Delhi High Court
Doshion Private Limited vs Iic Ltd., & Ors. on 15 March, 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 15.03.2018
+ O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 319/2017 and CM No. 13474/2017
DOSHION PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner
versus
IIC LTD., & ORS. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr Sachin Datta, Senior Advocate with Mr
Devashish Bharuka and Mr Justine George.
For the Respondents : Mr Rajat Navet, Mr Jeevesh Nagrath, Mr
Pratham Sharma, Mr Chitvan Singhal and
Mr Kushajra Pandit for R-1.
Mr Abhishek Sharma for R-2/IDBI.
Mr Arun Aggarwal and Ms Jyoti Gautam,
for R-3 (Dena Bank).
WITH
+ O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 320/2017 and IA No. 13465/2017
DOSHION VEOLIA WATER SOLUTIONS
PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner
versus
INDIANBULLS INFRASTRUCTURE COMPANY
LTD. & ANR. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr Sachin Datta, Senior Advocate with Mr
Devashish Bharuka and Mr Justine George.
For the Respondents : Mr Rajat Navet, Mr Jeevesh Nagrath, Mr
Pratham Sharma, Mr Chitvan Singhal and
Mr Kushajra Pandit for R-1.
Mr Abhishek Sharma for R-2/IDBI.
O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 319/2017 & Other Connected Matters Page 1 of 19
WITH
+ O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 321/2017 and IA No. 13476/2017
DOSHION VEOLIA WATER SOLUTIONS
PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner
versus
ELENA POWER AND INFRASTRUCTURE
LIMITED & ANR. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr Sachin Datta, Senior Advocate with Mr
Devashish Bharuka and Mr Justine George.
For the Respondents : Mr Rajat Navet, Mr Jeevesh Nagrath, Mr
Pratham Sharma, Mr Chitvan Singhal and
Mr Kushajra Pandit for R-1.
WITH
+ O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 322/2017 and IA No. 13468/2017
DOSHION VEOLIA WATER SOLUTIONS
PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner
versus
RATTANINDIA NASIK POWER LIMITED
& ANR. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr Sachin Datta, Senior Advocate with Mr
Devashish Bharuka and Mr Justine George.
For the Respondents : Mr Rajat Navet, Mr Jeevesh Nagrath, Mr
Pratham Sharma, Mr Chitvan Singhal and
Mr Kushajra Pandit for R-1.
Mr Abhishek Sharma for R-2/IDBI.
WITH
+ O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 323/2017 and IA No. 13469/2017
O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 319/2017 & Other Connected Matters Page 2 of 19
DOSHION VEOLIA WATER SOLUTIONS
PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner
versus
INDIANBULLS INFRASTRUCTURE COMPANY
LTD. & ANR. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr Sachin Datta, Senior Advocate with Mr
Devashish Bharuka and Mr Justine George.
For the Respondents : Mr Rajat Navet, Mr Jeevesh Nagrath, Mr
Pratham Sharma, Mr Chitvan Singhal and
Mr Kushajra Pandit for R-1.
CORAM
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
JUDGMENT
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
1. The petitioner has filed the present petitions under Section 9 of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter „the Act‟ ), inter
alia, praying that respondent no.1 (IICL) be restrained from pursuing
its request for invocation of the bank guarantees, which were
furnished by the petitioner in terms of the contracts entered into
between the parties. The controversy involved in all the petitions is
common. It is also pointed out that the pleadings in these petitions are
similar.
2. In view of the above, this Court would refer only to the facts as
relevant to OMP (I) (Comm) 319/2017 for addressing the controversy
raised in these petitions. The counsel appearing for the parties also
agree that the decision in the said matter would be determinative of the
other petitions as well.
3. Briefly stated, the relevant facts necessary to address the
controversy involved in the present petition are as under:-
3.1 The petitioner company is engaged in the business of waste
management and providing water solutions etc. The petitioner claims
that it has significant reputation in the field of its business. Respondent
no.1 (hereafter „IICL‟) is engaged in the field of generation of thermal
power, renewal energy, mining etc.
