Delhi High Court
Rosy Jain vs Gnct Of Delhi & Ors. on 9 July, 2013
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 4532/2010
% 9th July, 2013
ROSY JAIN ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Amol Kokane, Advocate
Versus
GNCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate for
respondent No. 1.
Mr. Sumeet Pushkarna, Advocate for respondent
No. 2/Pension Trust with Mr. P. Narayan,
Manager, Pension Trust.
Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Advocate with Mr.
Anupam Varma, Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Advocates
for respondent No. 3/NDPL.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. Petitioner Smt. Rosy Jain seeks release of pension and other terminal
benefits through this writ petition. Petitioner was the employee of the
erstwhile Delhi Vidyut Board (DVB) and after unbundling of DVB, her
services were transferred to respondent No.3/ North Delhi Power Limited
(NDPL) with whom she worked till she took voluntary retirement as per
Rule 48(A) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 w.e.f 01.04.2009. The issue
is that who is liable to pay the terminal benefits of the petitioner i. e whether
the respondent No. 3 which is the private DISCOM or the concerned
Pension Trust.
2. This issue is no longer res integra as has been decided by me in
various judgments being Iqbal Chand vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.
(W.P.(C) 13834/2009 decided on 31.01.2013), Tulsi Ram Arya vs.
Chairman D.V.B. & Ors. (W.P.(C) 618/2001 decided on 31.01.2013) and
Smt. Pawan Vohra vs. The Chairman, DVB Pension Trust and Anr. (W.P.
(C) 1680/2012 decided on 17.05.2013).
3. In the case of Iqbal Chand (supra) this issue was squarely decided
against the DISCOM/respondent No. 3 and it was held that all pensionary
benefits and terminal benefits of erstwhile employees of DVB have to be
necessarily paid by the private DISCOMS. Paras 3 to 6 of the said judgment
read as under:
"3. The judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Govt.
of NCT of Delhi & Ors Vs. K.R.Jain & Ors (supra) was taken
in challenge before the Supreme Court and the judgment of the
Supreme Court is reported as North Delhi Power Limited Vs.
Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi & Ors. (2010) 6
SCC 278. The Supreme Court has upheld the judgment of the
Division Bench of this Court and held that all service related
benefits, including terminal benefits of the employees, are the
liability of the DISCOMS. Paras 52, 60 and 61 of the said
judgment are relevant and which read as under:-
"52. A glance at these sub-rules is sufficient to come to
the conclusion that the liabilities have undoubtedly been
transferred to the DISCOMs which include both NDPL as
well as BSES. A feeble argument was raised that sub-rule
(8) does not contemplate pension or any liability on account
of the revised pay scale or interpretation of respective
scheme of promotion so far as existing pensioners or the
erstwhile DVB are concerned to the DISCOMS.
Considering the board language of the Rule, we do not
think that such contention is possible."
60. The transfer of personnel and all the principles,
therefore, are governed by Rule 6 alone. As provided in
Rule 6(2), there are lists wherein the personnel have been
classified into five groups based on the principle of "as is
where is", where a specific reference is to be found to
GENCO, TRANSCO and the three DISCOMS. Very
significantly, there is no reference to DPCL. Thus, no
employee was transferred to DPCL. This is in case of the
existing employees. Sub-rule (8), however, takes into
sweep not only the existing employees, who find the
reference in the lists prepared under Rule 6(2), but also
makes a reference to the employment related mattes
including provident fund, gratuity fund, pension and any
superannuation fund or special fund created or existing for
the benefit of personnel and the existing pensioners. There
was no question of existing pensioners being covered under
the lists prepared under Rule 6(2).
61. By using the words "existing pensioners" and by
providing that the relevant transferee would stand
substituted for the Board for all purposes and all the rights,
powers and obligations of the Board in relation to any and
all such matters, the legislative intention is very clearly
displayed to the effect that the existing pensioners on the
day of transfer were also covered and stood transferred to
the DISCOMS and not to DPCL and it is only the transferee
DISCOM who would substitute for the Board. Once these
Rules are read in proper perspective, there is hardly any
doubt about the liability of DISCOMs in respect of existing
pensioners on the day of transfer. There can be no dispute
that those who retired and those who were serving with the
Board would stand transferred in respect of their liabilities,
etc. to the successor company i.e DISCOM 3. The High
Court has correctly appreciated this position."
