caselaws.org
Supreme Court of India
K. Virupaksha vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 March, 2020Author: A.S. Bopanna
Bench: R. Banumathi, A.S. Bopanna
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 377 OF 2020
(Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No.5701 of 2019)
K. Virupaksha & Anr. .…Appellant(s)
Versus
The State of Karnataka & Anr. …. Respondent(s)
JUDGMENT
A.S. Bopanna,J.
Leave granted.
2. The appellants herein were the petitioners in Criminal
Petition No.100323/2018 which was dismissed by the
High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench through the
Signature Not Verified
order dated 21.01.2019. The said order was passed by
Digitally signed by
MAHABIR SINGH
Date: 2020.03.03
16:21:25 IST
Reason:
the High Court while considering the petition filed by the
Page 1 of 27
appellants herein under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
seeking that the order dated 20.05.2016 passed by the
Principal Civil Judge & JMFC in PC No. 389/2016
referring the matter for investigation and consequential
registration of FIR in Crime No. 152/2016 by the
Hubballi SubUrban Police Station for the alleged
offences punishable under Sections 511, 109, 34, 120B,
406, 409, 420, 405, 417 and 426 of IPC be quashed. In
the said proceedings the appellants herein are arrayed as
Accused Nos. 9 and 11 respectively. The appellants
herein were at the relevant point in time working as the
Deputy General Managers in the Canara Bank (Accused
No.1), Circle Office at Hubbali, Karnataka.
3. The brief facts leading to the present situation is
that the respondent No.2 herein (hereinafter referred to
as the ‘Complainant’) had approached the Canara Bank
at Hubballi pursuant to which credit facilities were
sanctioned on 16.03.2009. The total credit facility
sanctioned amounted to Rs.2.68 crores. The property
bearing Survey No. 213/2002 situated at Anchatageri
Page 2 of 27
Village, Hubballi measuring 3 acres 2 Guntas was offered
as security for the said loan and a charge was created.
The said property is hereinafter referred to as the
‘Secured Asset’. As per the case of Canara Bank, the
Complainant had not repaid the loan amount and in that
view having committed default, the account of the
Complainant was classified as ‘NonPerforming Asset’
(‘NPA’ for short) on 15.01.2013. The Canara Bank thus
having invoked the power under Section 13(2) of The
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets
and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002
(‘SARFAESI Act’ for short) had issued appropriate notices
and ultimately the possession of the secured asset as
contemplated under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act was
taken on 22.03.2013. The secured asset was thereafter
evaluated and was brought to auction through the public
notice dated 13.10.2013 indicating the date of auction as
15.11.2013. The reserve price of the secured asset was
fixed at Rs.2,28,51,000/. Though publication was made,
no bids were received in the auction proposed on
Page 3 of 27
15.11.2013 and since the same was a public holiday
declared in the State of Karnataka the auction was
postponed to 04.12.2013. Even on the said date no bids
were received.
4. Accordingly, the Canara Bank had revised the
valuation, indicating the reserve price as Rs.1.10 Crore
since the earlier reserve price at a higher rate had not
attracted purchasers and issued the fresh auction notice
dated 30.12.2013. The Complainant claiming to be
aggrieved by such action, assailed the auction notice in a
Writ Petition filed before the High Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench in Writ Petition No. 100382/2014. The
learned Single Judge having considered the matter, apart
from taking note of the contentions put forth by the
Complainant had also taken into consideration the
alternate remedy available to the Complainant under the
SARFAESI Act and accordingly dismissed the writ
petition with cost of Rs.10,000/, on 22.01.2014. The
Complainant assailed the said order by filing a Writ
Appeal before the Division Bench in WA No.
Page 4 of 27
100349/2014. The Division Bench through the order
dated 19.08.2014 dismissed the Writ Appeal. The
Complainant thereafter availed the remedy under Section
17(1) of the SARFAESI Act by filing an application in IR
No.3044/2014 (SA) and also accompanying the same
with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act bearing IA No. 4482/2014. The application seeking
condonation of delay and consequently the main
application were dismissed by the Debts Recovery
Tribunal (‘DRT’ for short) through its order dated
12.06.2015. Pursuant thereto the Complainant is stated
to have filed an Appeal before the Debts Recovery
Appellate Tribunal, Chennai (‘DRAT’ for short) which is
also stated to be dismissed.
