Kerala High Court
Maryamma Josh vs Reserve Bbank Of India on 17 October, 2025
2025:KER:77318
WP(C) NO.13154 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 25TH ASWINA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 13154 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
1 MARYAMMA JOSH,
AGED 54 YEARS
W/O.JOSHMON LAWRENCE, ASHOK LAND, PLAMMOOTTIL
HOUSE,INDUSTRIAL NAGAR P.O., CHANGANACHERRY,
PIN - 686106
2 JOSHMON LAWRENCE,
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O P.P LAWRENCE, RESIDING AT PLAMOOTTIL HOUSE,
INDUSTRIAL HOUSE P.O, CHANGANACHERRY, PIN - 686106
BY ADVS.
SMT. MARIA NEDUMPARA
SHRI.SHAMEEM FAYIZ V.P.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 RESERVE BBANK OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS GOVERNOR, SHAHID BHAGAT SINGH ROAD,
FORT, MUMBAI, PIN - 400001
2 BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF CANARA BANK,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO & MANAGING DIRECTOR, 112, J.C.
ROAD, BENGALURU, PIN - 560002
3 CANARA BANK,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO & MANAGING DIRECTOR, 112, J.C.
ROAD, BENGALURU, PIN - 560002
2025:KER:77318
WP(C) NO.13154 OF 2025
2
4 AUTHORISED OFFICER & CHIEF MANAGER,
CANARA BANK, VEROOR INDUSTRIAL ESTATE BRANCH, 10/599,
KUMILY ROAD, VEROOR IE NAGAR, VEROOR P.O.,
CHANGANACHERRY, PIN - 686101
5 MINISTRY OF MICRO SMALL AND MEDIUM ENTERPRISES,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,UDYOG BHAWAN, RAFI MARG,
NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
6 UNION OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL
SERVICES, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, 3RD FLOOR, JEEVAN DEEP
BUILDING, SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
7 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
BY ADVS.
SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI
SRI.C.AJITH KUMAR
SMT.VARSHA S.S.
SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, SC
SMT.O.M SHALINA, DSGI
SRI.SREEJITH V.S, GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
17.09.2025, THE COURT ON 17.10.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:77318
WP(C) NO.13154 OF 2025
3
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J.
............................................................
WP(C) No.13154 OF 2025
.............................................................
Dated this the 17th day of October, 2025
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed challenging Exhibit P4 auction notice
dated 10.03.2025, by which the respondent-bank proposed to sell the gold
ornaments pledged by the 1st petitioner, alleging that such action is
illegal and violative of the protections available under the Micro, Small
and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (hereinafter MSMED Act,
2006), and the notifications issued thereunder.
2. The 2nd petitioner, a registered Micro Enterprise engaged in
the manufacture of rubber and plastic products, holds Ext. P1 Udyam
Registration dated 16.04.2021 under the MSMED Act, 2006. The 1st
petitioner, his wife and guarantor, pledged her gold ornaments to secure
credit facilities. The 2nd petitioner had earlier challenged the said
recovery by filing W.P.(C) No. 39257 of 2024, against which SLP No. 10986
of 2025 is presently pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
2025:KER:77318
WP(C) NO.13154 OF 2025
2.1. The respondent bank, ignoring the statutory protections
under the MSMED Act and Exts. P2 and P3 notifications, issued Ext. P4
proposing an online auction of the 1st petitioner's pledged gold, rejecting
her request to renew or clear the loan. The said action, undertaken
without following the prescribed MSME recovery framework, is illegal
and void ab initio.
2.2. The petitioners contend that under the 2015 MSME
Notification and the subsequent RBI circulars, the bank was obligated to
identify stress, constitute a Committee for Stressed MSMEs, and consider
rectification or restructuring before initiating recovery. The 2020
Notification further broadened MSME eligibility and reaffirmed these
safeguards, under which the 1st petitioner duly obtained Udyam
registration.