(underlining is added)
4. In view of the above, there can really be no dispute that
the liability with respect to monetary benefits which are claimed
in these writ petitions by those employees who retired prior to
issuance of the circulars in the year 1997 and 1999 have to
necessarily fall upon DISCOMS or the relevant transferee
company including M/s Delhi Transco Ltd., M/s BSES
Rajdhani Power Limited, BSES Yamuna Power Company
Limited (BYPL) and NDPL Limited are the DISCOMS and
reference in this judgment to DISCOMS will include reference
to the DISCOMS and the transferee companies.
5. On behalf of the DISCOMS and the transferee
companies, two main arguments were urged for dismissal of the
writ petitions as under:-
(i) The petitioners have approached this Court with
considerable delay and laches inasmuch as the benefits of the
circulars dated 23.7.1997 and 21.12.1999 are being claimed in
the year 2009 onwards.
(ii) The second argument is that the liability for all monetary
benefits payable to the employees of erstwhile DVB in the
nature of gratuity and terminable benefits is not the liability of
the DISCOMS or the transferee companies but of the concerned
Pension Fund of 2002.
6. So far as the second argument that the liability is not of
the DISCOMS or the transferee companies, and in fact of the
relevant Pension Fund of 2002, I need not adjudicate upon this
issue in the present petitions, inasmuch as, the Supreme Court in
the judgment of North Delhi Power Limited (supra) has
specifically in paras 60 and 61 held that the liability will be of
the DISCOMS, and therefore, the liability in the present writ
petitions have to be fastened on the DISCOMS or the transferee
companies. However, I may add that if the DISCOMS feel that
by virtue of the transfer scheme they are entitled to seek
reimbursement of its claim from the relevant Pension Fund of
2002, then, if permissible in law, the DISCOMS and the relevant
transferee company can take appropriate action for recovery of
those amounts from the concerned Pension Fund towards
seeking that such trust fund may directly make payment to the
petitioners. This will however strictly be between the
DISCOMS and the transferee companies on the one hand and
the concerned Pension Fund of 2002 on the other, however, for
that reason, there cannot be delay in clearing of any liability to
the petitioners in this case. Accordingly, I reject the argument
raised by the DISCOMS and the transferee companies with the
aforesaid observations that against the DISCOMs and the
transferee companies the petitioners are not entitled to the reliefs
claimed in these writ petitions of terminal benefits pursuant to
the circulars dated 23.7.1997 and 21.12.1999. For the sake of
completion of narration I must refer to the fact that the counsel
for the Pension Fund has referred before me a judgment of a
learned Single Judge of this court in the case titled as Babu Ram
Jain Vs. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd in W.P.(C) 1597/1998
decided on 4.8.2011 and first para of this judgment directs
deletion of Delhi Vidyut Board Employees Provident Terminal
Fund 2002 and substitutes in its place BSES Yamuna Power Ltd.
(BYPL) ie holding the liabilities for the terminal benefits etc to
be of the DISCOMS/transferee companies and not of the
Pension Fund. While disposing of the W.P.(C) 1597/1998, the
learned Single Judge also in para 11 specifically directs the
DISCOMS ie M/sBYPL to pay to the petitioners all
consequential benefits by way of arrears of salary and other
retiral benefits."
4. An issue of similar nature arose in the case of Pawan Vohra (supra)
wherein the private DISCOM M/s. BSES Rajdhani Power Limited sought to
deny its liability by referring to a judgment of the learned Single Judge of
this Court in the case of North Delhi Power Ltd. vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
142 (2007) DLT 65. On the basis of the judgment of the learned Single
Judge in North Delhi Power Ltd.(supra) it was sought to be argued that
liability will not be of the DISCOMS but of Govt. of NCT of Delhi or the
Pension Trust. This was negated by me and relevant paras of the judgment
in the case of Smt. Pawan Vohra (supra) are paras 6 to 10 which read as
under:
"6. The next issue which arises is who is liable to pay the
pensionary benefits to the petitioner i.e whether it is the
liability of the respondent No.1- Pension Trust Fund or the
liability of the respondent No.2/DISCOM/employer. This
would indeed have been a vexed question, however, I have to
take no trouble on this aspect because this issue is no longer res
integra and decided by the learned Single Judge of this Court in
the case of North Delhi Power Ltd. Vs.Govt. of NCT of Delhi.
