, submits that the contributories have no right to sell the

shares of company in liquidation as by virtue of Sections 391 to 392

of the Act, only by way of a Scheme of Arrangement, can the

contributories transfer their shares.

3. Mr. Saxena further submits that Court's permission should

have been sought prior to the execution of the Memorandum of

Understanding between the applicants-propounders and the

objector/transferor.

4. Mr. Saxena further points out that his clients have already

revoked the transfer as the same was void being violative of Section

536(2) of the Act and further as adequate consideration had not been

paid to the transferors. He states that the price of the shares paid by

the applicant- transferee is extremely low. He points out that some of

the shares have been sold by a lady who is beyond 80 years of age.

5. He lastly submits that as the applicants-propounders are not

shareholders or creditors of the company and therefore, they have no

right to maintain the Scheme of Arrangement.

6. Mr. Bharat Gupta, learned counsel for Mr. R.N. Gupta states

that the transfer agreements executed by his clients are void as they

have not received any consideration from the applicant transferee.

He points out that in the present application, the applicants-

propounders has sought transfer of 20350 shares of late Mr. B.N.

Gupta held by Mr. R.N. Gupta as his legal heir and 3500 shares held

by Guptajee Charitable Trust.

7. Mr. A.K. Thakur, learned counsel for Mr. Akhilesh Gupta

candidly states that his client has not revoked the Memorandum of

Understanding by virtue of which shares have been transferred to the

applicants/propounders. He, however, states that as the company in

liquidation was a listed company since incorporation, SEBI

(Substantial Acquisition of Shares & Takeover) Regulations, 1997

(for short 'SEBI Takeover Regulations, 1997') apply and, therefore,

the present share transfer agreements insofar as they are inconsistent

with the SEBI Takeover Regulations, 1997are void.

8. He further submits that by virtue of Section 393(1)(a) of the

Act, notice of the meeting to consider the Scheme of Arrangement

should be issued to each of the shareholders existing as of today on

the Register of Members.

9. At the outset, Ms. Prema Priyadarshini, learned counsel for

the applicants-propounders states that the applicants-propounders are

bona fide purchasers having purchased the shares of company in

liquidation for valuable consideration. She states that the applicants-

propounders are entitled to have the share transferred in their names

as they have purchased the same in good faith with intent to revive a

company in liquidation.

10. She points out that nearly all the objectors, namely, Mr. R.N.

Gupta, Mr. Puneet Gupta and Mr. Akhilesh Gupta belong to one

family who have filed their objections five years after execution of

share purchase agreement/MoU/deeds of arrangement dated 10 th

March, 2006. She states that the objections filed are not only belated

but also malafide as the same have been filed only to extort more

money from the applicants-propounders under threat of scuttling the

revival scheme pending before this Court.

11. Ms. Prema Priyadarshini submits that shares are personal

property of a contributory and there is no specific prohibition in the

Act restraining a contributory from selling its shares.

12. She also submits that the applicants have the locus standi to

file the present application for validation of transfer of shares as well

as to file a revival scheme as, according to her, the applicants-

propounders are de facto deemed contributories. In this connection,

she relies upon Section 428 of the Act which defines the word

'contributory'. The said Section reads as under:-

"428. Definition of 'contributory'--The term „contributory" means every persons liable to contribute to the assets of a company in the event of its being wound up, and includes the holder of any shares which are fully paid up; and for the purposes of all proceedings for determining, and all proceedings prior to the final determination of, the persons who are to be deemed contributories, includes any person alleged to be a contributory."

13. According to Ms. Prema Priyadarshini, share purchase

agreement/MoU/deeds of arrangement dated 10th March, 2006

executed between the original shareholders and the applicants-

propounders is a composite agreement for purchase of shares and for

settlement of liabilities of the company in liquidation. She submits

that by virtue of the aforesaid documents, the applicants-

propounders have stepped into the shoes of the contributories. In

this connection, she relies upon the agreement dated 10 th March,

2006 executed between the petitioning-creditor and the applicants-

propounders wherein petitioning-creditor gave up all their claims

against the company in liquidation and assigned all their rights to the

propounders including the present applicants. She points out that at

that stage Mr. R.N. Gupta was a co-propounder along with M/s.

