Delhi High Court
M/S Navayuga-Van Oord Jv vs Union Of India Through Ministry Of ... on 30 June, 2022
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Decided on: 30th June, 2022
+ O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 208/2022
M/S NAVAYUGA-VAN OORD JV .....Petitioner
Represented by: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Advocate, Mr.
Saurav Agarwal, Mr. Shantanu
Agarwal, Mr. Ankit Banati, Mr.
Harshit Malik, Ms. Shruti Arora, Ms.
Sruti Chandran, Ms. Anmol Dhindra
& Mr. Rishi Agarwala, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH MINISTRY OF DEFENCE,
DIRECTOR GENERAL, PROJECT VARSHA
...... Respondent
Represented by: Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar,
CGSC, Mr. Srish Kumar Mishra, Mr.
Sagar Mehlawat & Mr. Alexander
Mathai Paikaday, Advocates.
Captain Varun Singh, JAG (Navy).
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J. (ORAL)
I.A. 9858/2022 (U/S 151 of CPC, 1908 for exemption from filing
original/certified and typed/clear copies of the annexures/documents)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Application is disposed of.
O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 208/2022
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIRMLA TIWARI
Signing Date:05.07.2022
14:24:17
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the "A&C Act,
1996") by the petitioner seeking directions for appointment of an
independent Agency to collaboratively look into the Report of IIT Madras to
work out an effective way forward for completion of work and for
restraining the respondents from invoking/encashing the seven Bank
Guarantees during the pendency of the Arbitration proceedings.
Claim of the Petitioner:
2. The case of the petitioner is stated that a Notice Inviting Tender
(hereinafter referred to as the "NIT") was issued on 16th June, 2016 by the
respondent for the construction of the Inner and Outer Harbour for "Project
Varsha" which is a highly confidential Defence project of national and
strategic importance to the Indian Navy, located on the East Coast of India.
Because of the highly sensitive nature of the Project, a confidential and
limited survey was allowed at the time of the Tender. The designs and
drawings were provided with the Tender by the respondent. However, the
prospective bidders were allowed to submit their bids for the project
comprising of elaborate technical proposals, qualifications and other such
documents, based on the documents provided by the respondent after a
Confidentiality Undertaking. The petitioner was awarded the Contract
through a Letter of Acceptance dated 24th October, 2017 (hereinafter
referred to as the "LoA") and consequently, the parties entered into the
Contract on 19th December, 2017.
3. The completion period was contemplated as 42 months i.e., till 18 th
August, 2021, which stood extended upto 05th March, 2022. The
commencement date was notified as 16th February, 2018 by the respondent
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIRMLA TIWARI
Signing Date:05.07.2022
14:24:17
vide its Letter dated 15th February, 2018. The Project required extensive
investment and mobilization of resources. Accordingly, the Contract
envisaged interest bearing advance payments, subject to the Contractor
submitting the Bank/Performance Guarantees.
4. The petitioner has asserted that it is a well-known industry practice
that marine activities such as dredging are carried out in the „Fair-Weather
Season‟ i.e., the period without Monsoon. For the East Coast of India, the
Fair-Weather Season generally falls between October and April, post which
the Monsoon commences. Due to the delay in the commencement of the
works, the petitioner lost the entire First Fair-Weather Season, which had a
cascading effect on the completion of the entire project within the given
time frame.
5. The petitioner has claimed that irrespective of these difficulties, it
remained committed to the Project and made all endeavours to complete the
construction activities in time. It began pre-construction surveying works,
drafting of plans and method statements, mobilization of construction
equipment and manpower, construction of temporary site facilities and off-
site arrangements and procurement of temporary and permanent work
material. However, as the work progressed for construction activities, it was
found that original GFC drawings and designs prepared by the
Engineer/respondent were divorced from the prevailing site conditions and
therefore, impossible to work. One of the major differences found was in the
actual seabed levels. The petitioner raised the issue with the respondent for
necessary modification but it refused to entertain any changes in the original
design. The petitioner accordingly proceeded with the dredging work.