142 (2007) DLT 65. In this judgment, it has been held that the
liability towards the pensionary benefits of the employees will
be of the DISCOM i.e respondent No.2 herein. The relevant
para of the judgment is para 86 and which reads as under:-
"86. For the above reasons, I find that the schemes of
DISCOMS cannot be equated with voluntary retirement in
exercise of the conditions of service which existed at the time
of transfer; they are in any case outside the purview of Rule
48A. Therefore, the optees do not fall within the description of
those voluntarily retiring as per conditions of service existing as
on 1.7.2002; they were induced to contractually depart from
employment. The Trust is not geared to bear this sudden and
substantial, unilaterally created burden; the GNCT, too, is not
liable in terms of the Act or Rule 6(9) to fund the payment of
terminal benefits, of such VRS/SVSS optees. The severence
being achieved through contract between the DISCOMS and
the employees, the liability for payment of terminal benefits, as
well as commutation of pension and monthly residual pension,
is that of the DISCOMS."
7. Though the counsel for the respondent No.2 sought to
argue that till the mechanism provided in para 93 of the
judgment is not completed, the respondent No.2 cannot be held
liable inasmuch as the DISCOM/respondent No.2 has not
adopted the IPGCL model, but this argument I find to be
without any substance. This argument is raised by the
respondent No.2 for liability for the period post the ordinary
date of superannuation of the employees. For the period up to
the normal age of superannuation the employer/respondent
No.2 does not deny its liability. The denial is only for the
period after the ordinary date of superannuation and which is
said to be either of the respondent No.1 or of the Government
of NCT of Delhi.
8. At this stage, I must put on record my distress on
concealment of facts by respondent No.2. During the course of
arguments of the respondent No.2, it came out that learned
Single Judge who passed the judgment in the case of North
Delhi Power Ltd. (supra) subsequently had passed a judgment
dated 20.4.2011 in review petitions which were filed by the
DISCOMS including the respondent No.2 herein. The learned
Single Judge has once again clarified that in the judgment dated
20.4.2011 what is stated of liability of the DISCOMS in para 86
of the main judgment dated 2.7.2007 will prevail in the
interregnum period till modalities in terms of para 93 of the
judgment dated 2.7.2007 are not finalized. Paras 14 and 15 of
the judgment dated 20.4.2011 are relevant and the same read as
under:-
"14. The electricity companies were given the option to apply
for the IPGCL model of paying out pension (direction in para
93(i)). In the event of their not opting for it, the mechanism of
arbitral tribunal which was to determine the extent of payment
to be made by the Pension Trust by the concerned electrical
companies, to be paid to the optees of SVRS who would have
otherwise have to wait for orders to come and get the terminal
benefits (not necessarily only residual pension). In other words,
the need for such adjudication to ensure that the employees
were not put to extreme hardship on account of further
litigation and delay, either individually with the Pension Trust
or with the concerned electricity companies. The Arbitration
Tribunal was to consider all the facts and data and after
appraising it, fasten the extent of liability upon individual
electricity companies, which was to be paid to the Pension Fund
that was to ultimately take-over the responsibility to
disbursement of manner of payments to pensioners. The
principle or reasoning underlying these directions was that pre-
mature severance or termination of the employee on his
accepting the SVRS should not have otherwise robbed him of
his entitlement that would be ultimately enforceable.
