National Highways Authority Of ... vs Mbl Infrastructure Ltd
2017 Latest Caselaw 194 Del

$~
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
7.
+              O.M.P. 814/2011 & IAs 394/2017, 395/2017

      NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA..... Petitioner
                   Through: Mr. Ravi Gupta, Senior Advocate with
                   Mr. Ujjwal K. Jha, Advocates.

                          versus

      MBL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD                   ...... Respondent
                   Through: Ms. Anusuya Salwan and Mr. Kunal
                   Kohli, Advocates.

      CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR

                          ORDER

% 12.01.2017

1. This petition by National Highways Authority of India/ NHAI under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 („Act‟) challenges the Award dated 12th April 2011 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal („AT‟) in the disputes between the NHAI and the Respondent MBL Infrastructure Ltd., formerly known as (Maheshwari Brothers Ltd.) arising out of a contract dated 24th August 2006, whereby the work of „short term improvement and routine maintenance of section of National Highway No.2 Barwa Adda-Panagarh Section in the State of Bihar and West Bengal was awarded to the Respondent.

2. The period of contract was 12 months from the date of commencement which was 1st September 2006. The contract, therefore, was to expire on 31 st December 2007. It is stated that NHAI issued a 'letter to proceed' to the

Respondent on 29th August 2006.

3. In terms of the contract, three indents were placed by the NHAI apart from the first draft indent, Indent No. 3A and Indent No. 1A was to be placed on 12th December 2006. According to the NHAI, the Respondent did not carry out any work till 24th January 2007, as per the work programme submitted on 8th September 2006. The second indent was issued on 20th March 2007 which was valid till 19th June 2007. Till 31st December 2007, the value of the work in respect of indent number 2 that was completed only Rs. 3.6 crores as regards RS. 9.5 crores. The third indent issued on 23 rd June 2007 was valid till 31st August 2007.

4. According to the NHAI, no work could be taken up by the Respondent since even the second indent work could not be completed and the period of the contract was extended up to 31st December 2007. The case of the NHAI is that in view of the breaches committed by the Respondent, the NHAI became entitled to recovery of liquidated damages („LD‟). It is stated by letter dated 27th August 2007, the Respondent requested NHAI for extension of time and further requested that the LD be waived. By letter dated 27th August 2007 the Respondent explained the NHAI the contractual provisions. By a letter dated 28th December 2007, the NHAI terminated the contract.

5. There were nine claims i.e. A-1 to A-9 filed by the Respondent. By the impugned Award dated 12th April 2011, the AT substantially allowed Claims 1A to A-5 and rejected Claims A-6to A-9.

6. As far as the present petition is concerned by the order dated 21st December 2011, the Court issued notice in the present petition confined to the Award in respect of the Claims A-1, A-3 and A-4. The order passed on that date by the Court reads as under:

"1. Mr. Buddy Ranganathan, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner National Highways Authority of India ('NHAI') seeks to assail the impugned Award insofar as Claim Nos. A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-4.

2. As regards Claim No. 1, it is submitted that the Award is on the face of it erroneous since it fails to note that the machinery could not have been deployed by the Contractor even prior to the Petitioner issuing to the Contractor a letter to proceed. He submits that the Award itself notes, in the list of dates, that the notice to proceed was issued by NHAI on 29th August 2006, and that the Start Date of contract was September 2006 with the end date being 12 months thereafter, i.e., 31st August 2007. The contract was extended up to 31'^ December 2007. He submits that the Arbitral Tribunal has erroneously allowed Claim No. A-1 for idle plant and machinery which was purportedly deployed at the site from 15th May 2006 to 20th May 2006.

3. As regards Claim No. A-2, it is submitted that no reasons have been given by the Arbitral Tribunal for allowing the claim in regard to the bill IPC-16.

4. As regards Claim No. A-3 concerning the deduction of retention money by NHAI from the bills of the contractor, Mr. Ranganathan referred to the reasons) adduced by NHAI, which have been recorded by the Arbitral Tribunal, that according to the NHAI the work completed by the contractor up to 31'' December 2007 constituted only 45% of the total work. This was the justification offered by the NHAI for deduction of retention money from the bills of the contractor. He states that while allowing the said claim in Para 11.0 the Arbitral Tribunal fails to discuss the explanation offered by NHAI and the Award on this aspect contains no reasons.