2.3. The petitioners further allege that the bank's actions
constitute fraud upon a registered MSME and amount to a mala fide abuse
of power, causing irreparable harm. The arbitrary branding of borrowers
as "wilful defaulters" through mere executive circulars, without statutory
2025:KER:77318
WP(C) NO.13154 OF 2025
sanction, is unconstitutional and has grave civil consequences. Such
coercive and unilateral recovery, bypassing the MSME framework,
violates the guarantees under Articles 14, 19, 21, and 300A of the
Constitution.
2.4. It is further emphasised that the RBI and the Union
Government have failed to ensure implementation of the 2015
Notification, reducing it to a dead letter and enabling banks to bypass the
mandatory rehabilitation framework intended to safeguard MSMEs. This
abdication of statutory duty has defeated the legislative policy of revival
and survival of small enterprises.
2.5. The petitioners further argue that the doctrine of res
judicata is not intended to deny a litigant what is due to them without an
adjudication on the merits of a right, statutory, equitable, or common law,
but is founded on public policy. It means that even an erroneous decision
of a competent court, rendered after observing natural justice and settled
principles of law, must stand in the larger public interest to prevent
endless litigation. Citing Minerva Mills v. Union of India (AIR 1980 SC
2025:KER:77318
WP(C) NO.13154 OF 2025
1789), it is submitted that the doctrine applies only where parties had a
fair opportunity to present their rival contentions and the matter was
fully adjudicated. The principle, evolved by Roman jurists like Ulpian,
Modestinus, Gaius, Papinian, and Paulus, rests on the maxims res judicata
pro veritate accipitur (a judicial decision must be accepted as true), interest
reipublicae ut sit finis litium (it is in the State's interest that there be an end
to litigation), and nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa (no one
should be vexed twice for the same cause).
2.6. It further argues that for the doctrine of res judicata to
apply, the following conditions, inter alia, must be complied with:
i. The court should have the jurisdiction to adjudicate the entire lis in
question and bring it to finality. The judgment of the court should not
lead to the termination of the lis. This Court, under Article 226, exercises
a limited jurisdiction, which is a discretionary one, unlike the civil court.
ii. The court should have exclusive jurisdiction of the subject matter, and
the controversy should be one that fell for its consideration collaterally.
iii. The lis should have been adjudicated on its merits in full, either
actually or at least constructively.
2025:KER:77318
WP(C) NO.13154 OF 2025
iv. The court should have observed the principles of natural justice and
allowed both parties to the lis an opportunity to adduce evidence and
contradict the evidence appearing against them.
v. The matter in issue in the previous litigation and the subsequent
litigation must be the same and ought not be distinct; in other words, the
cause of action should be identical in every respect.
vi. Parties should have been the same.
vii. The cause of action ought to be the same.
viii. And most importantly, res judicata/estoppel by verdict concludes
only questions of fact decided, and not questions of law.
2.7. It is further submitted that exceptio rei judicatae non aliter
petenti obstat quam si eadem quaestio inter eosdem revocetur, itaque ita demum
nocet si omnia sint eadem, idem corpus, eadem quantitas, idem jus, eadem causa
petendi, eadem conditio personarum - the rough translation being: the plea of
res judicata does not bar a claimant unless the same question is raised
again between the same parties; and thus it only operates as a bar if
everything is the same; the same subject matter, the same amount, the
same right, the same cause of action, and the same condition of the
2025:KER:77318
WP(C) NO.13154 OF 2025
persons. Estoppel is an odious doctrine. If there is uncertainty as to
whether the earlier judgment constitutes res judicata/estoppel, the
doctrine of res judicata has no application. The reason is that res judicata
is a technical doctrine whereby the law permits it to be treated as truth.
2.8. The core contention of the petitioner is that there is no
estoppel against the law. The banks had acted in violation of the statutory
prohibition and invoked SARFAESI. It was the duty of the courts to know
the law (iura novit curia) and to give effect to the law and to quash and set
aside the action of the bank in violation of the law. The failure to plead
the law nay, the protection under the notification, has led to the scenario
where the existence or non-existence of the petitioners' rights under the
MSMED Act and the notifications thereunder has not been adjudicated in
the previous litigation.