15. If the judgment and the operative directions are analyzed,
it is apparent that the respective rights and liabilities of the
parties were clearly delineated. The provision for the
interregnum liability i.e payments to be made to individual
employees during the pendency of the determination before the
Tribunal was also envisioned; the electricity companies were to
bear this liability and if necessary, seek adjustment in the final
determination by the Tribunal. The subsequent orders of
08.10.2007 and 25.01.2008, therefore, are a mere effectuation
and extensions of the reasoning embodied in the judgment
dated 02.07.2007. The DISCOMS' clarifications enabling the
electricity companies/DISCOMS to make payments through a
specified Trust, therefore, have to be viewed in the light of the
partition directions casting a liability to pay the interregnum
amounts to the optees. Therefore, the interpretation placed by
the Govt. of NCT of Delhi, and adopted by the Pension Trust is
untenable. Their pension is also enable for the simple reason
that it amounts to stating that by two unreasoned and
clarificatory orders, a hotly contested litigation resulting in
accrual of rights and liabilities and necessitating directions, was
virtually set aside. That was in the purport of the said two
orders of 08.10.2007 and 25.01.2008." (underlining added)
9. I was handed over a copy of this judgment dated
20.4.2011 by the counsel for the respondent No.2 during the
course of hearing of arguments in the present case. Paras 14
and 15 reproduced above make it quite clear that the Court had
observed that there was a need to avoid hardship to the
employees on account of further litigation and delay either
individually with the Pension Trust or with the concerned
electricity companies and therefore in the interregnum period
payments of the pensionary liability had necessarily to be only
of the electricity companies i.e DISCOMS. I fail to understand
that how in the face of paras 14 and 15 it can be argued by the
respondent No.2 that liability is not of the respondent No.2.
For the sake of completion it is put on record that though the
judgment of learned Single Judge in the case of North Delhi
Power Ltd. (supra) is the subject matter of an appeal, however
it is not disputed before me that there is no stay of operation of
the judgment dated 2.7.2007.
10. In view of the above, writ petition is allowed. It is
directed that the petitioner after her attaining the age of
superannuation i.e 31.10.2010 will be paid pensionary benefits
by the respondent No.2. Whatever rights the respondent No.2
may thereafter have as against the respondent No.1 or the
Government of NCT of Delhi is an issue which the respondent
No.2 will sort it out with the respondent No.1 or the
Government of NCT of Delhi, however the petitioner cannot be
deprived in the meanwhile the pensionary benefits in view of
the clarifications given in paras 14 and 15 of the judgment
dated 20.4.2011 which have been reproduced above. Petitioner
will also be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum simple for the
period of delay in paying the pensionary benefits from
31.10.2010 within a period of three months from today. If the
arrears due and payable are not paid within three months from
today, rate of interest thereafter will become 12% per annum
simple. In the facts of the present case and more so in
view of the fact that at the time of filing of this petition the
issue of liability of the respondent No.2/DISCOM was no
longer res integra in terms of the judgments dated 2.7.2007 and
20.4.2011 of a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C)
No.4827/2005, petitioner is also awarded costs of `25,000/-."
5. The relevant paras in the case of Tulsi Ram Arya (supra) are paras 6
to 8 and the same read as under:
"6. I may for the sake of completion of narration state that
the Supreme Court in the case of North Delhi Power Ltd. Vs.
BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd., AIR 2010 SCC 2302 has held that
whatever is the liability of the Delhi Vidyut Board for the
service benefits including pensionary benefits, payable to an
employee, liability for clearing such dues will be of the
DISCOM or the transferee company. In the present case
respondent No.3/BYPL is the DISCOM in question who will
have to pay the dues.
7. I may finally note that the Supreme Court in a catena of
judgments has held that grant of pensionary benefits to an
employee is not an act of bounty, but a bounden duty put upon
the employer. The Supreme Court has consistently held that
where there is delay in payment of pensionary benefits, and
which is not on account of default on the part of the employee,
then, interest is liable to be paid by the employer to the
employee.
8. In view of the above, writ petition is allowed. The
respondent No.3 is directed to release all the service dues of the
petitioner including dues towards terminal benefits payable to
the petitioner. Service benefits to the petitioner including the
pensionary benefits will include necessary amounts which
would be payable to the petitioner in accordance with law and
the petitioner would be entitled to any enhancement in scale of
pay or enhancement on account of promotions or any other
consequential service benefits due to the services rendered by
the petitioner with the erstwhile DVB. The petitioner will also
be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum simple from
the date of filing of this petition till the entire monetary benefits
in terms of today's judgment are paid to the petitioner. The
monetary dues as payable in terms of the present judgment be
calculated by the respondent No.3 and be paid to the petitioner
within a period of three and a half months from today. In case
the benefits under today's judgment are not paid within a period
of four months from today, then, the petitioner will be entitled
thereafter to an interest at 12% per annum simple till payment.