UCC Builders Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Maharani Paints Pvt. Ltd. She also

relies upon the Deed of Arrangement dated 10th March, 2006

executed between Mr. R.N. Gupta and his wife who are the present

objectors wherein Mr. R.N. Gupta and his wife are referred to as

former management and the present applicants are referred to as

proposed management. Under this Deed of Arrangement, the former

management had unequivocally and irrevocably agreed to amongst

other to sell the shares of the company in liquidation to the proposed

management along with all transfer forms and indemnity.

Consequently, Ms. Prema Priyadarshini states that it does not now

lie in the mouth of Gupta family members to say that applicants-

propounders are not competent to either file the present application

or a revival scheme.

14. Ms. Prema Priyadarshini submits that the intent of Section 536

of the Act is not to validate the transfer of shares prior to execution

of the Agreement to sell. She points out that normally a transferee

will approach a Company Court for transfer of shares only after

completion of all formalities including execution of the agreement to

sell.

15. Ms. Prema Priyadarshini contends that present objectors had

entered into the share purchase agreement/MoU/deeds of

arrangement with 'open eyes'. According to her, in the present case,

the executed contract between the parties is complete in all respects.

She points out that pay orders against the MoU dated 10 th March,

2006 had been received by Mr. R.N. Gupta as legal heir of Mr. B.N.

Gupta and as Trustee of Guptajee Charitable Trust. In this

connection, she refers to copy of MOU and Share Certificates of

Guptajee Charitable Trust at pages 159-227 of present application

and indemnity bond and receipt at pages 706-708 of the present

application confirming the receipt of consideration by Mr. R.N.

Gupta. She also points out that after receipt of full consideration,

Mr. R.N. Gupta had handed over the original share transfer

certificate to the applicants-propounders which is apparent from the

photocopies of the same filed on record by the applicants at pages

709 to 884.

16. She submits that SEBI Takeover Regulations, 1997 do not

apply to the company in liquidation as at the moment it is not a listed

company. In this connection, she refers to the definition of 'target

company' in Section 2(o) of the SEBI Takeover Regulations, 1997

which reads as under:-

"2. Definitions

(o) "target company" means a listed company whose shares or voting rights or control is directly or indirectly acquired or is being acquired;"

17. She further states that Delhi Stock Exchange had suspended

trading in the shares of company in liquidation in July, 2001.

18. In view of the aforesaid, Ms. Prema Priyadarshini prays that

this Court may validate the transfer of shares in favour of the

applicants-propounders and in cases where share certificates are not

accompanied with the transfer deed, direct the Official Liquidator to

transfer the said shares in the name of the applicants-propounders on

the basis of share purchase agreement/MoU. She further prays that

where shares certificates are not available, a direction be given to

Official Liquidator to issue share certificates in the name of

applicants-propounders.

19. Mr. Rajiv Bahl, learned counsel for the Official Liquidator has

drawn my attention to the reply-affidavit filed by the Official

Liquidator to the present application. In the said reply, it has been

averred as under:-

"4. That Propounders of the Scheme have stated in their application that they had duly purchase 223600 Nos (63.89%) of equity shares out of Rs. 3,50,000 equity shares of BCL of Rs.10/- each fully paid up. Propounder M/s UCC Care Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly known as UCC Builders Pvt. Ltd.) holds 175650 Nos. (50.19%) shares of BCL and M/s. Maharani Paints Pvt. Ltd. holds 47950 (13.70%). The details of shareholding of Propounders of the scheme is given in the tabular form which is annexed with the application as Annexure „A‟.

5. That propounders of the scheme have annexed with their application details of the purchase of equity shares supported by several documents such as Memorandum of Understanding/Deed of Arrangement, Share purchase

agreements, share transfer forms, share certificates, affidavits, receipts and Indemnity bond.