5. It is in the said backdrop the Complainant filed the
complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C in the Court of
the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) & JMFC,
Hubballi in P.C. No.389/2016 alleging that the Officers of
the Canara Bank in connivance with the auction
purchaser had caused wrongful loss to the Complainant.
Page 5 of 27
To the said complaint, apart from the Canara Bank, the
highly placed officials, the appellants herein, the valuers
and the auction purchaser were shown as the accused.
The said complaint being taken on record, the learned
Magistrate has referred the same for investigation under
Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and to submit a report. Based
on such direction the FIR No.0152/2016 is registered.
The appellants, therefore, claiming to be aggrieved had
preferred the Criminal Petition under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C in Criminal Petition No.100323/2018, which was
dismissed by the High Court through the order dated
21.01.2019 which is assailed herein.
6. Heard Mr. Brijesh Kumar Tamber, learned counsel
appearing for the appellants, Ms. Kiran Suri, learned
senior counsel for the Complainant, Mr. Shubhanshu
Padhi, learned counsel for the State of Karnataka and
perused the appeal papers.
7. The learned counsel for the appellants would
contend that apart from the appellants having no role in
the transaction between the Complainant and the Canara
Page 6 of 27
Bank, being the Deputy General Managers and working
at the Circle Office, even otherwise cannot be held liable
to face a criminal action of the present nature. It is
contended that the loan transaction and the account
being treated as NPA due to the nonrepayment of loan
cannot be disputed. In that circumstance the entire
action taken, upto the stage of the sale of the property is
as regulated under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act
which provides not only for the procedure but also for
redressal of the grievance of the parties concerned. In
that circumstance even if the grievance as sought to be
made out by the Complainant are taken note, the same
cannot form the basis for maintaining the criminal
complaint and in such event the learned Magistrate
without application of mind has directed investigation
under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. which has led to the
registration of the FIR. It is contended that in respect of
the action taken by the Canara Bank, the complainant in
fact has availed the remedy of filing the Writ Petition,
Writ Appeal and thereafter the proceedings before the
Page 7 of 27
DRT as also DRAT and having failed therein has set
criminal law into motion which is not bonafide and not
sustainable in law. It is contended that the learned Judge
of the High Court of Karnataka has not appreciated the
matter in its correct perspective. Instead, the learned
Judge has arrived at the conclusion that the investigation
would not prejudice the appellants, which is not justified.
It is contended that when action is taken against a
defaulter, if the instant action is permitted, it would not
be possible to discharge the official functions and as such
the instant case is a fit case where interference was
required but the High Court has failed to appreciate this
aspect of the matter. Further, it is also pointed out that
the learned Judge was not justified in rejecting the
petition filed by the appellants merely because the other
petitions filed in Criminal Petition No.101258/2016 and
Criminal Petition No.101162/2016 filed by certain other
accused had been dismissed and a direction was issued
to the police to file the final report.
Page 8 of 27
8. The learned senior counsel for the Complainant
would on the other hand rely on the identical criminal
petitions which had been dismissed by the High Court
insofar as Accused Nos.1 and 12 are concerned. It is
contended that though the loan of Rs.2.68 Crores was
sanctioned, only a sum of Rs.90 lakhs was disbursed and
the remaining amount was adjusted as repayment. It is
further contended that the secured asset which was
worth more than Rs.4 Crores was undervalued and
ultimately sold for Rs.1.10 Crores in connivance with the
auction purchaser who is arrayed as Accused No.15. It is
further contended that the under valuation of the
mortgage property is not the only issue but the issue with
regard to the nondisbursement of the entire loan and the
nonconsideration of the three offers made by the
Complainant for One Time Settlement (‘OTS’ for short)
are all aspects which are to be investigated upon. It is
contended that in such circumstance the investigation as
ordered by the learned Magistrate was justified and the
High Court has appropriately refrained from interfering in
Page 9 of 27
the matter at this stage. It is, therefore, contended that
the contention as urged in the instant appeal by the
appellants does not merit consideration and the appeal is
liable to be rejected. The learned counsel for the State of
Karnataka would contend that pursuant to direction
issued by the learned Magistrate the FIR had been
registered and the investigation is in progress and
therefore, the same be permitted to be taken to its logical
conclusion.