6. It was observed by the petitioner, over a period of time, that dredged
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIRMLA TIWARI
Signing Date:05.07.2022
14:24:17
breakwater profiles executed as per the original designs had filled up with
sand and the central mound of the dredged profile had eroded to a large
extent, which led to the deformation of the dredged profiles. The petitioner
during his work over the period of time realised that the original
designs/drawings and time fixed for completion of project were made
without adequate consideration of the aspects and hydro-dynamics and
siltation during various stages of construction activities to be carried out by
the petitioner.
7. In order to find a way forward, the petitioner at its own significant
cost engaged IIT Madras (which was consulted by the respondent and its
report was the basis of terms in NIT to support the original GFC drawings
and designs) and other eminent domestic and International technical experts,
namely;
(i) Department of Ocean Engineering, Indian Institute of
Technology, Madras (hereinafter referred to as the "IIT Madras";)
(ii) C.D.R. (Coasts, Deltas, and Rivers) International B.V.,
Netherlands (hereinafter referred to as the "CDR International"), an
independent Engineering Consultancy Firm in marine construction
and ocean engineering sector; and
(iii) Professor Dr. Van Der Meer, a renowned international expert in
the appraisal, design, and testing of break-waters and coastal
structures, including seawalls and dikes.
8. From the reports of above-mentioned eminent experts which includes
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIRMLA TIWARI
Signing Date:05.07.2022
14:24:17
the report of IIT Madras of December, 2021, it has been found that the
Works as notified in the Contract, cannot be executed within the timeline
provided in the Contract; thus making the performance of the Contract
within the timelines provided in the Contract, as impossible. The realistic
timeline for completion of the works as envisaged by the Contract cannot be
less than 88 months, which too, is subject to external contingencies such as
COVID-19 Pandemic and other unforeseeable, unstable oceanic conditions
that can increase the time for completion. However, the report of the IIT
Madras has been rejected illegally by the respondent and the Engineer.
9. It is further submitted that the respondent has been choking the
petitioner‟s cash flow and restraining its liquidity by illegally
withholding/delaying amounts due and payable to the petitioner. In fact, the
amounts certified for the petitioner‟s work done since 26th July, 2021, which
comes to ₹91,70,35,625/-, have still not been released by the respondent.
The petitioner‟s readiness and willingness to perform the Contract can be
gathered from the fact that it has already mobilized resources worth more
than a thousand crores of rupees, deployed 500 personnel and borne
significant expenses in engaging eminent experts to find the solutions to the
on-site construction challenges arising out of original GFC
drawings/designs. Per contra, the respondent is causing impediments to the
petitioner‟s work by choking its cash flow and thereby causing unnecessary
delay in the execution of the works.
10. It is submitted that the respondent is in possession of seven Bank
Guarantees of the total value ₹6,33,73,84,436/- furnished by the petitioner at
the time of commencement of Contract. It is asserted that if the respondent
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIRMLA TIWARI
Signing Date:05.07.2022
14:24:17
withholds the amounts due to the petitioner illegally or invokes the Bank
Guarantees right at the onset of the dispute, the petitioner shall be
completely drained of its cash flow, putting fetters on its ability to execute
the work and thereby cause irreparable harm/financial loss.
11. The petitioner by way of present petition under Section 9 of the A&C
Act, 1996 has sought the following reliefs:
"(a) Appoint an independent agency to collaboratively look into
the report of IIT Madras along with the concerned parties to work
out an effective way forward which would enable expeditious
completion of the works and restrain the Respondents from taking
any coercive steps against the Petitioner;
(b) Restrain the Respondent, its employees, agents,
representatives, and its officers from invoking/encashing the
following Bank Guarantees during the pendency of the arbitration
proceedings:
S.No. Bank Guarantee Amount in
Rupees
i. No. 75200IGL0001317 dated 292,54,00,000/-
18.11.2017 issued by Union Bank of
India, Industrial Finance Branch,
Somajiguda, Hyderabad 500082
ii. No. 0999517FGOOO2374 dated 74,16,97,410/-
29.11.2017 issued by State Bank of
India, Corporate Account Group
Branch, Ballard Estate, Mumbai -
400001
iii. No. 75200IGL0001417 dated 188,82,87,026/-
08.12.2017 issued by Union Bank of
India, Hyderabad.