Writ petition is allowed and disposed of in terms of the
aforesaid observations. Let the petitioner supply copy of
today's judgment to the competent authority of respondent No.3
within 15 days so that the monetary benefits in terms of today's
judgment can be paid to the petitioner."
6. It is, therefore, clear that the liability of every nature on account of
service of an employee with the erstwhile DVB and which was thereafter
transferred to private DISCOMS is of the private DISCOMS. The monetary
liability includes liability to pay the terminal benefits including the
pensionary benefits payable on retirement of an employee and which
retirement takes place either on account of an employee retiring on the
ordinary date of the superannuation or taking benefit of one or the other
contractual retirement schemes or the employee taking a statutory voluntary
retirement in terms of Rule 48 (A) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. It
makes no difference as to what is the type of retirement i. e an ordinary
retirement on reaching age of superannuation or a contractual voluntary
retirement or a statutory voluntary retirement, because, whatever dues which
arise for payment to an employee of erstwhile DVB has necessarily to be
paid by the private DISCOMS such as the respondent No. 3 in the present
case.
7. No doubt remains as to the liability being of respondent No. 3 in this
case in view of the ratio of the judgments in the cases of Iqbal Chand
(supra), Tulsi Ram Arya (supra) and Smt. Pawan Vohra (supra).
8. Learned senior counsel for the respondent No. 3 sought to distinguish
the aforesaid three judgments passed by this Court by referring to paras 71,
72, 80 and 93-I(i) of the judgment of the learned Single Judge in the case of
North Delhi Power Ltd. vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 142 (2007) DLT 65 and
which paras read as under :
"71. There is, in my opinion, another detail which lends
support to the view that the right to apply under Rule 48-A was
considered an integral part of the service conditions of the
erstwhile DVB employees. In its letter of 29-12- 2003, the Trust
clarified that the benefit of five years' weightage could be given
to those retiring, in terms of Rule 48-B of the CCS Pension
Rules. That rule applies to employees who seek and are
permitted to retire under Rule 48-A.
72. The above analysis would show that at material times
when the functions of the erstwhile DVB were carried out by its
predecessor in interest, i.e DESU, Regulations had been framed
which extended the terms and conditions of service applicable to
the Government Servants. Those conditions were protected and
they became part of the conditions of service of employees of
DESU upon its creation. No material has been brought to the
notice of the court by way of a conditional circular or resolution,
restricting applicability of the CCS Pension Rules to exclude the
right to apply for voluntary retirement under Rule 48-A. In these
circumstances, the logical inference is that such a right to apply
for voluntary retirement under Rule 48-A (of the CCS Pension
Rules) existed and was a protected condition of service in terms
of the tripartite agreements, Section 16(2) and Rule 6. Though
the terms of the Trust Deed undoubtedly support the plea that
superannuation is the incident on which pension is payable, yet
Rule 6(9) in my opinion was framed to cater to the eventuality
of the Trust not being liable to pay, but the GNCT being obliged
to make arrangements to the extent the Trust is unfounded, if
there is a shortfalls in the event of exercise of option by an
employee under Rule 48-A CCS Pension Rules. In this context,
it has to be held that the tripartite agreements cannot be read as a
charter to restrict existing rights 'their tenor and purpose was to
grant continuity. Such being the case the defect if any of the
GNCT in Constituting the Trust and the restrictive definition in
the Trust rules entitling only superannuated employees to
pension cannot rob or divest those applying, and becoming
eligible to pension, in terms of rule 48-A of Pension Rules to the
terminal and pension benefits. In such an eventuality, the GNCT
has to the extent of Trust being unfounded bear the liability
wherever recourse is made by the transferred employees to Rule
48-A of the Pension Rules. Regarding Question No. 2.