3.2 The petitioner was issued a Letter of Award (LoA) dated
15.10.2010 awarding the contract for design, engineering,
manufacture, testing, supply, transportation, transit insurance, civil
works including laying of GRP pipeline, commissioning and
demonstration of performance guarantees of cross country pipeline of
diameter 1200 mm and length 32.5 kms (hereafter referred to as "the
work of cross country pipelines"). In terms of the LoA, the total
contract price was ₹46.50 crores.
3.3 In terms of the contract, the petitioner furnished seven bank
guarantees for securing advances (advance bank guarantees) and
securing the performance of the contract (performance guarantees).
The details of the bank guarantees furnished by the petitioner are set
out below:-
" Sl. No. Bank Guarantee No. Amount (in Rs.) Issued by
1 110375IBGA00001 80,91,000/- IDBI Bank
(Respondent No.2)
2 1103751BGA00033 13,42,000/- IDBI Bank,
(Respondent No.2)
3 110375IBGA00034 19,75,000/- IDBI Bank
(Respondent No.2)
4 110375IBGP00102 36,96,507/- IDBI Bank
(Respondent No.2)
5 110375IBGP00103 30,46,500/- IDBI Bank
(Respondent No.2)
6 117015IGBER0041 1,61,81,994/- Dena Bank Ltd.
(Respondent No.3)
7 117015IGBER0042 2,29,25,000/- Dena Bank Ltd.
(Respondent No.3)
Total 5,72,58,001/-
"
3.4 The petitioner claims that it completed substantial work to the
extent of about 80% by 2013-14 but the balance work could not be
completed, as IICL ran into financial difficulties and was unable to
make regular payments in terms of the contract between the parties.
The petitioner avers that IICL got the remaining work executed from
other agencies.
3.5 The aforementioned bank guarantees furnished by the petitioner
were kept alive and were extended from time to time.
3.6 The petitioner further claims that it is entitled to receive an
amount in excess of ₹7 crores from IICL. The petitioner also sought
the aforesaid amount by a letter dated 02.03.2014.
4. IICL has invoked the aforementioned bank guarantees by
separate letters (all dated 21.08.2017) addressed to the concerned
banks in respect of each bank guarantee.
5. The banks (respondent nos. 2 and 3) have honoured their
commitment and have remitted the funds to IICL either directly or by
way of demand drafts. This has led the petitioner to file the present
petitions. The petitions were listed before this Court on 25.08.2017.
However, prior to the same, the IICL had already invoked the bank
guarantees in question and the concerned banks (respondent nos. 2 and
3) have remitted the amount to IICL either directly or by way of bank
drafts.
6. On 25.08.2017, this Court passed an ad interim order directing
IICL to keep the amounts recovered from encashment of the bank
guarantees separately and not appropriate or deal with the same.
Submissions
7. Mr Sachin Datta, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioner advanced contentions essentially on two fronts. First, he
submitted that the bank guarantees were conditional and the
invocation of the bank guarantees in question were not in terms of the
said bank guarantees. In particular, he referred to the Bank Guarantee
No. 110375IBGA00001 and referred to the paragraph of the said bank
guarantee, which is set out below:-
"The Guarantor shall, upon receipt of written
demand made by the Employer, without proof or
conditions or without recourse or demur or protest
or enquiry pay forthwith in full without any
deduction the sum claimed in the written notice or
such sum not exceeding the sum of
Rs.1,61,81,994/- (Rupees one crore sixty one lakhs
eighty one thousand nine hundred ninety four only)
("Guarantee Amount") as may be specified in such
demand, in the event of the Contractor failing or
neglecting to execute fully efficiently and
satisfactorily the Contract in accordance with with
terms and conditions contained therein. "
8. Mr Datta contended that in view of the plain language of the
bank guarantee, the same could be invoked only if the petitioner is
found to have failed or neglected to execute the contract satisfactorily.