iv. No. 75200IGL0011818 dated 32,00,00,000/-
03.11.2018 issued by Union Bank of
India, Hyderabad.
v. No. 000191 BG0000002 dated 3,70,00,000/-
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIRMLA TIWARI
Signing Date:05.07.2022
14:24:17
22.02.2019 issued by Bank of
Maharashtra, Hyderabad
vi. No. 75200IGL0009319 dated 22,50,00,000/-
16.09.2019 issued by Union Bank of
India, Hyderabad.
vii. No. 75200IGL0003520 dated 20,00,00,000/-
24.07.2020 issued by Union Bank of
India, Hyderabad.
(c) Pass ex-parte, ad-interim, and interim orders in terms of the
above prayers."
Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner:
12. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the NIT for
the Contract was issued on 16th November, 2016 but it took almost one year
to award the Contract on 24th October, 2017. Even thereafter, the Contract
could be commenced only after five months of award i.e., from 16 th
February, 2018 and the work was to be completed within 1280 days or 42
months, the date of completion being envisaged in the Contract as 18 th
August, 2021. However, on account of prevailing COVID-19 Pandemic
situation, the respondent extended the completion date till 28th April, 2022.
From the very fact that it took about a year to award the Contract from the
date of NIT and that it took another five months to commence the work,
shows the complexity of the Contract executed between the parties.
13. It is submitted that certain drawings/designs submitted by the
respondent were not in accordance with the ground realities and were found
to be inappropriate, which got revealed when the construction work was
commenced, which led to delay in expeditious completion of the project.
Considering the sensitive nature of the project, the respondent had
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIRMLA TIWARI
Signing Date:05.07.2022
14:24:17
considered the report from IIT Madras before floating the NIT but its
recommendations which became the basis of terms of NIT, were based on a
cursory survey that could be conducted due to the sensitive nature of the
project. IIT Madras was therefore engaged by the petitioner which re-
examined the drawings and designs in detail and submitted a report in
December, 2021 stating that at least 88 months are required for completion
of the project. The respondent agreed for extension of time till April, 2024
while in terms of the report of the IIT Madras of December, 2021, the
project can be completed only by July, 2025.
14. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the
Contract itself provides for extension of time for completion of Contract and
for delayed damages and, therefore, time is not the essence of Contract and
the Respondent cannot terminate the Contract but only claim liquidated
damages in case of any delay in the execution of the Contract. The petitioner
despite not having been paid his dues in the sum of ₹ 91,70,35,625/- for last
six months, has continued to work on site and its 750 workmen and 80
engineers are presently working and its equipment worth more than 1000
crores of rupees is also on the site.
15. The petitioner for the last six months has written regularly by way of
seven communications to the respondent seeking extension of the period for
completion of work but has failed to receive any response from the
respondent. It is argued that there cannot be any termination as time is not
the essence of the Contract. It is further argued that the termination is not
viable and is also not in national interest as the past conduct shows that
tendering itself would take one year and the Contract in any case, would then
not get concluded till April, 2025. Moreover, the costs would increase
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIRMLA TIWARI
Signing Date:05.07.2022
14:24:17
threefold. The termination would also result in breaking of the execution of
the Contract, which would only result in further delay in completion of the
project of national significance. It is, therefore, submitted that the interim
protection as sought against invocation of the Bank Guarantees, may be
granted to the petitioner.
Arguments by learned Counsel for the Respondent:
16. Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, learned Central Government
Standing Counsel (CGSC), has asserted that the Contract relates to National
Security as it is in respect of construction of Outer Harbour. The petitioner
is in complete defiance since the year 2018 and has shown no seriousness for
the completion of the work which maybe at the behest of third parties and
raises serious concern.