6. That every documents annexed with the application with regard to the purchase of equity shares by the Propounders of the scheme appears to be legal and proper fulfilling the mandatory requirements of transfer of purchased equity shares.

7. That this Hon‟ble Court has power to validate the transfer to shares referred to in the paragraphs of Application in favour of Applicants."

(emphasis supplied)

20. Having heard the parties at length, this Court is of the view

that the primary issue that arises for consideration in the present

proceedings is the scope and ambit of Section 536(2) of the Act.

The said Section reads as under:-

"536. Avoidance of transfers, etc. after commencement of winding up-.

               xxxx        xxxx          xxxx          xxxx

       (2)    In the case of a winding up by [the Tribunal], any

disposition of the property (including actionable claims) of the company, and any transfer of shares in the company or alteration in the status of its members, made after the commencement of the winding up, shall [unless the Tribunal] otherwise orders, be void."

21. The Calcutta High Court in J. Sen Gupta Private Ltd. (In

Liquidation), AIR 1962 Cal. 405 while dealing with Section 536(2)

of the Act has observed as under:-

"12. It seems to me, therefore, upon considering various authorities on this subject that the following principles are doubtless applicable to sub-sec (2) of Sec. 536 of the Companies Act, 1956:

1. The Court has an absolute discretion to validate a transaction.

2. This discretion is controlled only by the general principles which apply to every kind of judicial discretion.

3. The Court must have regard to all the surrounding circumstances and if from all the surrounding circumstances it comes to the conclusion that the transaction should not be void, it is within the power of the Court under Sec. 536(2) to say that the transaction is not void.

4. If it be found that the transaction was for the benefit of and in the interests of the company or for keeping the company going or keeping things going generally, it ought to be confirmed."

22. The Gujarat High Court in The Sidhpur Mills Company

Limited, (1987) 1 Comp. L.J. 71 (Guj.) has stated as under:-

"12. It is trite position in law that the commencement of winding-up proceedings relates back to the presentation of the petition (see: section 441 of Companies Act, 1956). It should be recalled that the winding-up petition in which the order was made was company petition No.9 of 1979 which was presented on 22.2.1979. The winding-up order was made by this Court on October 18, 1979. In the circumstances, therefore, any transfer of shares of Siddhpur Mills Co. Ltd. made after the presentation of the winding-up

would be void unless as otherwise directed by the Court. The Court has an absolute discretion as to validating the transaction after presentation of the winding-up petition. The discretion is to be exercised on recognized principles which guide the exercise of judicial discretion generally with particular attention to the interest of the company. The Court can validate such impugned transaction in those bona fide cases which demand protection of equitable consideration. (See B.B. Khanna v. S.N. Ghose 1976 Tax L.R. 1740)."

23. Keeping in view the aforesaid judgments as well as the

explicit language of Section 536(2) of the Act, this Court is of the

view that it has the discretion to validate transfer of shares executed

after passing of the winding up order, but the said discretion is not an

untrammeled one, as it has to be exercised on sound judicial

principles. In the opinion of this Court, while validating a share

transfer agreement, the Company Court, has to keep in view all

surrounding circumstances and if it finds that same is a bona fide

transaction for the benefit of the company, then the same should be

validated. But, however, before doing so the Company Court must

be satisfied that there was clear intent on the part of the purchasers to

transfer the shares in question.

24. In fact, a bare reading of Section 536(2) of the Act itself

makes it abundantly clear that it permits transfer of shares and

alteration in the status of shares after a winding up order has been

passed, provided the permission of the Company Court is obtained.

This Court in H.L. Seth vs. Wearwell Cycle Company (India) Ltd.

& Ors., 46 (1992) DLT 599 has held that the Company Court has the

jurisdiction under Section 536(2) of the Act to validate the transfer

of shares which take place after the winding up order has been

passed as the winding up process is still continuing and the company

in question has not yet been dissolved. Consequently, in the present

case, the contributories without entering into a scheme of

arrangement can still sell their shares.