2.9. Accordingly, the petitioners seek the following prayers:
1. To declare that the failure of the Central Government and RBI to
implement the MSME Notification dated 29.05.2015, by not
constituting Committees for stressed MSMEs and permitting
classification of MSME accounts as NPAs and recovery under other
2025:KER:77318
WP(C) NO.13154 OF 2025
laws, amounts to a gross breach of their statutory duties.
2. To direct the Central Government and RBI to enforce the
Notification dated 29.05.2015, recall recovery actions made in
violation thereof, restore the status quo, and compensate the
petitioners for the loss suffered.
3. To declare that the 2nd petitioner, as a registered MSME, is
entitled to the protections of the MSMED Act and Notification dated
29.05.2015, and that no recovery shall lie except through the
procedure prescribed under Para 5(4)(iii) thereof.
4. To declare that the MSMED Act does not oust the jurisdiction of
Civil Courts and that DRTs and NCLTs lack authority to adjudicate
disputes arising under it.
5. To declare that the recovery initiated under SARFAESI, RDB Act,
or any other law is without jurisdiction and void, as recovery can be
effected only through the Committee for Corrective Action Plan
2025:KER:77318
WP(C) NO.13154 OF 2025
under Notification dated 29.05.2015.
6. To declare that the petitioners are entitled to compensation from
the respondent bank for loss and injury caused by its negligent and
mala fide actions, leaving no enforceable dues against them.
7. To declare that the RBI's willful defaulter guidelines lack
statutory authority.
8. To declare that the entire proceedings under Ext. P4 is illegal and
void ab initio and vitiated by fraud, and further to quash and set
aside the same and to grant a perpetual mandatory and prohibitory
injunction restraining and prohibiting the respondent
bank/financial institution and their agents from taking action for
recovery under the SARFAESI Act, IBC, or any other law.
9. To direct the committee to resolve the stress in accordance with
the said notification and such other relevant
notifications/regulations framed by the RBI.
2025:KER:77318
WP(C) NO.13154 OF 2025
3. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 2 to 4, it
is contended that the cause of action for the present writ petition arises
from Ext.P4 auction notice. However, since the Bank did not conduct the
e-auction on the date specified therein, the Petitioners cannot now claim
any grievance in that regard, particularly as no further e-auction can be
conducted without issuance of a fresh auction notice. Hence, the relief
sought on that ground has become infructuous. It is further contended
that the impugned auction relates exclusively to the gold loan availed by
the 1st Petitioner and has no connection whatsoever with the recovery
proceedings initiated in respect of the MSME loan availed by the 2nd
Petitioner, the two proceedings being entirely distinct and independent.
3.1. The Respondents further contend that the challenge raised
by the Petitioners in the present writ petition, insofar as it relates to the
benefit claimed under the MSME notification, is no longer res integra. It is
submitted that the 2nd Petitioner had earlier filed W.P.(C) No.39257/2024
before this Court on identical grounds, which was dismissed by judgment
dated 28.02.2025, produced as Ext.R4(a). The Review Petition No.415/2025
filed against Ext.R4(a) was also dismissed by judgment dated 03.04.2025,
2025:KER:77318
WP(C) NO.13154 OF 2025
produced as Ext.R4(b). In the light of Exts.R4(a) and R4(b), the Petitioners
are precluded from raising the same contentions once again in the
present writ petition, which is clearly barred by the principles of res
judicata.
3.2. The Respondents submit that the writ petition is devoid of
merit, as the Petitioners have not established any valid grounds for
invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226. No
exceptional circumstances are made out warranting interference,
particularly when efficacious alternate remedies are available.