5. Even as regards Claim No. A-4, it is submitted that the reasoning in para 10.09 of the Award about the liquidated damages („LD') not being recoverable was only in relation to slow progress "in the initial months", whereas the Arbitral Tribunal appears to have extended the said reasoning to the later months as well, again without giving any reasons.

6. As regards the submission concerning IPC-16 this Court noted in its previous order dated 15th November 2011 the submission of Ms. Anusuya Salwan, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent, that IPC-16 was in fact a bill prepared by the NHAI and accepted by the contractor before the Arbitral Tribunal. There is no denial of this factual position by the NHAI. Therefore, this Court rejects the challenge by NHAI to the Award of the Arbitral Tribunal insofar as Claim No. A-2 is concerned. NHAI should make payment to the Respondent of the amount awarded under Claim No. A-2 without delay and in any event not later than six weeks from today.

7. Notice, confined to the challenge by NHAI to impugned Award as regards Claim Nos. A-1, A-3 and A-4, be issued to the Respondent.

8. Ms. Salwan accepts notice and states that she will file a reply within six weeks from today. Rejoinder, if any, within four weeks thereafter.

9. List on 28th March 2012.

10. The arbitral record be requisitioned forthwith."

7. Mr. Ravi Gupta, learned Senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner assailed the Award in respect of Claim A-1, which was for compensation for the delay in executing the contract document immediately after the issuance of the letter of Acceptance („LOA‟).

8. As regards the above claim the stand of the Respondent in its statement of claim was that a Contractor would normally take 3 or 4 months for

mobilization of heavy items of machinery which are required for this kind of work. It was urged that notice to proceed with the work ought to have been issued immediately for those items of work which could be done with light machinery. Since the Contractor would need 3/4 months to mobilize the heavy machinery an indent should have been issued for those item of works which could be done by heavy machineries.

9. The Respondent‟s case was that it accepted the letter dated 12 th May 2006 and took steps for completion of the contract on the expectation that immediately upon furnishing the performance security the contract would be executed by signing of the agreement, a format whereof was annexed to the tender documents. Immediately thereupon a notice to proceed with the work would be issued and the engineers of both the sides would sit together to discuss and decide upon the items of work to be included in the first indent. It was claimed that on the above expectation, the Respondent started mobilising heavy machinery and the labour force from the beginning of June 2006. A reminder was sent on 11th July 2006 but no response was received.

10. It is stated that since the form of bid and also a written acceptance thereon constitutes a binding contract on 12th May 2006, legally binding contract came into existence between the parties and on that basis the Respondent started mobilizing heavy machinery from other sites. The actual work could not have started without execution of a formal contract agreement and written order to proceed with the work. It was further averred in the statement of claim as under:

"It is a matter of common experience and knowledge that when the work of this nature is put to execution, initially few months are spent

in mobilization of heavy machinery, which can be eventually put to operational use only after 3-4 months. After binding contract came into existence after 12.5.2006, as per the terms and conditions of contract, the claimant was well justified to mobilise its resources. But when months passed by without any positive response from the respondent, the machineries already brought on site thus, was to be shifted: (elsewhere in order to prevent further losses and idling charges. The claimant ultimately had no option but to dismantle and remove all the plant and machinery which has been deployed at site. Dismantling the items of heavy machinery takes 5 to 7 days."

11 It is stated that a notice was issued on 29 th August 2006 by NHAI "knowing very well that having recently dismantled and removed the plant and machinery from site, it would take time for the claimant to once again mobilise the plant and machinery and especially the items of heavy machinery which would take three to four months to mobilize".

12. The stand of the NHAI, on the other hand, was that the Claimant was not entitled to compensation as delay was not attributable to NHAI and " there was no idle plant and machineries, land" during the period 12 th May and 24th August 2006. The NHAI also disputed the assertion of the Respondent that it had mobilized the plant and machinery immediately after LOA was issued. Apart from the fact that no plant and machinery ought to have been mobilized without the permission or information of the engineer, no document was disclosed by the Respondent to show that mobilization of such plant and machinery takes place during the aforementioned time or that it was done with the consent of the engineers. Referring to the deposition of Mr. A.K. Lakhotia, a witness of the Respondent, the NHAI stated that the bills and vouchers produced by the Respondent to establish mobilization and demobilization during the period 12th May 2006 to 24th

August 2006 "were found to be not genuine, false and fabricated." With the site not having been handed over prior to 29th August 2006, the question of mobilising the plant and machinery by the Respondent before that date did not arise.

