Holding

A secured creditor may enforce his security without leave of the winding‑up court if the suit was instituted before the winding‑up order, but after such order any suit requires the court's leave, which may be granted on reasonable terms, and the winding‑up court has jurisdiction to transfer or stay such suits.

Summary

The Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India Ltd. (the petitioner) challenged the actions of secured creditors who had approached civil courts to realise their debts against a company undergoing winding‑up. The Supreme Court examined the extent of a secured creditor's right to enforce security outside the winding‑up court and when a winding‑up court may transfer or stay such proceedings. It held that a secured creditor may proceed without the winding‑up court's leave if the suit was filed before the winding‑up order, but once the order is in force any suit must obtain leave, which the court may grant on reasonable terms. The Court clarified that the winding‑up court has jurisdiction to entertain, transfer, or stay suits and to protect the interests of all creditors, including workmen, under sections 446, 529, 529‑A and 537 of the Companies Act, 1956. The discretion to grant leave or transfer a suit must be exercised case‑by‑case, balancing the secured creditor's rights with the interests of other creditors and the need to avoid unnecessary litigation.

Issues considered

The extent of a secured creditor's right to realise debts from the assets of a company under winding‑up by approaching courts other than the winding‑up court.
When a pending suit or proceeding relating to realisation of a secured creditor's debt should be transferred to the winding‑up court or proceeded with with leave of that court.

Legislation cited

Companies Act, 1956s. 446, s. 456, s. 457, s. 529, s. 529-A, s. 537
Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993s. 18

Subjects

winding‑upsecured creditorrealisation of debtcompany court jurisdictionleave of courttransfer of suitworkmen duespriority of claimsCompanies Act 1956liquidation

Judgment

A INDUSTRIAL CREDIT AND INVESTMENT
CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.
•
. \

v.
MIS SRINIVAS AGENCIES AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

FEBRUARY 22, 1996
B
[A.M. AHMADI, CJ AND B.L. HANSARIA, J.]

Companies Act, 1956: Sections 446, 456, 457, 529, 529-A and 537.

C Company-Winding up-Secured creditor-Extent of 1ight to realise
debts-Approaching for other than Company Courts-Pemiissibility
of-Leave by winding up Cowt to securi:d creditor to pursue remedy in Civil
Coult-Held temis for leave imposed should be reasonable.
:
Secured Credit01~Suit or proceedings relating to realisation of
D debt-Transfer to Company Cowt dwing pendency of winding up proceed-
ings-Pemiissibility of

Recove1y of debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions-Act,
1993-0bject of
E
The questions in these appeals are : (i) what is the extent of right of
secured creditors to realise their debts from the assets of a company which
is under winding-up or has been wound up, by approaching fora other than
the Company Court; and (ii) as to when a pending suit or proceeding
relating to realisation of the debts by a secured creditor should be trans-
F ferred to itself by a Company Court seized with the winding- up proceed-
ing:

Disposing of the appeals, this Court

HELD : 1. A secured creditor stands outside the winding up proceed-
G ings and under the law he can proceed to realise his security without the
leave of the winding-up court, if by the time he initiated the action the
company has not been wound up. [963-F]

M.K. Ranganathan v. Government of Madras, (1955) 2 SCR 374,
H referred to.
960
[
l.C.I.C.I.LTD.v. AGENCIES [HANSARIA,J.] 961

2. A combined reading of Sections 446, 529 (1) and (2), 529-A and A
537 of the Companies Act, 1956 leads to the following results:

(a) A winding-up Court has jurisdJction, inter alia, to entertain or
dispose of any suit or proceeding by or against the company, even if such
suit or proceedings had been instituted before an order for winding up had
been made. This apart, the winding up court has jurisdiction to transfer B
such a suit or proceeding to itself and dispose of the same;

(b) when a winding-up.order has been made or the official liquidator
has been appointed as provisional liquidator, no suit or other legal
proceeding, even if pending at the date of the winding-up order, can C
proceed against the company, except by leave of the CompajY Court; and

(c) any sale held, even without the leave of the winding-up court
pursuant to order of a civil court on it being approached by a secured
creditor to realise its debt will not ipso facto be void. Section 537, dealing
with voidness of sale, operates when the sale is pursuant to attachment of D
company court. This, however; would be the position where a Company has
not been would up, but is in the process of being would up; (964-A; 967-B-E]

3. A secured creditor who has initiated a suit or proceeding in a civil
Court is interested in realisation of his debt only, whereas the company
court looks after the intert:st of all the creditors; so too, the workmen's E
dues, which rank pari passu with debts due to secured creditors. This is
brought home not only by section 529-A, which was inserted by the Com-
panies (Amendment) Act, 1985, but also by the proviso to sub- section (1)
of Sectior'i 529 inserted by the same Amendment Act. The winding-up court
does these acts through a liquidator, who has been given wide powers by
section 457 of the Act. As against this a receiver appointed by a Civil Court
F
on being approached by secured creditor would basically look after the
interest of that creditor, whose interest may in many cases be in conflict
with that of liquidator. In case of such conflict the interest of liquidator has
to receive precedence over that of the receiver in as much as the former
looks ~fter the interest of a large segment of creditors alongwith that of G
workmen, whereas the latter confines his concern to the interest of the
secured creditor on whose approach the receiver had been appointed.
[967-G-H; 968-A-C]
4. It is no doubt correct that the interest of the secured creditor, who
has taken recourse to an independent proceeding to realise his debt has H
962 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 2 S.C.R.