He submitted that the bank guarantees were conditional and unless the
aforesaid condition was established, the guarantees could not be
invoked. He referred to the letters invoking the bank guarantees
issued by IICL and emphasized that IICL had merely stated that they
have "opted to invoke the abovementioned bank guarantee". He
earnestly contended that such invocation was not in terms of the bank
guarantees, as no assertion had been made that the petitioner had
failed to execute the contract in question.
9. He referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Hindustan
Construction Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar & Ors. : (1999) 8 SCC 436
and submitted that in that case, the Supreme Court had considered a
similarly worded bank guarantee and had held that it was a conditional
bank guarantee.
10. Second, Mr Datta contended that there were special equities in
favour of the petitioner. He contended that the bank guarantees had
not been invoked for almost four years and invoking the same, without
any further development, was fraudulent. He submitted that the
financial status of IICL and its group companies was precarious and if
the petitioner is not secured at this stage, it would not be able to
recover the amount even if it succeeds before the Arbitral Tribunal.
He contended that in the circumstances, the balance of convenience
was squarely in favour of the petitioner and irretrievable injury would
be caused if the relief, as sought for by the petitioner, is not granted.
11. Mr Rajat Navet, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondents countered the submissions made on behalf of the
petitioner. He submitted that the bank guarantees in question were
unconditional and apart from the bank guarantee no.
110375IBGA00001, all other bank guarantees also included a clause,
which obliged the bank to pay the amount demanded, to the maximum
of the sum specified, notwithstanding, the dispute raised by the
contractor in any suit or proceeding. He submitted that, admittedly, the
petitioner had not completed the work in question and, thus, there is
no doubt that IICL was entitled to encash the bank guarantees in
question. He further submitted that some of the bank guarantees were
to secure the amounts advanced by IICL, and there could be no doubt
that IICL was entitled to recover the same.
Reasons and Conclusion
12. At the outset, this Court is unable to accept that the bank
guarantees are conditional as contended by Mr Dutta. A plain reading
of the bank guarantees in question indicates that the bank had agreed
to pay the amount forthwith as demanded by IICL "without proof or
conditions or without recourse or demur or protest or enquiry". These
words make it amply clear that the concerned bank was obliged to
remit the funds immediately on invocation of the bank guarantees. The
contention, that such demand would be honoured only once it was
established that the petitioner had failed or neglected to execute the
contract satisfactorily, is unmerited. It is well established that a bank
guarantee is a separate agreement, which is to be performed on its own
terms. A bank cannot be expected to examine or ascertain whether a
contract has been satisfactorily performed and it must act on the terms
of the bank guarantee. In this case, the concerned banks were obliged
to remit the amount without making any enquiry and, thus, the banks
have acted in terms of the bank guarantees.
13. Mr Datta contended that since the clause of the bank guarantee
as considered by the Supreme Court in Hindustan Construction Co.
Ltd. (supra) was similar to the clause as contained in the bank
guarantees in question, the bank guarantees must be considered to be
conditional bank guarantees as held by the Supreme Court. This
contention is not persuasive. A similar contention was also considered
by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in M/s Rani Constructions Pvt.
Ltd. v. M/s Pati-Bel J.V. & Anr. : 2006 (129) DLT 38. In that case,
Court observed that the bank had undertaken the liability not only as a
surety but as a primary obligator and the same indicated that the bank
guarantee was unconditional. The relevant extract of the said decision
is set out below:-
"10. Section 134 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872
provides for the discharge of the surety by release or
discharge of the principle debtor. It provides that the
surety is discharged by any contract between the
creditor and the principal debtor, by which the
principal debtor is released, or by any act or omission
of the creditor, the legal consequence of which is the
discharge of the principal debtor. A bank guarantee is
contract of a guarantee where the bank acts as the
surety and the surety is normally discharged by virtue
of Section 134 when the principal debtor is released.