9. Before adverting to the rival contentions urged on
behalf of the parties we have kept in perspective the
decision of this Court in the case of State of Haryana
vs. Bhajan Lal (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335 placed for
consideration by the learned senior counsel for the
Complainant which lays down the parameters that are to
be kept in view while exercising the extraordinary
power/inherent power to quash the criminal proceeding.
On stating the parameters, this Court has cautioned that
the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be
exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and
Page 10 of 27
that too in rare cases. In that background, keeping in
view the nature of transaction and the manner in which
the earlier proceedings were resorted to on the same
subject matter, the present situation is required to be
considered.
10. As noted, the undisputed fact is that the
Complainant had approached the Canara Bank for
financial assistance, wherein the appellants herein were
the Officers in the Circle Office. The Complainant had
availed the loan facility to the tune of Rs.2.68 Crores on
16.03.2009. Though the Complainant contends that the
entire amount of Rs.2.68 Crores was not released, but
only a sum of Rs.90 lakh was released and the
remaining amount was adjusted as repayment, the
question would be as to whether that aspect and the
other aspects as raised with regard to the non
consideration of the OTS as also the value for which the
property was sold and the manner in which it was sold
could be investigated into by the police merely because
allegations are made and certain sections of the Indian
Page 11 of 27
Penal Code are invoked when the action is resorted to
and regulated under SARFAESI Act. While taking note of
the sequence of events it is noticed that the secured asset
though sold in the auction conducted on 31.01.2014 and
the grievances as sought to be put forth at this point in
the criminal complaint was available at that juncture, it
is not as if the complaint was immediately filed. On the
other hand, when the auction notice dated 13.10.2013
was issued, no grievance was made out by the
Complainant before any judicial forum. However, the sale
did not take place for want of purchasers and a fresh
auction notice dated 30.12.2013 was issued indicating
the reserve price at Rs.1.10 Crores.
11. At that stage the Complainant approached the
High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench in a Writ
Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India in W.P. No.100382/2014. The
auction notice dated 30.12.2013 was impugned therein.
The allegation which is now sought to be put forth in the
complaint filed under Section 200 of the Cr.PC wherein
Page 12 of 27
the appellants herein along with others have been
accused of with regard to the under valuation of the
secured assets was the very contention which was urged
in the said Writ Petition. The learned Single Judge in the
said Writ Petition had taken note of the contention that
the reserve price in respect of the secured assets was
fixed at Rs.228.51 Lakhs initially, thereafter in the
subsequent auction conducted the same was fixed at
Rs.1.10 Crores and has thereafter concluded as
hereunder:
“Undisputedly, petitioner is the debtor and
has suffered an order passed by
jurisdictional Debt Recovery Tribunal. The
Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore has
issued recovery certificate in favour of
respondentBank to recover the said
amount. Property mortgaged to respondent
Bank by the petitioner has been brought for
sale by auction. In the event of Bank not
adhering to provisions of SARFAESI Act in
conducting the sale or there being any
infraction in this regard, petitioner has an
alternate remedy available under SARFAESI
Act. Hence, at the stage of auction being
conducted by respondentBank for recovery
of its legitimate dues, this Court would not
interfere with said auction in the normal
course.”
Page 13 of 27
“In the instant case, reserve price
earlier fixed at Rs.228.51 lakhs has not
fetched customers and as such, respondent
Bank has fixed the reserve price at Rs.110
lakhs which would be the price with which
the public auction starts and auction
bidders are not permitted to give bids below
the floor value or reserve price. If the
petitioner is able to secure a customer or a
bidder who can offer his bid for the value as
proposed by the petitioner itself, it would be
needless to state that secured creditor would
definitely accept the said bid since earlier
attempts by it to auction the property has
been in vain.”