25. Further, in the opinion of this Court, the Act does not mandate

that sanction of the Company Court should be obtained prior to

execution of an agreement to sell. If the law were to be interpreted,

as submitted by Mr. Saxena, then in many cases, the Court's

permission would prove to be an exercise in futility as the parties

may not subsequently enter into a binding agreement. There is

nothing in the Act which prohibits the Company Court from granting

post facto sanction.

26. Moreover, in the present case, the company in liquidation

went to liquidation in 1984 and the final winding up order was

passed on 18th May, 1987, that is much prior to coming into force of

SEBI Takeover Regulations, 1997. In the opinion of this Court, as

respondent-company has been in liquidation for the last 27 years,

there is no question of its shares being listed on any recognised stock

exchange on the date when the alleged sale agreement/MoU/deed of

arrangement were executed. This Court can also take judicial notice

of the fact that trading at Delhi Stock Exchange has been suspended

for last nearly ten years.

27. In any event, Chapter VII of the SEBI (Delisting of Equity

Shares) Regulations, 2009 (for short 'SEBI Regulations, 2009')

while dealing with small and de-listed companies like the present

one, states that in case of pendency of a winding up proceeding, its

shares shall be dealt with in accordance with the law applicable to

those proceedings. Regulations 27(1) and 28(1) of the SEBI

Regulations, 2009 are reproduced hereinbelow:-

"Special Provisions in case of small companies

27.(1) Where a company has paid up capital upto one crores rupees and its equity shares were not traded in any

recognized stock exchange in the one year immediately preceding the date of decision, such equity shares may be delisted from all the recognized stock exchanges where they are listed, without following the procedure in Chapter IV."

Delisting in case of winding up, derecognition, etc.

28.(1) In case of winding up proceedings of a company whose equity shares are listed on a recognized stock exchange, the rights, if any, of the shareholders of such company shall be in accordance with the laws applicable to those proceedings."

28. In view of the aforesaid SEBI Regulations, 2009, this Court is

of the opinion that SEBI Takeover Regulations, 1997, do not apply

to the present transfer of shares.

29. In fact, after hearing the parties at length this Court is of the

view that the present objectors who were the initial promoters and

their family members of the company in liquidation had entered into

share purchase agreement/MoU/deed of arrangement with the

present applicants-propounders in the year 2005-2006, at a time,

when the liabilities were far in excess the assets of the company and

secured creditors were making efforts to recover their debts from

personal properties of the initial promoters i.e. Mr. R.N. Gupta and

his family members. It was at that stage that the original promoters

voluntarily entered into share purchase agreement/MoU/deed of

arrangement with the applicants-propounders by virtue of which they

agreed to transfer their shares to the applicants-propounders for

valuable consideration. In the opinion of this court, there was no

misrepresentation on the part of the applicants-propounders as the

original shareholders were fully aware of all facts regarding the

company in liquidation as they were all family members of Mr. R.N.

Gupta, (son of late Mr. B.N. Gupta) former Managing Director of

company in liquidation.

30. It is pertinent to mention that present set of objectors, namely,

Mr. R.N. Gupta, Mr. Puneet Gupta and Mr. Akhilesh Gupta had filed

applications in this Court bearing CA Nos. 376-379/2006 and

593/2006 seeking permission of this Court to convey their shares in

the company in liquidation to the present applicants-propounders.

The relevant portion of one such application filed by Mr. Puneet

Gupta is reproduced hereinbelow:-

"4. Applicant has consented to sell his share holding in Bharat Carpets Limited to M/s. UCC Builders‟ (directly or to its designated organization), on a consideration of agreed percentage of the face value of shares held by him. Likewise M/s UCC Builders (directly or to its designated organization) have agreed to purchase the same by virtue of agreement dated 20-02-2006. Anx-1.

5. In consideration of the payment by „UCC Builders‟ of the sum of Rs. 29450/- (Rupees Twenty Nine Thousand Four Hundred Fifty Only) only representing the compromise money owing on account of Principle/interest/cost/expenses and claims whatsoever whether of shares/deposit or otherwise against the Company.