This is the normal position in law. However, the bank
guarantees in question disclose that the bank has
undertaken the liabilities not merely as a surety but
also as a "primary obligator". In other words, it has
undertaken this liability unconditionally and without
recourse or reference to the underlying contract
between the defendant No.1 and the plaintiff, i.e.,
between the creditor and the principal debtor even to
the limited extent permissible under Section 134 of
the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Another important
circumstance is that the guarantee itself reveals that
the bank is liable to pay on the first demand without
the bank having any right of objection. This is
equivalent to the expression "without demur" as
visualised in the Supreme Court decision in the case
of Hindustan Construction Company Ltd (supra). The
further expression that the bank is liable to pay
without a claim first being made on the contractor
(plaintiff) also indicates the same sentiment. All these
aspects point in only one direction and that is that the
bank guarantees in question are unconditional in terms
and not merely because they profess to be so. "
14. In the present case, Clause no. 7 of the bank guarantee no.
110375IBGA00001 expressly provides as under:
"7. The Bank‟s obligations under this ABG for the
Guarantee Amount are in the nature of primary,
independent and absolute obligations and not by way
of surety."
15. In view of the above, there can be little doubt that the bank had
undertaken an independent obligation to pay without demur or enquiry
as observed. This obligation of the bank was not only as a surety but
the "primary, independent and absolute" obligation of the bank.
16. As observed above, a bank guarantee is an independent contract
between the bank and the beneficiary and must be interpreted on its
own terms. In Ansal Engineering Projects Ltd. v. Tehri Hydro
Development Corporation Ltd & Anr.: (1996) 5 SCC 450, the
Supreme Court had explained as under:-
"It is settled law that bank guarantee is an independent
and distinct contract between the bank and the
beneficiary and is not qualified by the underlying
transaction and the validity of the primary contract
between the person at whose instance the bank
guarantee was given and the beneficiary. Unless fraud
or special equity exists, is the pleaded and prima facie
established by strong evidence as a triable issue, the
beneficiary cannot be restrained from encasing the
bank guarantee even if dispute between the
beneficiary and the person at whose instance the bank
guarantee was given by the Bank, had arisen in
performance of the contract or execution of the works
undertaken in furtherance thereof The Bank
unconditionally and irrevocably promised to pay, on
demand, the amount of liability undertaken in the
guarantee without any demur or dispute in terms of
the bank guarantee. The object behind is to inculcate
respect for free flow of commence and trade and faith
in the commercial banking transactions unhedged by
pending disputes between the beneficiary and the
contractor."
17. As stated above, the banks have accepted the obligation under
the bank guarantees as a primary, independent and absolute obligation
and such obligation is plainly unconditional.
18. In Mahatma Gandhi Sahakra Sakkare Karkhane v. National
Heavy Engg. Coop. Ltd. and Anr. : (2007) 6 SCC 470, the Supreme
Court had distinguished the decision rendered by the Supreme Court
in Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. (supra) in the following manner:-
"28. The learned counsel in support of his submission
relied upon the decision of this Court in Hindustan
Construction Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. This
Court in Hindustan Construction Co. having referred
to the terms of clause (9) of principal contract
between the parties therein came to the conclusion
that the bank guarantee specifically refers to the
original contract and postulates that if the obligations
expressed in the contract, are not fulfilled by HCCL,
the right to claim recovery of the whole or part of the
"advance mobilisation" then alone the bank was liable
to pay the amount due under the guarantee to the
Executive Engineer. The court found that the bank
guarantee specifically refers to clause (9) of the
principal agreement and it is under those
circumstances it came to the conclusion that the
amount covered by the bank guarantee becomes
payable and the same could be invoked only in the
circumstances referred to in clause (9) of the principal
agreement. The bank guarantee executed by the bank
in the instant case in favour of the appellant herein
does not contain any such clause. Mere fact that the
bank guarantee refers to the principal agreement
without referring to any specific clause in the
preamble of the deed of guarantee does not make the
guarantee furnished by the bank to be a conditional
one. In the very said judgment this Court observed
that:
"9. What is important, therefore, is that the
bank guarantee should be in unequivocal
terms, unconditional and recite that the
amount would be paid without demur or
objection and irrespective of any dispute that
might have cropped up or might have been
pending between the beneficiary under the
bank guarantee or the person on whose
behalf the guarantee was furnished. The
terms of the bank guarantee are, therefore,
extremely material. Since the bank guarantee
represents an independent contract between
the bank and the beneficiary, both the parties
would be bound by the terms thereof. The
invocation, therefore, will have to be in
accordance with the terms of the bank
guarantee, or else, the invocation itself would
be bad." (emphasis supplied)
What is relevant, therefore, is the terms incorporated
in the guarantee executed by the bank. On careful
analysis of the terms and conditions of the guarantee,
we find the guarantee to be an unconditional one. The
respondent, therefore, cannot be allowed to raise any
dispute and prevent the appellant from encashing the
bank guarantee. "
19. It is also not disputed that all the bank guarantees in question,
other than the bank guarantee no. 110375IBGA00001, also include a
specific clause which reads as under:-
"The Guarantor undertakes to pay the Employer the
amount so demanded notwithstanding any dispute
raised by the Contractor in any suit or proceedings
pending before any court or tribunal whatsoever or
otherwise; the Guarantor‟s liability under this ABG
being absolute and unequivocal. The payment so
made by the Guarantor under this ABG, shall be a
valid discharge of its liability for payment hereunder
and the Contractor shall have no claim against us for
making such payments."