13. The AT has in the impugned Award set out the respective averments of the NHAI and the Respondent. Thereafter in para 10 under the sub-heading "Analysis of Claims and findings of the Arbitral Tribunal" the AT has purported to give its reason. It noted that the Respondent‟s case was that right from the beginning of work some officers of the NHAI were prejudiced against him. They wanted to favour M/s Concrete Cooperative Pvt. Ltd and thereby frustrating the contract with the Respondent. The NHAI also explained before the AT that although the bank guarantees (BGs) were furnished by the Respondent on 19th May 2006, the confirmation from the respective Banks was received on 24th and 29th May 2006.

14. Further by a letter dated 7th August 2006, the Respondent informed the NHAI that the name of the company had been changed from Maheshwari Brothers Ltd. to MBL Infrastructure Ltd. After posing a question in para 10.05 as to why the LOA was not issued till 7th August 2006 when change of name was intimated by the Respondent, it was observed by the AT that "This delay of approximately two months again castes aspersions on the intentions of some officers".

15 In para 11.00 of the Award under the sub-heading "Analysis of Contractor‟s Claims", the AT dealt with Claim No. A-1 (idle plant and machineries ). The decision of the AT in this regard reads as under:

"The letter of acceptance of bid was issued to the Claimants on 12.05.2006. The Claimants have stressed that Legal Contract was entered on 12.05.2006 and signing the Contract Agreement was a simple formality. That based on acceptance of bid, Claimants started arranging plant and machinery from date of acceptance of Contract. The Contractor has claimed Rs. 1,27,47,223/- as per revised Claim Statement (CD-XXVI). The Tribunal has rejected claims A-1(a)-A(b) with mobilization expenditure incurred for transportation charges of equipment, on the reasoning given therein, but as per Challans of road ways, the Tribunal Holds the view that Claimants had brought plants and machinery to project site from 15.05.2006 to 20.05.2006. The performance security had been submitted on 19.05.2006. Hence claim of idling plants and machineries is considered from 21.05.2006. Similarly Claimants have stated transportation back of plant and machineries from 07.08.2006 to 12.08.2006 and hence idling can only be considered till 06.08.2006. Number of days between 21.05.2006 to 06.08.2008 equal 78 days. Out of this 30 days are deducted for preparatory work, which was to be accounted by Claimants. Hence reasonably the delay for which idling should be considered is (78-30) = 48 days only, say for 1.58 months.

It seen from the Claim A-1(a)-A(a) that the Claimants have accounted for delay of 79 days which has been reduced to 48 days for calculation of the awarded amount. The MORTH rates as per MORTH Data Book, are of 2001-2002; these are to be escalated for subsequent years and Contractor reasonably had increased them by 20%. On pointing out by the Tribunal, 25% reduction has been offered by the Claimants for non usage viz cost of repair/maintenance including replacement of tyres and running and operating charges which include crew, fuel & lubricant. This deduction of 25% is considered less and has been revised by 50%. By reducing number of days to 48 from 79 and revising deduction of 25% to 50% the amount works out to Rs. 51,63,408/- in place of Rs. 1,27,47,223 and is awarded accordingly.

11.01.2 Claim No. A-1(a)-A(b)

Claimants had claimed mobilization expenditure incurred for transportation charges of equipment from other site to project site and

from project site to other site. Vouchers were not accepted by Respondents. The Claimants had to mobilize plants and machineries at site once at any stage of time and only to remove on completion of work. Removing in between and bringing it back was based on their own calculations and hence claim of Rs. 9,19,755/- is rejected.

16. Mr. Ravi Gupta is right in his submission that there is no discussion at all by the AT of the case put forth by the NHAI. Particularly the case of the NHAI is that there could be no composition of delay in issuing the letter to proceed since according to the Respondent, 3/4 months would be required to mobilize the machinery. The question of delay in issuing the letter to proceed did not arise.