(a) Applicant has agreed to discharge/discharged the Official Liquidator/Principal debtor/sureties not discharged of all principle/interest/cost/expenses and claims whatsoever whether of shares/deposit or otherwise against the Company against all amounts at.

(b) present lying with by the Official Liquidator or future acquisitions.

(c) Seeks permission of the Hon‟ble Company Court for payment to him in (a) above.

(d) Seeks permission of the Hon‟ble Company Court for transfer of shares in the name of „UCC Builders‟ or their nominee.

6. The applicant submits that share transfer Form along with share certificates in respect of 3700 equity shares of Rs.10/- each for transfer of said shares in favour of the transferee have been given to the said UCC Builders as the consideration has already been received by the applicant.

                   xxxx      xxxx          xxxx          xxx

       PRAYER:

It is prayed that the property in the said shares be conveyed by the Official Liquidator unto the transferee UCC Builders Pvt. Ltd. or its designated organization. The amount of

consideration received in lieu of the deposit may be treated as consent for the proposed application under section 466/391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956."

31. The affidavit in support of the said application reads as

under:-

"AFFIDAVIT IN AFFIRMATION I, Puneet Gupta son of Shri R.N. Gupta C-152, Sector- 50, Noida (U.P.) do hereby solemnly affirm and say

1. That I am authorized to sign the present application.

2. That the contents of para 1 to 6 of the application are true to the best of knowledge, information and/or belief and such statements contains full accurate position and nothing has been withheld.

DEPONENT VERIFICATION I solemnly affirm this 21st day of March, 2006 that the contents of the affidavit are true to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing contained therein is false or withheld.

New Delhi DEPONENT"

32. The MoU dated 10th March, 2006 executed by Mr. Puneet

Gupta is also reproduced hereinbelow:-

"4. „Puneet‟ has consented to sell his share holding in Bharat Carpets Limited to „UCC Builders‟ (directly or to its designated organization), on a consideration of agreed

percentage of the face value of shares held by him. Likewise constituents have agreed to purchase the same.

5. „UCC Builders‟ have agreed to pay the amount of Rs. 29450/- lump sum, wherein

Now the parties collectively and individually in consideration of the mutual covenants and undertakings contained in this MOU, agreed as under:

1. In consideration of the payment by „UCC Builders‟ of the sum of Rs. 29450/- (Rupees Twenty Nine Thousand Four Hundred Fifty Only) (Consisting of Rs.10950/- on account of purchase of shares @ Rs.5/- per share and Rs.18500/- being 15% of the deposit amount) representing the compromise money owing on account of Principle/interest/cost/expenses and claims whatsoever whether of shares/deposit or otherwise against the Company (which „Puneet‟ hereby acknowledges as having received) Anx-1.

          „Puneet‟ hereby irrevocably

          (a) Discharges the         Official Liquidator/principal
              debtor/sureties      not     discharged     of     all
              principle/interest/cost    expenses     and    claims

whatsoever whether of shares/deposit or otherwise against the Company against all amounts at present lying with by the Official Liquidator or future acquisitions.

(b) Seeks permission of the Hon‟ble Company Court for payment to him in (a) above. Anx-2.

(c) Seeks permission of the Hon‟ble Court for transfer of shares in the name of „UCC Builders‟ or their nominee. Anx-2.

2. „Puneet‟ agrees to provide all assistance required by the ‟UCC Builders‟ for carrying out the intentions in 1 above and upon non performance of the MOU for any reason whatsoever shall indemnify and keep indemnified „UCC Builders‟ or their nominee/s against all

principle/interest/cost/expense and claims whatsoever whether of shares/deposit or otherwise in the sum of Rs. 29450/-."

33. The receipt of consideration executed by Mr. Puneet Gupta is

also reproduced hereinbelow:-

" RECEIPT Received with thanks a sum of Rs.29450/- (Rupees Twenty Nine Thousand Four Hundred Fifty Only) vide Cheque/Demand Draft No. 139734 dated 10/3/06 drawn on ICICI from M/s. UCC Builders Pvt. Ltd. representing the compromise money owing on account of Principle/interest/cost/expenses and claims whatsoever whether of shares/deposit or otherwise against the Company."