20. The aforesaid clause makes it amply clear that the bank was not
required to await the decision relating to resolution of any disputes
before making the payment under the bank guarantees.
21. In view of the express language of the bank guarantees, the
contention that the bank guarantees could only be invoked once it is
established that the petitioner had failed and neglected to complete the
contract, is bereft of any merit.
22. It is also well settled that invocation of the bank guarantee
cannot be interdicted pending resolution of the disputes between the
parties. In Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. (supra), the Supreme
Court has also observed as under:-
"8. Now, a Bank Guarantee is the common mode, of
securing payment of money in commercial dealings as
the beneficiary, under the Guarantee, is entitled to
realise the whole of the amount under that Guarantee
in terms thereof irrespective of any pending dispute
between the person on whose behalf the Guarantee
was given and the beneficiary."
23. In U.P State Sugar Corporation v. Sumac International
Limited: AIR 1997 SC 1644, the Supreme Court had held that:
"12. The law relating to invocation of such bank
guarantees is by now well settled. When in the course
of commercial dealings an unconditional bank
guarantee is given or accepted, the beneficiary is
entitled to realize such a bank guarantee in terms
thereof irrespective of any pending disputes. The bank
giving such a guarantee is bound to honour it as per its
terms irrespective of any dispute raised by its
customer. The very purpose of giving such a bank
guarantee would otherwise be defeated."
24. In Himadri Chemicals Industries Ltd. v. Coal Tar Refining
Company: (2007) 8 SCC 110, the Supreme Court had observed as
under:-
"10. The law relating to grant or refusal to grant
injunction in the matter of invocation of a Bank
Guarantee or a Letter of Credit is now well settled by
a plethora of decisions not only of this court but also
of the different High Courts in India. In U.P. State
Sugar Corporation Vs. Sumac International Ltd.
[(1997) 1 SCC 568], this court considered its various
earlier decisions. In this decision, the principle that
has been laid down clearly on the enforcement of a
Bank guarantee or a Letter of Credit is that in respect
of a Bank Guarantee or a Letter of Credit which is
sought to be encashed by a beneficiary, the bank
giving such a guarantee is bound to honour it as per its
terms irrespective of any dispute raised by its
customer. Accordingly this Court held that the courts
should be slow in granting an order of injunction to
restrain the realization of such a Bank Guarantee. It
has also been held by this court in that decision that
the existence of any dispute between the parties to the
contract is not a ground to restrain the enforcement of
Bank guarantees or Letters of Credit. However this
court made two exceptions for grant of an order of
injunction to restrain the enforcement of a Bank
Guarantee or a Letter of Credit. (i) Fraud committed
in the notice of the bank which would vitiate the very
foundation of guarantee; (ii) injustice of the kind
which would make it impossible for the guarantor to
reimburse himself."
25. It is also relevant to state that there is no dispute that the
petitioner has not completed the contract in question. The entire
controversy relates to whether this was for reasons attributable to
IICL. Plainly, this Court cannot interdict the invocation of the bank
guarantees awaiting resolution of this dispute.