“In the instant case, as already noticed
hereinabove, petitioner is a borrower and it
had defaulted in payment of monies due to
the Bank. In other words, public money due
by petitioner to the Bank has not been
repaid. Petitioner loan account having been
classified as a ‘nonperforming asset’,
respondentBank has initiated proceedings
under the SARFAESI Act to recover the dues.
In the earlier auctions conducted, reserve
price fixed was Rs.228.51 lakhs i.e., in the
auction which was to be held on 15.11.2013
and 04.12.2013. However, in the paper
publication that has been issued on
30.12.2013 AnnexureC in the auction
proposed to be held on 31.01.2014 at 3.30
p.m. (Eauction), reserve price has been fixed
at Rs.110 lakhs. The grievance of the
petitioner is that value of the property is
more than Rs.405.21 lakhs and as such,
property in question cannot be sold for a
pittance. If value of the property as
contended by petitioner is Rs.405.21 lakhs,
Page 14 of 27
nothing prevents the petitioner from getting
a purchaser or a bidder to purchase the
property for the said value and clear off the
debts due by it to the respondent which even
according to petitioner is around Rs.285.71
lakhs as on 31.01.2014 (which was Rs.261
lakhs as on 11.10.2013). However, without
taking said recourse, petitioner is attempting
to stall the auction proceedings which is not
permissible inasmuch as the respondent
Bank being a nationalised Bank which is the
custodian of public money is taking steps to
recover its dues by auctioning the property
through eauction and the action of
respondentBank cannot be flawed.
RespondentBank has adopted one of the
courses suggested by the Hon’ble Apex Court
in United India Assurance case referred to
supra namely “Public Auction” by which
process there would be larger participation.
If at all the auction is to be setaside for any
reason whatsoever, petitioner can take
recourse to the remedy available under
SARFAESI Act and get the sale set aside.
However, petitioner cannot be permitted to
stall the auction itself under extraordinary
jurisdiction of this Court.”
(emphasis supplied)
12. While arriving at such conclusion the learned
Single Judge had kept in view the provisions as
contained in the SARFAESI Act, as also the decisions of
this Court, more particularly in the case of United Bank
Page 15 of 27
of India vs. Satyawati Tondon & Ors. (2009) 1 SCC
168. In that view though the learned Single Judge did
not accept the contentions as put forth had also
indicated that if at all the auction is to be set aside for
any reason whatsoever, the Complainant who was the
petitioner therein can take recourse to the remedy under
SARFAESI Act and get the sale set aside. In that view the
learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the
Complainant cannot be permitted to stall the auction
itself through the prayer made in the Writ Petition. The
Complainant had assailed the said order in an intra
court appeal bearing W.A. No.100349/2014. The
Division Bench by its order dated 19.08.2014 had taken
note of the consideration made by the learned Single
Judge with reference to the case of Satyawati Tondon
& Ors. (Supra) and had accordingly dismissed the Writ
Appeal.
13. Having taken note of the nature of consideration
made by the High Court in the said writ proceedings and
keeping in view the proceedings on hand, in order to
Page 16 of 27
come to a conclusion as to whether in a matter of the
present nature the appellants should be exposed to the
ignominy of going through the process of criminal
proceedings, it is also appropriate to take note of the
provisions as contained in the SARFAESI Act. The fact
that the issue relates to the exercise of remedy relating to
a secured asset as defined under the Act cannot be in
dispute. The fact that the account of the Complainant
was classified as NPA is also the admitted position. In
that regard when a right accrues to the secured creditor
to enforce the security interest, the procedure as
contemplated under Sections 13 and 14 of the SARFAESI
Act is to be resorted to. Further the Security Interest
(Enforcement) Rules, 2002 provides the procedure to be
adopted with regard to the valuation and sale of the
secured asset. If the Complainant, as a borrower had
any grievance with regard to any of the measures taken
by the secured creditor invoking the provisions of Section
13 of the SARFAESI Act, the remedy as provided under
Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act was to be availed. It is in
Page 17 of 27
that light the High Court in the writ proceedings had
arrived at such conclusion. At that point in time the
Complainant availed the remedy under the Act by filing
the application under Section 17 in I.R. No.3044/2014.
Since there was delay in filing, an application in I.A.