3.3. In the additional counter affidavit by the 4th respondent, it
is contended that the e-auction was not conducted on the date mentioned
in the P4 auction notice. Ext. R4(c) dated 30.06.2025 was issued to the 1st
petitioner informing the date of the auction of gold ornaments on
15.07.2025, which was duly received by her. Despite receipt of Ext. R4(c),
the 1st petitioner failed to redeem the gold ornaments; the pledged gold
ornaments were auctioned on the said date, and the sale proceeds were
appropriated towards the loan liabilities. On the conduct of the e-auction,
the 4th respondent issued Ext. R4 (e) letter to the 1st petitioner informing
2025:KER:77318
WP(C) NO.13154 OF 2025
the same. It is reiterated that because the gold ornaments were already
auctioned and as petitioners did not raise any objection to the same,
rather did not take any positive efforts to settle the liabilities due under
the loan account, the relief sought for in the writ petition, as regards the
challenge to the recovery proceedings under Ext. P4 leading to the sale of
the gold pledged by the 1st petitioner has become infructuous.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, Mathew J.
Nedumpara, Smt. Maria Nedumpara and Sri C. Ajith Kumar, Smt. O.M.
Shalina, DSGI, Sri. M. Gopalakrishnan Nambiar, Senior Counsel, and Sri.
Sreejith V.S., the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.
5. The writ petition challenges Ext. P4 auction notice dated
10.03.2025 proposing the sale of gold ornaments pledged by the 1st
petitioner, guarantor of the 2nd petitioner's MSME loan, on the ground
that the said action violates the MSMED Act, 2006, Notification dated
29.05.2015, and RBI circular dated 17.03.2016. The petitioners contend
that before classifying the account as NPA or resorting to recovery, the
respondent bank was bound to constitute a Committee for Stressed
2025:KER:77318
WP(C) NO.13154 OF 2025
MSMEs and consider a Corrective Action Plan.
6. The petitioner contends that proceedings under the SARFAESI
Act or IBC have not attained finality and that each subsequent action,
such as notices for taking possession or sale of property, gives rise to a
fresh cause of action, thereby enabling the borrower or MSME to raise all
available legal and factual contentions. It is argued that for res judicata to
apply, the proceedings must have reached termination, which has not
occurred here. Relying on Chief Justice Coke's observation (MM Bigelow,
p. 88), it is urged that the doctrine must be construed strictly. The
petitioner further cites A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak and anr. [(1988) 2 SCC
602), Canara Bank v. N.G. Subbaraya Setty and anr. [(2018) 16 SCC 228],
Experion Developers v. Himanshu Diwan and ors. (2023 SCC OnLine SC
1029), and Anisminic Ltd. v. Foreign Compensation Commission (1968 App
L.R. 12/17) Khoday Distilleries Limited and Ors v. Sri Mahadeshwara
Sahakara Sakakre Karkhane Limited, Kollegal (2019 4 SCC 376), M/s
Navinchandra Steels Pvt. Limited and anr. v. Union of India and ors. (WPC
No. 4620/2022), Manisha Nimesh Mehta v. The Board of Directors of
Technology Development Board and ors. (CA (L) No. 25072/2024), Shri Shri
2025:KER:77318
WP(C) NO.13154 OF 2025
Swami Samarath Construction and finance solution and anr. v. The Board
of Directors of NKGSB Co-op Bank Ltd. and Ors. (WPC No. 684/2025) and
Holligton v. F. Hewthorn and Company Limited and Another (1 K.B 587) to
elucidate the scope and foundation of the doctrine of estoppel by record
and by verdict. Reference was made to the proposition that a judgment of
a competent court, once final, operates as a bar between the same parties
or their privies in respect of matters directly adjudicated, and that even
in a subsequent proceeding on a different cause of action, an issue
actually and necessarily decided in the earlier litigation cannot be
reopened (issue estoppel). It was contended that the essential conditions
for such estoppel are the identity of parties or privies, the competency of
the earlier tribunal, the finality of the prior decision on the merits, and
certainty of the subject matter.