17. Mr. Gupta also referred to a letter dated 23rd July 2007 issued by the Respondent to the Petitioner, where, inter alia it was stated that the Respondent started the work of the subject contract only from 1st September 2006.

18. The Court finds that the AT has not given any reasons for arriving at the conclusion that there was any delay on the part of the NHAI in issuing the letter to proceed. There is merit in the contention of Mr. Gupta that without the prior permission of the engineers, mobilisation of plant and machinery was undertaken by the Respondent at its own risk. In any event, this stand of the NHAI was not even discussed by the AT. What the Court finds is therefore, only the conclusions of the AT not its reasons for allowing the claim to the extent it has.

19. Ms. Anusuya Salwan, learned counsel for the Respondent repeatedly stressed that what has been observed by the AT in para 10.00 "Analysis of

Claims and findings of the Arbitral Tribunal" constitutes the reasons of the AT. In particular, she refers to the following para:

"10.5 Delay in signing of Contract Agreement Normally Letter of Acceptance should have been issued within a fortnight of verification of Performance Guarantee by banks (i.e. 29th May 2006). Why was this letter not issued upto 07 th August, 2006, when change of name was intimated by Claimants? This delay of approximately two months again casts aspersions on the intentions of some officers."

20. The above observation cannot be said to constitute the reasons for the conclusion that the Respondent had to be compensated for the delay in NHAI issuing the letter to proceed. Although para 10 begins with the sub- heading „Analysis of Claims and findings of the Arbitral Tribunal‟ it appears to be only recording the submissions of the parties which are again recapitulated in para 10.10.1. The AT begins the said para by stating "The learned Advocate for Respondents has stressed the following:.." Therefore, the Court is unable to accept the plea of Ms. Salwan that what has been observed by the AT in para 10.00 are either its analysis or reasons. In fact para 11.00 starts with heading "Analysis of Contractor‟s Claims" and therefore what is stated in para 11.00 onwards alone can be said to be the decision of the AT. In this regard, all that the Court finds in para 11.00 onwards are the conclusions of the AT not its reasons.

21. It is in this portion that the AT should have discussed the rival contentions and given its reasons as to why it was accepting the version of the NHAI or the Respondent as the case may be. The Court is unable to discern any such reasons for such conclusions. The Court finds that the mandatory requirement of Section 31(3) of the Act that the AT should give

its reasons is not satisfied in respect of Claim No.1 The Award, in this regard, therefore cannot be sustained.

22. The next challenge is to the Award in respect of Claim No. A-3, i.e. return of the retention money and security deposit of Rs. 42,43,692. In para 11.10 of the Award the only discussion in this regard is following three lines:

"11.10 Claim No. A-3: Retention money and Security Deposit Rs. 42,43,692/-:

It may be seen from revised Form C-48 that retention money/security deposit had been deducted from IPC No. 1 to 15 and hence is payable to the Contractor. Whole amount of Rs. 42,43,692/- is awarded."

23. Ms. Salwan, drew the Court‟s attention to what is noted in para 5.18 of the Award, viz., that the Respondent had completed all possible work and thereafter started the winding and in that connection wrote a letter dated 28th December 2007 which was received by the Engineer on 29 th December 2007. She also referred to the highlighted portion "contract was completed on 31.12.2007".

24. What however, is overlooked by Ms. Salwan is that these are the submissions of the Respondent and not the findings of the AT. The pattern that AT appears to have followed is to record in detail the submissions of both the parties and then in the most critical part of the Award where it supposed to give reasons, give only its conclusions.

25. In order to understand the basis of this claim it is important to first note that Clause 53 provides for termination. It is submitted that under Clause

44.3(c) of the contract, the NHAI was permitted to retain the retention money and the security deposit till the breaches were rectified by the Respondent to the satisfaction of the NHAI.

26. In the present case, the Respondent had abandoned the site by 29th December 2007. The case of the Respondent was that the NHAI refused to release the retention money of security deposit, despite the Respondent carrying out its obligations under the contract. It is alleged that large sections of the highways was not handed over to the Respondent and those sites which were handed over to it were taken back in the execution of contract.

27. The case of the NHAI was that under Clause 44.3(c) , the retention money can only be released when the work is completed to the satisfaction of the NHAI.