17. It is claimed that the petition under Section 9 of the A&C Act, 1996 is
not maintainable. Clause 20 of the Contract deals with Claims, Disputes and
Arbitration. It provides that in case of any dispute, the parties may approach
Dispute Adjudicatory Board (DAB) and only thereafter, the arbitration may
be invoked in terms of Clause 20.6 of the Contract. The petitioner has not
followed this procedure and no Certificate of Dissatisfaction has been issued
by the DAB, but the petitioner has directly filed the petition under Section 9
of the A&C Act, 1996. The only circumstance in which the petitioner may
approach for arbitration directly in terms of Clause 20.8 of the Contract is
when DAB is not in existence but so is not the case. The petition under
Section 9 of the A&C Act, 1996 is therefore, not maintainable.
18. Learned CGSC for the respondent has further argued that the date of
completion of project was April, 2022 and the same has not been extended
till date. The Minutes of Meeting dated 22nd November 2021 referred to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIRMLA TIWARI
Signing Date:05.07.2022
14:24:17
by the petitioner, clearly record that while petitioner‟s representative was
seeking extension till April, 2024 in view of the report of December, 2021 of
IIT Madras, the same was not agreed to by the Engineer representing the
respondent. Moreover, the IIT Madras report on which the petitioner has
vehemently relied for seeking extension of time for completion of Contract
in fact, is not the report of the IIT Madras as an Institution.
19. Learned CGSC for the respondent has referred to its Letter dated 17th
April, 2022 vide which the respondent sought clarification from IIT Madras
about its Report of December, 2021 which was contradictory to its earlier
Report of 2015 giving different timelines for completion of the project. IIT
Madras vide its Letter dated 08th March, 2022 has clarified that the
Professors of IIT Madras are competent to be engaged independently and to
give their independent reports. Its earlier report of 2015 was prepared by the
Institution on the basis of proof of check of Project Varsha and the reports
were submitted by Professor R. Sundra Vadivelu and Professor Sannasiraj
on behalf of IIT Madras which stands by its earlier Report of 2015. The
report of December, 2021 has been independently prepared by Professor S.
Nallayarasu based on the Data provided by the petitioner. It is, therefore,
evident that the report of December, 2021 now being referred and relied
upon by the petitioner is a private document prepared by the Professor who
was engaged by the petitioner and is not the report of IIT Madras as an
Institution as has been projected and vehemently argued. The report has been
prepared by Professor S. Nallayarasu in individual capacity and is not
binding on the respondent. Moreover, it has been specifically rejected by the
respondent vide its Letter dated 08th March, 2022.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIRMLA TIWARI
Signing Date:05.07.2022
14:24:17
20. It is further submitted that from the letter of "Incurrence of additional
Cost and Time" dated 28th October, 2021 addressed by the petitioner to the
respondent it is evident that CDR International having worldwide expertise
in design and Engineering services to give an assessment of technical and
practical difficulties in progress of the Works. CDR engaged Prof. Van Der
Meer, a world renowned expert and advisor to International projects on
Breakwater Construction to validate the assessment Report. Professor S.
Nallayarasu of IIT Madras was also asked to validate the report of CDR and
the Report of Professor S. Nallayarasu is based on the documents submitted
by the petitioner, without visiting to the site. The Report on which such
heavy reliance has been placed by the petitioner, therefore is of no assistance
to it. It is further argued that the Notice of Correction dated 03rd December,
2021 in terms of Sub-Clause 15.1 of the General Conditions of Contract, and
a Notice of Delay Damages dated 03rd March, 2022 has already been served
upon the petitioner in terms of Clause 15 of the Contract providing for
"Termination by Employer."
21. It is, therefore, stated that the reliefs as sought by the petitioner do not
come within the ambit of Section 9 of A&C Act, 1996 and the petition is
liable to be dismissed.