7. Learned counsel further relied on the distinction drawn
between judgments in rem, which bind all persons where the right has
been conclusively determined, and judgments in personam, which bind
only the parties and those claiming under them. It was urged that, save in
cases of want of jurisdiction or fraud apparent on the face of the record,
2025:KER:77318
WP(C) NO.13154 OF 2025
the conclusiveness of a judgment cannot be collaterally impeached, and
that dismissals on preliminary or procedural grounds do not operate as
res judicata, whereas a determination upon an issue essential to the
decree, even though interlocutory, binds the parties. The argument thus
advanced is that the doctrine of estoppel by record, rests on the larger
principles of finality of litigation and consistency of judicial
determinations, and precludes re-agitation of matters once finally and
necessarily adjudicated between the same parties. Reliance is also placed
on the authorities of A Treatise on the Law of Estoppel and Its Application in
Practice by Melville M. Bigelow (4th Edn., 1886), Res judicata by Handley,
3rd Edn., (Page 272-73) and on Everest on Estoppel, to support the above
propositions.
8. The respondents, however, contend that the cause of action
arises solely from Ext. P4 auction notice, and since the proposed e-auction
was not conducted on the date fixed, no grievance survives to the
petitioners. It is further contended that the gold loan of the 1st petitioner
is independent of the MSME loan availed by the 2nd petitioner, and the
two cannot be interlinked.
2025:KER:77318
WP(C) NO.13154 OF 2025
9. As far as the plea of MSME is concerned, the same was
considered and decided by the judgment of this court in WPC
No.39257/2024. Review Petition No. 415/2025 was filed against the above
judgment, and the same was dismissed dated 3.04.2025. It is submitted
that the SLP No. 10986/2025 filed against WPC No. 39257/2024 is pending
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thus, the contentions now urged are
barred by the principles of res judicata and constructive res judicata.
Issues already adjudicated upon cannot be reopened in successive rounds
of litigation, and the pendency of the SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court reinforces the bar.
10. Despite the argument of the learned counsel for the
petitioner based on judgments and the textbooks cited above that the writ
petition is not barred by res judicata or estoppel, the same has to fail for
the reasons to follow. This writ petition with the same prayer between the
same parties stood considered and negatived earlier, and the petitioner,
having failed, is further estopped from re-agitating the identical issue by
instituting successive writ petitions, as it is barred by the principles of res
judicata as well as constructive res judicata. It is trite that res judicata and
2025:KER:77318
WP(C) NO.13154 OF 2025
constructive res judicata apply with full force to writ proceedings, and
earlier rejection bars a second petition unless there are changed
circumstances. A change of form or rephrasing of relief cannot defeat the
principle of res judicata or constructive res judicata.
11. The doctrine of res judicata, rooted in Section 11 of the Code
of Civil Procedure and reinforced by public policy, mandates that a matter
once finally adjudicated by a competent court cannot be reopened
between the same parties. Explanation IV to Section 11 embodies the
principle of constructive res judicata, deeming that every matter which
might and ought to have been made a ground of claim or defence in the
earlier proceedings shall be treated as directly and substantially in issue
therein. Even an erroneous or mistaken decision on a question of law or
fact operates as res judicata between the same parties, for what binds is
not the correctness of the reasoning but the finality of the decision itself.
The rule extends to issues of fact, law, and mixed questions alike. While
doctrines such as estoppel, waiver, and acquiescence are conceptually
distinct, they often reinforce the bar of res judicata when a party
knowingly permits a state of affairs to continue. Ultimately, the principle
2025:KER:77318
WP(C) NO.13154 OF 2025
upholds the rule of law and judicial finality, preventing multiplicity of
proceedings, conserving judicial time, and protecting parties from being
vexed twice over the same cause. Certainty of the law, consistency of
rulings and comity of courts all flowering from the same principle
converge to the conclusion that a decision once rendered must later bind
like cases, ie, a prior decision rendered by a competent court on identical
facts and law is binding in subsequent proceedings on the same points,
and such a ruling must govern later cases unless shown to be per
incuriam or rendered in manifest error. (see: Forward Construction Co. v.