No.4482/2015 was filed under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act seeking condonation of delay. The same was rejected
on the ground of delay against which an appeal is said to
have been filed before the DRAT and it was pending
though it is now stated to be dismissed. It is at that
stage when it was still pending the impugned complaint
in P.C. No.389/2016 was filed, wherein through the order
dated 20.05.2016 it had been referred to an investigation
under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.PC.
14. The learned senior counsel for the Complainant no
doubt referred to the Criminal Petition No.101162/2016
and Criminal Petition No.101258/2016 filed by the
Accused Nos.1 and 12 being dismissed by the High Court
and the same not being carried further and attaining
finality. Though that be the position, in the instant case
Page 18 of 27
the appellants are before this Court to exercise the
remedy available and as such the dismissal of the said
petitions cannot prejudice their case when this Court is
required to take a view on the matter though it has not
been availed in the earlier cases. Further the learned
senior counsel has also referred to the statements of two
former Officers of the Canara Bank, namely,
Gurupadayya and Bapu which was recorded during the
course of the investigation and a reference was made by
the learned senior counsel to the detailed report
regarding investigation wherein the Investigating Officer,
namely, the Assistant Police SubInspector, SubUrban
Police Station, Hubballi had concluded that as per the
investigation it is found that all the accused persons with
conspiracy and in collusion with each other have cheated
the Complainant by releasing only Rs.90 Lakhs out of the
sanctioned amount of Rs.2.68 Crores and by later not
releasing the remaining amount had caused economic
stumbling block and sold the property mortgaged to one
of the accused.
Page 19 of 27
15. The issue however is, as to whether such
proceedings by the police in the present facts and
circumstances could be permitted. At the outset the
sanction of loan, creation of mortgage and the manner in
which the sanctioned loan was to be released are all
contractual matters between the parties. The
Complainant is an industrialist who had obtained the
loan in the name of his company and the loan account
was maintained by the Canara Bank in that regard. The
loan admittedly was sanctioned on 16.03.2009. When at
that stage the amount was released and if any amount
was withheld, the Complainant was required to take
appropriate action at that point in time and avail his
remedy. On the other hand, the Complainant had
proceeded with the transaction, maintained the loan
account until the account was classified as NPA on
15.01.2013. Initially the issue raised was only with
regard to the under valuation of the property when it was
brought to sale. On that aspect, as taken note the writ
proceedings were filed and the learned Single Judge
Page 20 of 27
having examined, though did not find merit had reserved
liberty to raise it before the DRT, which option is also
availed. It is only thereafter the impugned complaint was
filed on 20.05.2016.
16. The SARFAESI Act is a complete code in itself
which provides the procedure to be followed by the
secured creditor and also the remedy to the aggrieved
parties including the borrower. In such circumstance as
already taken note by the High Court in writ proceedings
if there is any discrepancy in the manner of classifying
the account of the appellants as NPA or in the manner in
which the property was valued or was auctioned, the DRT
is vested with the power to set aside such auction at the
stage after the secured creditor invokes the power under
Section 13 of SARFAESI Act. This view is fortified by the
decision of this Court in the case of Authorised Officer,
Indian Overseas Bank & Anr. vs. Ashok Saw Mill
(2009) 8 SCC 366 wherein it is held as hereunder:
Page 21 of 27
“34. The provisions of Section 13 enable
the secured creditors, such as banks and
financial institutions, not only to take
possession of the secured assets of the
borrower, but also to take over the
management of the business of the
borrower, including the right to transfer by
way of lease, assignment or sale for
realising secured assets, subject to the
conditions indicated in the two provisos to
clause (b) of subsection (4) of Section 13.
35. In order to prevent misuse of such
wide powers and to prevent prejudice being
caused to a borrower on account of an
error on the part of the banks or financial
institutions, certain checks and balances
have been introduced in Section 17 which
allow any person, including the borrower,
aggrieved by any of the measures referred
to in subsection (4) of Section 13 taken by
the secured creditor, to make an
application to the DRT having jurisdiction
in the matter within 45 days from the date
of such measures having taken for the
reliefs indicated in subsection (3) thereof.