28. Turning to the impugned Award, it is seen that the AT has noted the submissions of the NHAI that even according to the Respondent they "admittedly only completed 45.43% of the value of the contract till December 28, 2007". It is also noted that the Respondent on its own "stopped the work and started demobilizing as on 29 th December, 2007". However, when it came to the actual decision on the above Claim No. A-3, as already noted hereinbefore, the AT gives no reason whatsoever as to why it has rejected the above submissions of NHAI. There is not even a discussion of Clause 44.3(c) of the contract.

29. Now turning to Claim No.A-4, concerning the recovery of LD, amounting to Rs. 2,10,20,000, the reasons given by the AT in para 11.11 are as under:

"11.11 Claim no. A-4: Liquidated Damages deducted from bills amounting to Rs. 2,10,20,000/-:

Liquidated Damages had been deducted from IPC No. 4 to IPC No. 13 amounting to Rs.2,10,20,000/-. Tribunal holds that Liquidated Damages are not to be imposed. This amount is to be refunded to Contractor. For interest calculations please see Para 11.18 that follows."

30. It is obvious to the Court that the above paras cannot said to be the reasons of the AT for allowing the claims. In trying to defend the above Award, Ms. Salwan refers to the observations of the AT in paras 10.09, which reads as under:

"10.09 Claimants letters dated 23.07.2007, 27.08.2007 and NHAI Chairman‟s Note dated 29.08.2007

Claimants in para 8.04.1 of this Award has given details of their letters & Chairman‟s Note. In the letter dated 23.07.2007, addressed to The Team Leader SOWIL Ltd., the Contractor had requested for extension of time by four months "Waiving off liquidated damages", but these „words‟ are not there in the letter to the Chairman. The Chairman‟s Note only specifies "After listening to what he said, I agree to grant him extension of time for four months". The Tribunal had seen the relevant file n the Head-Quarters of NHAI - the case was again submitted to the Chairman, recommending that as per rules, Liquidated Damages be imposed and, this was approved by the Chairman. Since the work, which could be done, was executed and shown completed on 31.12.2007 by the Engineer and in view of the discussion in above sub-paras, no Liquidated Damages are to be levied."

31. The difficulty that the Court encounters in accepting the above para as the reasons of the AT is because of what is subsequently stated in para 10.12 which reads as under:

"10.12 With this background in mind, the Tribunal proceeds to analyze individual claims."

32. However, even accepting that the last line of para 10.09 is not merely the submission of the Respondent but the decision of the AT, then again it is a mere conclusion that no LD is to be levied. It is clear from para 10.09 itself that while granting extension of time by four months, the Chairman, NHAI did not agree to the request of the Respondent that the LD should be waived. The AT could not have simply stated that since the work was completed on 31st December 2007, no LD is to be levied. This contradicts the factual position that after completing around 45% of the work, the Respondent in fact abandoned the work on 27th December 2007, without seeking further extension. Importantly the stand of the NHAI in regard to the LD with reference to the letters of the Respondent have not been discussed at all by the AT.

33. Mr. Ravi Gupta, referred to the correspondence between the parties on the aspect of extension of time („EOT‟). A letter was written by the Respondent to NHAI on 23rd July 2007, requesting for EOT by four months. Further, it was assured that "This extension of time will not call for any extra expenditure for NHAI as there is no escalation clause. On the other hand, NHAI will be able to get the work completed from us at old price quoted by us on 26.12.2005". This was followed by another letter dated 27th

August 2007 written by Respondent to NHAI, reiterating its request and to adding that "The issue of liquidated damages may be determined as per provisions of the contract". On 7th September 2007, the Respondent reiterated that the LD may be determined as per the provisions of the contract. All these letters repeated the request of grant of EOT after 31 st December 2007.

34. In its letter dated 28th December 2007, while pointing out that the final progress was 45.43% till that date and that the Respondent had abandoned the work in a very unsafe condition, the NHAI noted that the EOT had been granted after 31st December 2007 but in view of the failure to complete the work by that date, "the contract should be treated as terminated". The request of waiver of LD was never accepted by the NHAI . This stand of the NHAI was in fact noted by the AT in para 9.00 under Claim No. A-4, but as already noted hereinabove, in the critical part of the conclusion where it was to give its reasons and analysis, the AT totally fails to deal with the submissions. Factually it is seen that Chairman of the NHAI while granting EOT on 29th August 2007 did not waive the LD.