26. The contention, that the letters invoking the bank guarantees are
not in its terms, is also unmerited. The bank guarantees do not require
IICL to make any specific assertion apart from making an unequivocal
demand of a quantified sum.
27. In the present case, as stated above, the letters dated 21.08.2017
sent by IICL for invoking the bank guarantees were similarly worded.
The relevant extract of the letter sent to respondent no.2 for invoking
the bank guarantee no. 110375IBGA00001 is set out below:-
"In terms of Letter of Award conditions and in
accordance with Clause 1 of the Bank Guarantee, we
hereby inform you that we have opted to invoke the
above mentioned Bank Guarantee and request you to
credit the entitle invoked amount of Rs.80,91,000/-
(Rupees Eighty Lakhs Ninety One Thousand Only)
before the close of today‟s business hours, in our
account through RTGS as per the details given
below:-
Beneficiary IIC Limited
Name
Credit Account 2570340000137
No.
Centre Amravati
(Location)
Bank HDFC BANK LTD
Branch Amravati Branch Maharashtra
Account Type Savings/Current/Over Draft
IFSC Code HDFC0000257
"
28. It is clear from the above that IICL had specifically stated that
the invocation of the bank guarantee in question was in terms of
Clause 1 of the bank guarantee, and the petitioner‟s contention to the
contrary cannot be accepted.
29. The next question to be examined is whether the petitioner has
made out any other ground for interdiction of the bank guarantees in
question. The law relating to the bank guarantees is now well settled
and the bank guarantees can be interdicted only in special
circumstances such as egregious fraud, special equities and
irretrievable injury (See Svenska Handelsbanken v. Indian Charge
Chrome & Ors.: (1994) 1 SCC 502; also see Larsen & Toubro
Limited v Maharashtra State Electricity Board and Others: (1995) 6
SCC 68).
30. In the present case, Mr Datta contended that the financial
condition of IICL is precarious and, therefore, the invocation of the
bank guarantees must be interdicted. The said contention is also
unpersuasive. Apart from asserting that the parent/group companies of
IICL have suffered a quarterly loss of ₹215 crores for the first quarter
of financial year 2017 and has suffered an annual net loss of ₹320.52
crores for the year ended March, 2017 as against a net loss of ₹108.25
crores in the previous fiscal year, the petitioner has not produced any
specific material, which would indicate that IICL would be unable to
return the amounts collected by invocation of bank guarantees in the
event, the petitioner prevails arbitration.
31. More importantly, the fact that an entity has suffered a loss is no
ground to interdict invocation of bank guarantees. It is well settled that
the bank guarantees can be interdicted only in exceptional cases. In
Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. v. Tarapore & Co. and
Anr.: AIR 1996 SC 2268 , the Supreme Court held as under:
"We are, therefore, of the opinion that the correct
position of law is that commitment of banks must be
honoured free from interference by the courts and it is
only in exceptional cases, that is to say, in case of
fraud or in a case where irretrievable injustice would
be done if bank guarantee is allowed to be encashed,
the court should interfere. In this case fraud has not
been pleaded and the relief for injunction was sought
by the contractor/Respondent 1 on the ground that
special equities or the special circumstances of the
case required it. The special circumstances and/or
special equities which have been pleaded in this case
are that there is a serious dispute on the question as to
who has committed breach of the contract, that the
contractor has a counter-claim against the appellant,
that the disputes between the parties have been
referred to the arbitrators and that no amount can be
said to be due and payable by the contractor to the
appellant till the arbitrators declare their award. In our
opinion, these factors are not sufficient to make this
case an exceptional case justifying interference by
restraining the appellant from enforcing the bank
guarantees. The High Court was, therefore, not right
in restraining the appellant from enforcing the bank
guarantees."
32. In view of the above, the petitions are unmerited and are,
accordingly, dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs. All
the pending applications are also disposed of.
33. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on
the merits of the dispute between the parties and nothing stated herein
should be construed as such.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
MARCH 15, 2018
pkv