22. Submissions heard.
DISCUSSIONS
23. At the outset it may be observed that the contract under consideration
relates to the national security and defence. In the decision of Manohar Lal
Sharma Vs. Narendra Damodar Dass Modi (2019) 3 SCC 25, the Apex
Court highlighted the significance of the contracts pertaining to Defence
Services and observed that adequate military strength and capability to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIRMLA TIWARI
Signing Date:05.07.2022
14:24:17
discourage and withstand external aggression and to protect the sovereignty
and integrity of India is a matter of utmost concern for the Nation. The
empowerment of defence forces with adequate technology and material
support is, therefore, a matter of vital importance. The parameters of judicial
review of administrative decisions with regard to Award of Tenders and
Contracts are confined to the scrutiny of the decision making process on the
parameters of unreasonableness and malafide. The Court should not exercise
its power of judicial review even if a procedural error is committed to the
prejudice of the Tenderer since private interests cannot be protected while
exercising such judicial review.
24. In Reliance Airport Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Airport Authority of India
(2006) 10 SCC 1 it was noted that certain areas of governmental activity,
national security being the paradigm, the courts have regarded themselves as
incompetent to investigate, beyond an initial decision as to whether the
government‟s claim is bonafide. In this kind of non-justifiable area, judicial
review is not entirely excluded, but is very limited.
25. In Siemens Public Communications Network Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of
India (2008) 16 SCC 215 the Apex Court emphasized that the triple ground
on which the judicial scrutiny is permissible has been consistently held to be
illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety.
26. This Court must be circumspect in entertaining the present petition,
considering that this project is of national significance dealing with the
national security.
Termination of Contract:
27. The main argument raised on behalf of the petitioner is that disputes
have arisen in regard to completion of the project within the given Timeline
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIRMLA TIWARI
Signing Date:05.07.2022
14:24:17
which was April, 2022 and Notice of Delay Damages dated 15th February,
2022 has also been served upon the petitioner, but there can be no
termination of contract since time was not the essence for performance of
the contract and the work is still continuing on the site to which no objection
has been taken by the Respondent. The main contention is that the contract
itself provides for extension of time and for damages on account of delay
which implies that time is not the essence of the Contract. Even if the time
given in the Contract i.e. April, 2022 has expired the contract would not ipso
facto come to an end, giving an occasion to the respondent to invoke the
Bank Guarantee. Therefore, interim protection against invocation of Bank
Guarantees has to be given in the given circumstances.
28. This aspect was considered in detail by the Apex Court in its decision
in M/s Hind Contractors Vs. State of Maharashtra (1979) 2 SCC 70, and it
was held that whether the time is the essence of the Contract would
essentially be a question of the intention of the parties to be gathered from
the terms of the Contract. Even when the parties have expressly provided
that Time is the essence of the Contract, such stipulation would have be read
along with the other provisions of the Contract and on construction and
interpretation of the terms of the Contract, inference that completion of the
work by a particular date was intended to be fundamental, may be excluded.
For instance, if the Contract includes clauses providing extension of time in
certain contingencies or for payment of fine or penalty for every day or
week, the work undertaken remains unfinished on the expiry of the time
provided in the contract, such clauses would be construed as rendering
ineffective the express provision relating to the time being the essence of the
Contract.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIRMLA TIWARI
Signing Date:05.07.2022
14:24:17
29. While learned Senior counsel for the petitioner had placed reliance on
the Minutes of Meeting dated 01st December, 2021 in regard to Meeting held
between the petitioners and the officers of respondent to claim that the
respondent have agreed for the completion of the construction of Outer
harbour by April, 2024, but the careful reading of the Minutes clearly reflect
that this was the submission made by the petitioner/contractor but was not
accepted by the respondents.
30. Significantly, in terms of Clause 15 dealing with Termination by
Employer, the Notice of Correction dated 03rd December, 2021, has already
been served upon the petitioner and the Notices of Delay Damages dated 3rd
March, 2022 has also been served. However, it is fairly conceded that the
contract has not been terminated and the petitioner is continuing with the
work on the site. Moreover, admittedly a certified amount of
₹91,70,35,625/- is due to the petitioner, but has been withheld by the
respondent on the ground that about Eleven Hundred Crores
(₹1100,00,00,000/-) are recoverable from the petitioner. In these
circumstances, it can be reasonably held that disputes in regard to the
Contract have arisen between the parties.