35. Therefore, even in respect of Claim No. A-4 , the Court is unable to sustain the impugned Award as the AT has failed to give any reason whatsoever for its conclusions.

36. At this stage, Ms. Salwan submits that exercise of powers under Section 34 (4) of the Act, the Court should remand the matter to the AT for it to rectify the error that has been pointed out, viz., absence of reasons. In other

words, her submission was that the aforementioned three claims should be sent back to the AT for the AT to now supply reasons for its conclusions.

37. The above plea is opposed by Mr. Ravi Gupta, by pointing out that the said prayer is maintainable only at the instance of the party applying to the Court and not the opposite party. Secondly, it is submitted that the scope of the remand under Section 34(4) of the Act is in a narrow compass. For instance, where an Award has been passed without hearing the party, in violation of principles of natural justice, the Court may at the instance of the aggrieved party remand the matter to the AT for giving it an opportunity of being heard.

38. The scope of the powers of the Court under Section 34(4) of the Act, have subject matter of several decisions. In particular the Court would like to refer to it decision dated 1st May 2015 in OMP No. 1349 of 2014 dated (Aspire Investments Pvt. Ltd. v. Nexgen Edusolutions Pvt. Ltd.) where while discussing the powers under Section 34 (4) of the Act, the Court observed:

"The Court is conscious of the limitations of the consequential reliefs that can be granted by a Court as noticed in McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. (supra). Only yesterday in Puri Construction P. Ltd. v. Larsen and Toubro (decision dated 30th April 2015 in FAO (OS) No. 21 of 2009) a Division Bench (DB) of this Court re-visited the question and impliedly overruled the view taken in Union of India v. Modern Laminators Ltd.; Union of India v. Arctic India and Ms. G v. ISG Novasoft Technologies Ltd. (supra) that inherent in the powers of the Court under Section 34 of the Act is the power to modify an Award. The DB has approved the decisions in Managing Director v. Asha Talwar 2009 (5) ALJ 397, Cybernetics Network Pvt. Ltd. v. Bisquare Technologies Pvt. Ltd., 188 (2012) DLT

172 Bharti Cellular Limited v. Department of Telecommunications, 2012 (4) Arb LR 473 (Delhi), State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. v. Toepfer International Asia PTE Ltd., 2014 (3) Arb LR 105 (Delhi); Delhi Development Authority v. Bhardwaj Brothers, AIR 2014 Delhi 147 and Central Warehousing Corporation v A.S.A. Transport, (2008) 3 MLJ 382 all of which held that once an award has been set aside, consequential reliefs cannot be granted under Section 34. After discussing the above decision, the DB concluded: "This Court is inclined to follow the decisions in Central Warehousing Corporation, Delhi Development Authority, State Trading Corporation of India Ltd., Bharti Cellular Limited, Cybernetics Network Pvt. Ltd. and Asha Talwar. The guiding principle on this issue was laid down by the Supreme Court in McDermott International Inc. (supra), where the Court held:

"The 1996 Act makes provision for the supervisory role of courts, for the review of the arbitral award only to ensure fairness. Intervention of the court is envisaged in few circumstances only, like, in case of fraud or bias by the arbitrators, violation of natural justice, etc. The court cannot correct errors of the arbitrators. It can only quash the award leaving the parties free to begin the arbitration again if it is desired. So, scheme of the provision aims at keeping the supervisory role of the court at minimum level and this can be justified as parties to the agreement make a conscious decision to exclude the court's jurisdiction by opting for arbitration as they prefer the expediency and finality offered by it."

39. An added reason for declining the request for a remand to the AT is that the Court does not concur with the conclusions reached by the AT in light of the clauses of the contract and the averments of the parties. In such circumstances, the question of remanding the matter to the AT only to enable it to supply the reasons cannot be entertained.

40. For the aforementioned reasons, the Award in respect of Claim Nos. A- 1, A-3 and A-4 are hereby set aside.

41. The petition and the pending applications are disposed of in the above terms.

S.MURALIDHAR, J JANUARY 12, 2017 mg