34. Subsequent to execution of sale purchase

agreement/MoU/deed of arrangement and filing of the present

application, the applicants-propounders settled the dispute with all

the secured creditors, namely, HFC and UCO Bank by entering into

one time settlement with them. While Rs. 110 lacs was paid to HFC,

Rs. 183 lacs was paid to UCO Bank by the applicants-propounders.

Thereafter claims were also invited from unsecured creditors and

applicants-propounders have subsequently agreed to repay the

amounts to the said unsecured creditors with 10% simple interest till

the date of winding up order and thereafter at the rate of 5% simple

interest till the date of repayment.

35. On a perusal of the paper book, it transpires that it is only after

the debts of the secured creditors had been settled that the members

of the Gupta family had second thought with regard to share

purchase agreement/MoU/deed of arrangement executed by them.

On 20th April, 2010 the present objectors withdrew the applications

being CAs 376-379/2006 filed by them with liberty to re-file the said

applications for same relief in case they were so advised in future.

Though the aforesaid applications were dismissed as withdrawn, it is

pertinent to mention that in the said CAs 376-379/2006 and

593/2006, the present objectors had not only acknowledged the

factum of execution of share agreement/MoU/deed of arrangement,

but had also had accepted the fact that they had been paid valuable

consideration and further that the said consideration was adequate.

36. In the opinion of this Court, in view of the aforesaid

applications being CA Nos. 376-379/2006 and 593/2006, the

objectors are today estopped from contending that they had either

received no consideration and/or the consideration mentioned in

share purchase agreement/MoU/deed of settlement is inadequate.

37. In any event, it is settled law that objectors cannot wish away

a share purchase agreement/MoU/deed of arrangement by merely

stating that they are void documents. They cannot rest content by

alleging that the documents have no efficacy in law and must be

ignored. If it is their case that these documents have been obtained

by fraud or mis-representation by suppression of material facts or

any other reason, they must have the agreements set aside through

Court and unless they do that they cannot go behind the agreement

and ignore them as void documents. [See: Subodh Kumar Gupta vs.

Shrikant Gupta, (1993) 4 SCC 1].

38. However, to ensure that the applicants-propounders do not

indulge in asset stripping, it is directed that the applicants-

propounders would neither sell their shareholding nor the land

owned by the company in liquidation for a period of five years from

the date of revival of the company, if any.

39. As this Court is of the view that the share transfer

agreement/MoU/deed of arrangement executed between the

objectors/other transferors and the applicants-propounders are bona

fide transactions for the benefit of the company in liquidation, it

validates the transfer of shares as per Annexure 'A' at pages 19 to 21

of the present application in favour of the applicants-propounders.

The Official Liquidator within three weeks from today is directed to

enter the names of the applicants-propounders in the Register of

Members even for those shares from whom either original share

scripts have not been received or where share transfer forms have

not been received. In case the Official Liquidator is not in possession

of the original Register of Members, he is directed to open a new

Register of Members.

40. However, it is clarified that if any original shareholder wishes

to challenge the factum of share transfer agreement, they shall be

entitled to raise a dispute prior to filing of the second motion

petition. It is clarified that the aforesaid liberty has been granted so

as to facilitate a title dispute by any party who may show that it had

not received notice of the present application.

41. It is further directed that individual notices to the shareholders

of the respondent-company existing on the Register of Members

after a period of four weeks be issued by the propounders of the

scheme of arrangement. To facilitate, the issuance of said notices,

the meetings of shareholders and creditors scheduled for 17 th

December, 2011 is deferred to 11th February, 2012. The venue and

time of the meeting shall remain the same.

42. With the aforesaid observations, present application stands

allowed.

Co. Pet. 50/1984 & CO. APPLS. 410/2009, 2317- 2326/2011, 2328-2330/2011

List on 2nd December, 2011.

MANMOHAN, J.

NOVEMBER 24, 2011 rn