31. It needs to be further examined whether petitioner is entitled to
injunction against invocation of Performance Guarantees. The law in regard
to injunctions for restraining invocation/ revocation of bank guarantee has
been clearly laid down by the Apex Court in U.P. State Sugar Corporation
vs. Surmac International Ltd. (1997) 1 SCC 568 wherein the principle was
clearly enunciated that on the enforcement of a Bank Guarantee or a Letter
of Credit in respect of Bank Guarantee which is sought to be encashed by a
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIRMLA TIWARI
Signing Date:05.07.2022
14:24:17
beneficiary, the bank giving such guarantee is bound to honour it as per its
terms irrespective of any dispute raised by its customer. It was held that the
existence of any dispute between the parties to the Contract is not a ground
to restrain the enforcement of Bank Guarantees. The only two exceptions
recognized for grant of order of injunction are:
(i) fraud committed in the notice of the bank which would vitiate
the very foundation of guarantee; and
(ii) injustice of the kind which would make it impossible for the
guarantor to reimburse himself.
32. It was observed that except in these two circumstances, the court
should not readily issue injunction to retrain the realization of the Bank
Guarantee.
33. The Apex Court in Himadri Chemicals Industries Ltd. vs. Coal Tar
Refining Company (2007) 8 SCC 2010 made a reference to the
aforementioned judgment and concluded that since the Bank Guarantee or a
Letter of Credit is an independent and a separate contract and is absolute in
nature, existence of any dispute between the parties to the contract would
not be a ground for issuing an order of injunction to restrain enforcement of
bank guarantee.
34. The law is absolutely well defined and settled that there can be no
injunction against invocation of a Bank Guarantee. However, the
distinguishing factor is that admittedly the Performance Guarantees have not
been invoked till date by the respondent and the work is still being done at
the site by the petitioner. The question is whether the petitioner can be
provided with some interim protection.
35. Similar facts as in the present case came up for consideration in
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIRMLA TIWARI
Signing Date:05.07.2022
14:24:17
Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. vs. NHPC Ltd. O.M.P. 536 of 2014
decided by this Court on 30th May, 2014; Hindustan Construction Company
Ltd. vs. NHPC Ltd. O.M.P. 536 of 2014 decided by this Court on 12th
February, 2015; NHPC Ltd. vs. Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. FAO
(OS) 131 of 2015 decided by the Division Bench of this Court on 28th May,
2015, wherein it was held consistently that where the bank guarantee has not
yet been invoked by the respondent, the directions for prior Notice of certain
days before invocation is not violative of the settled law prohibiting any
injunction against revocation of bank guarantee. In these cases, it was
categorically observed that the factum of notice of invocation of bank
guarantee can be of no prejudice to the petitioner, since after giving such
notice, it will be open to the respondent to proceed to invoke the bank
guarantee subject to the petitioner seeking appropriate remedies. By
providing for prior Notice, the respondent was not being injuncted from
invoking the Bank Guarantee but merely some time was granted to the
petitioner to seek its remedies in case the respondent sought to encash it.
CONCLUSION
36. It was conceded on behalf of the respondent that the petitioner is
continuing to work on the site even after April, 2022 and no express letter
indicating termination of Contract has been served upon the petitioner. An
ambivalent situation prevails wherein the respondent though has served
Notice of Correction and the Delay Damages Notice, but has yet not served
any Notice of termination or has notified the petitioner to stop the work at
site after April, 2022. Therefore, as held in the cases of Hindustan
Construction Limited (supra) that though invocation of Bank Guarantee
cannot be prohibited or injuncted, it is held to be a fit case where the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIRMLA TIWARI
Signing Date:05.07.2022
14:24:17
respondent is directed to give a prior Notice of 15 days expressing his
intention to revoke the Bank Guarantee before revocation of Bank
Guarantees.
37. The petition under Section 9 of the A&C Act, 1996 is accordingly,
disposed of.
I.A. 9857/2022 (U/S 151 of CPC, 1908 for ex-parte ad-interim stay)
In view of the order passed above, the present application has become
infructuous and stands disposed of, as such.
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J
(VACATION JUDGE)
JUNE 30, 2022
S.Sharma
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIRMLA TIWARI
Signing Date:05.07.2022
14:24:17