80. There are some important differences between the nature
and character of the DISCOM's schemes and the conditions spelt
out in Rule 48/ 48-A. They are:
(1) In terms of the said rules the condition for cessation of
service, indeed the making of an application, i.e eligibility, is
upon the completion of a fairly long tenure of service (30 years
in the case of Rule 48; 20 years for Rule 48-A.)However, the
period is far less in the two schemes. It is 10 years or the
employee being 40 years of age.
(2) Rules 48 and 48-A are devoid of any element of inducement.
However, the schemes of DISCOMS contain inducement of ex
gratia up to 60 months pay. Besides, other inducements such as
early bird incentives, etc were held out.
93. In the light of the above discussion it is hereby declared
and directed as follows:
I(i) The Pension Trust and GNCT are not liable to make
payment towards terminal benefits and residual pension arising
to those who opted VRS/VSS, formulated by the petitioners
DISCOMS namely, BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd., BYPL and the
NDPL employees of the above (referred to as 'DISCOMS'). The
employees of the DISCOMS who opted by VRS/VSS or the
Scheme by whatever name called and were relieved from
employment are entitled to payment of terminal dues (which
expression would include all accrued benefits such as gratuity,
provident fund, leave travel concession, leave encashment,
payment towards medical facilities, commutation of pension and
residual pension and such other payments as they are entitled to
in terms of the protected terms and conditions of service under
the Act and Rules) from the date of their respective severance
from employment. Such date of severance shall be hereafter
referred to be called 'entitlement date'."
9. I have really failed to understand this argument urged on behalf of the
respondent No. 3 because it makes no difference as to the liability of the
private DISCOMS whatever be the nature of voluntary retirement i. e a
contractual voluntary retirement or under a statutory entitlement to seek
voluntary retirement vide Rule 48(A) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
What is relevant to note is that the Supreme Court in the case of North Delhi
Power Limited Vs. Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi & Ors.
(2010) 6 SCC 278 has made it crystal clear that all monetary liabilities of the
employees of the erstwhile DVB would be of the private DISCOMS and
which liabilities include liabilities towards provident fund, gratuity, pension
or any other monetary liability. The relevant paras of the Supreme Court
judgment are reproduced above in above quoted paras of the judgment in the
case of Iqbal Chand (supra). In fact, I may note that the learned Single
Judge who passed the judgment in the case of North Delhi Power Ltd. vs.
Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 142 (2007) DLT 65 has already clarified the position
when confusion was sought to be created by the private DISCOMS that its
liability cannot arise till there is decision as per the mechanism which was
laid down in the judgment, and the learned Single Judge of this Court who
passed the judgment in the North Delhi Power Ltd. vs. Govt. of NCT of
Delhi thereafter clarified the position subsequently in his judgment dated
20.04.2011 and relevant portions of which have again been reproduced by
me in the judgment of Smt. Pawan Vohra(supra) as quoted above. Para 15
of the said judgment dated 20.04.2011 of the learned Single Judge clearly
stated that the electricity companies were to bear the liability of the
employees and if necessary, seek adjustment in the final determination by
the Tribunal which was referred to in the judgment North Delhi Power Ltd.
vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 142 (2007) DLT 65.
10. The writ petition is accordingly allowed with costs of ` 50,000/-.
Costs are imposed not only because petitioner has been unnecessarily
dragged to Courts and has had to incur expenses, but also because I am
finding that private DISCOMS including present respondent No. 3/ The
North Delhi Power Limited in spite of repeated judgments of Single Judges
of this Court, clarifications given qua those judgments, judgment of
Supreme Court and even judgments passed by me specifically time and
again is seeking to avoid payment of liability towards its employees on one
frivolous ground or the other. Unnecessary wastage of judicial time, in my
opinion, is also not appreciated.
11. Petitioner be paid all her terminal benefits including pension by the
respondent No. 3 within three months from today. Petitioner will also be
entitled to interest @ 9% per annum simple from the date of the retirement
i.e 01.04.2009 till payment. If the amount due is not paid within three
months from today interest thereafter will be paid @ 12% per annum simple.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
JULY 09, 2013
godara