36. The intention of the legislature is,
therefore, clear that while the banks and
financial institutions have been vested
with stringent powers for recovery of their
dues, safeguards have also been provided
for rectifying any error or wrongful use of
such powers by vesting the DRT with
authority after conducting an adjudication
into the matter to declare any such action
invalid and also to restore possession even
Page 22 of 27
though possession may have been made
over to the transferee.
37. The consequences of the authority
vested in the DRT under subsection (3) of
Section 17 necessarily implies that the
DRT is entitled to question the action
taken by the secured creditor and the
transactions entered into by virtue of
Section 13(4) of the Act. The legislature by
including subsection (3) in Section 17 has
gone to the extent of vesting the DRT with
authority to even set aside a transaction
including sale and to restore possession to
the borrower in appropriate cases.
Resultantly, the submissions advanced by
Mr Gopalan and Mr Altaf Ahmed that the
DRT has no jurisdiction to deal with a
postSection 13(4) situation, cannot be
accepted.”
(emphasis supplied)
17. We reiterate, the action taken by the Banks under
the SARFAESI Act is neither unquestionable nor treated
as sacrosanct under all circumstances but if there is
discrepancy in the manner the Bank has proceeded it will
always be open to assail it in the forum provided. Though
in the instant case the application filed by the
Complainant before the DRT has been dismissed and the
Appeal No.523/2015 filed before the DRAT is also stated
to be dismissed the appellants ought to have availed the
Page 23 of 27
remedy diligently. In that direction the further remedy by
approaching the High Court to assail the order of DRT
and DRAT is also available in appropriate cases. Instead
the petitioner after dismissal of the application before the
DRT filed the impugned complaint which appears to be
an intimidatory tactic and an afterthought which is an
abuse of the process of law. In the matter of present
nature if the grievance as put forth is taken note and if
the same is allowed to be agitated through a complaint
filed at this point in time and if the investigation is
allowed to continue it would amount to permitting the
jurisdictional police to redo the process which would be
in the nature of reviewing the order passed by the learned
Single Judge and the Division Bench in the writ
proceedings by the High Court and the orders passed by
the competent Court under the SARFAESI Act which is
neither desirable nor permissible and the banking system
cannot be allowed to be held to ransom by such
intimidation. Therefore, the present case is a fit case
Page 24 of 27
wherein the extraordinary power is necessary to be
invoked and exercised.
18. The appellants herein had also referred to the
provision as contained in Section 32 of the SARFAESI Act
which provides for the immunity from prosecution since
protection is provided thereunder for the action taken in
good faith. The learned senior counsel for the
Complainant has in that regard referred to the decision of
this Court in the case of General Officer Commanding,
Rashtriya Rifles vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
& Anr. (2012) 6 SCC 228 to contend that the defence
relating to good faith and public good are questions of
fact and they are required to be proved by adducing
evidence. Though on the proposition of law as
enunciated therein there could be no cavil, that aspect of
the matter is also an aspect which can be examined in
the proceedings provided under the SARFAESI Act. In a
circumstance where we have already indicated that a
criminal proceeding would not be sustainable in a matter
of the present nature, exposing the appellants even on
Page 25 of 27
that count to the proceedings before the Investigating
Officer or the criminal court would not be justified.
19. In that view, for all the reasons stated above we
pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The complaint bearing P.C. No.389/2016
and the order dated 20.05.2016 passed
therein as also the FIR No.0152/2016
insofar as the appellants herein are
concerned stand quashed.
(ii) Insofar as the grievance of the
Complainant, he is at liberty to avail his
remedies in accordance with law if he
chooses to assail the order dated 12.06.2015
passed in I.R. No.3044/2014 and the order
dated 31.05.2017 passed in Appeal
No.523/2015 by the DRT and DRAT
respectively in accordance with law.
Page 26 of 27
(iii) The appeal is accordingly allowed with no
order as to costs.
(iv) Pending applications if any, shall also
stand disposed of.
………….…………….J.
(R. BANUMATHI)
.……………………….J.
(S. ABDUL NAZEER)
………….…………….J.
(A.S. BOPANNA)
New Delhi,
March 03, 2020
Page 27 of 27
Comments