Prabhat Mandal (Regd.) Andheri (1986 KHC 598); Kalinga Mining Corpn. v.
Union of India (2013) 5 SCC 252; Canara Bank v. N.G. Subbaraya Setty
(2018) 16 SCC 228; Celir LLP v. Sumati Prasad Bafna (2024 SCC OnLine SC
3727); P.K. Krishnakumar v. IndusInd Bank (2024 SCC OnLine Ker 6888)
and Darayao v. State of U.P. (AIR 1961 SC 1487), Mamleshwar Prasad v.
Kanhaiya Lal [(1975) 2 SCC 232].
12. In the instant case, the issue raised in this writ petition was
directly and substantially in issue in the earlier litigations referred to
above. While matters collaterally or incidentally in issue may not
2025:KER:77318
WP(C) NO.13154 OF 2025
ordinarily operate as res judicata, matters directly or substantially
considered as issue to the prior decision constitute res judicata. Their
attempt to re-agitate the same grounds is clearly hit by res judicata and
constructive res judicata. Accepting the contentions on behalf of the
petitioners would mean that a litigant can go on filing cases despite
dismissal of their pleas if they feel that the decision is wrong, even
without filing an appeal, and it will be the litigant's understanding that
decides the maintainability of the subsequent challenge and not the
interparte judgments. True, each sale notice may furnish a fresh cause of
action; even then, an adjudication on the points already raised and
rejected is clearly barred.
13. None of the principles argued by the learned counsel for the
petitioner based on the authorities referred above holds that a writ
petition can be filed by the same person raising the same contentions
against the same adversary. None of the exceptions stated for avoiding
principles of res judicata applies to the instant case.
14. The second contention, relating to the challenge against the
auction, also cannot be entertained, as the contention of the bank is that
2025:KER:77318
WP(C) NO.13154 OF 2025
the auction is over. Hence, the prayer sought in the writ petition has been
rendered infructuous, and the remedy is to challenge the sale by invoking
the statutory scheme.
15. Even otherwise, the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 being
discretionary, interference is not warranted where efficacious alternate
remedies exist and no exceptional circumstances are made out.
For the foregoing reasons, I find no merit in this writ petition,
and the same would stand dismissed.
SD/-
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
JUDGE
JJ
2025:KER:77318
WP(C) NO.13154 OF 2025
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13154/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A COPY OF THE UDYAM CERTIFICATE NO. UDYAM-
KL-07-0004707 DATED 16.04.2021, ISSUED TO
THE PETITIONER NO. 2 BY THE MSME MINISTRY,
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Exhibit P2 A COPY OF THE MSME NOTIFICATION NO.
S.O.1432 (E) DATED 29.05.2015, ISSUED BY
THE MSME MINISTRY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Exhibit P3 A COPY OF THE RBI NOTIFICATION NO. RBI
NOTIFICATION NO. FIDD.MSME & NFS.BC.NO.
21/06.02.31 /2015-16, DATED 17.03.2016
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED NIL, ISSUED
BY THE RESPONDENT-BANK TO THE 1ST
PETITIONER,
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL-COVER IN WHICH
EXT. P4 WAS RECEIVED ON 19-03-2025
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19-02-2025
ISSUED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE
RESPONDENT-BANK,
Exhibit P7 A COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO. S.O 2119 (E)
DATED 26.6.2020 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF
INDIA
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit-R4(a) True copy of judgment dated 28/02/2025 in
WP(C) 39257/2024 passed by this Hon'ble
Court
Exhibit-R4(b) True copy of judgment dated 03/04/2025 in
R.P 415/2025 passed by this Hon'ble Court
Exhibit R4(c) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30/06/2025
ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST
PETITIONER
Exhibit R4(d) TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF
EXT.R4(C) BY THE 1ST PETITIONER
Exhibit R4(e) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27/07/2025
ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST
PETITIONER
Exhibit R4(f) TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF
EXT.R4(E) BY THE 1ST PETITIONER