A to be protected; but it is apparent this cannot be done at the cost of other
secured. creditors. May be that in a particular case the secured creditor
who has approached the civil Court happens to be one who has lent huge
amount, or be one who is the main secured creditor. In such a situation,
,_
on approach being made by such creditor, Company Court would duly take
note of this fact and should like to grant leave required by sub-section (1)
B of section 446; and by the same token refuse to transfer the proceeding to

-
his Court. This is not to say that in all cases where the proceedings have
been initiated by the main secured creditor, the company Court would
grant leave. Much would depend on the circumstances of each case. But if
the position be that the secured creditor who had approached the civil
C Court is one amongst many similar creditors, it may be that the company
Court feels that to take care of the interest of other secured creditors,
either the relief of leave does not deserve to be granted or that the
proceeding is required to be transferre4 to it for disposal. [971-A-D]

5. Sections 529 and 529-A of the Act to contain provisions in so far
D as the priority of secured creditor's .claim is concerned. Of course, the
company court would not transfer the proceeding to it merely because of
its convenience ignoring the difficulties which may have to be faced by the
secured creditor, who may be at a place far away from the seat of the
Company Court. The need to protect the Company from unnecessary
E litigation and cost have, however, to be borne in mind by the company
Court. [971-E-F]

6. The discretion to be exercised by the Company Court in this
regard has to depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. While
F exercising this power the Company Court would also bear in mind the
rationale behind the enactment of Recovery of debts due to the Banks and
Financial Institutions Act, 1993. The terms which a Company Court should
like to impose while granting leave have to be reasonable. Such an ap-
proach, would maintain the integrity of that secured creditor who had
approached the Civil Court or desires to do so, and would take care of the
G interest of other secured creditors as well which the Company ...,.,
duty bound to do. [971-G-H; 972-A]
.Court is .
7. The Company Court shall also apprise itself about the fact
whether dues of workmen are. outstanding; if so, extent of the same. It
H should be seen whether after the assets of the Company are allowed to be
1.C.l.C.I. LTD. v. AGENCIES (HANSARIA, J.] 963

used to satisfy the debt of the secured creditor, it would be possible to A
satisfy the workmen's dues pari passu. (972-B]

Re Karamelli & Bamett Limited, (1917) 1 CH 203; Central Bank of
India v. Mis E/mot Engi,neeTing Company, (1994] 4 SCC 159 and Sudarsan
Chits (I) Ltd. v. 0. Sukumaran Pillai, [1984] 4 SCC 657, referred to.
B
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 5082-85
of 1989 Etc.

From the Judgment and Order dated 23.8.89 of the Andhra Pradesh
High Court in O.S.A Nos. 19-22 of 1989. C

H.N. Salve, Ms. P.S. Shroff, Sunil Dogra, S.A. Shroff & Co., Ashok
Grover, A Subha Rao Tripurai Ray, Devendra Singh for the appearing
parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered : D
HANSARIA, J. The extent of right of secured creditors to realise
their debts from the assets of a company which is under winding- up or
has been would up, by approaching fora other than the company court, is
required to be spelt out in these appeals. We have also been called upon
to decide as to when a pending suit or proceeding relating to realisation E
of the debts by such a creditor should be transferred to itself by a company
court seized with the winding-up proceeding.

2. The foundational premise of the aforesaid points is that it is a
settled position by now that a secured creditor stands outside the winding- p
up proceeding and under the law he can proceed to realise his security
without the leave of the winding-up court, if by the time he initiated the
action the company has not been wound up. This view has been holding
field ever since a three- Judge bench decision of this Court in M.K
Ranganathan v. Govemment of Madras, [1955] 2 SCR 374. As this legal
position has not been assailed by any of the parties, we need not advert to G
the reasons which led this Court i.n Ranganathan's case to hold as above.
Despite this being the legal position, there were some provisions in the
Indian Companies Act, 1913, which enactment preceded the present Com-
panies Act, 1956 (hereinafter the 'Act') in which also a parallel provisions
find place, which put some restrictions on the aforesaid power. H
964 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 2 S.C ..rl.

A 3. It would be profitable to note these provisions of the Act at the
threshold itself. These are sections 446, 529 (1) and (2), 529A and 537,
reading as below :

"446. (1) When a winding up order has been made or the Officiat
Liquidator has been appointed as provisional liquidator, no suit or
B other legal proceeding shall be commenced, or if pending at the
date of the winding up order, shall be proceeded with, against the
company, except by leave of the Court and subject to such terms
as the Court may impose.

c (2) The Court which is winding up the company shall, not-
withstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being
in force, have jurisdiction to entertain, or dispose of-

(a) any suit or proceeding by or against the company;

D (b) any claim made by or against the company (including
claims by or against any of its branches in India);

(c) any application made under section 391 by or in respect
of the company;

E (d) any question of priorities or any other question what-
soever, whether of law or fact, which may relate to or arise
in course of the winding up of the company;

whether such suit or proceeding has been instituted, or 1S m-
stituted, or such claim or question has arisen or arises or such
F application has been made or is made before or after the order
for the winding up of the company, or before or after the com-
mencement of the Companies (Amendment) Act, 1960.

(3) Any suit or proceeding by or against the company which is
pending in any Court other than that in which the winding up of
G the company is proceeding may, notwithstanding anything con-
tained in any other law for the· time being in force, be transferred
to and disposed of by that Court.

(4) Nothing in sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) shall apply to any
H proceeding.pending in appeal before the Supre111e Court or a High
. 1.C.l.C.I. LID. v. AGENCIES [HANSARIA, J.J 965

Court A
529. (1) In the winding up of an insolvent company, the same rules
shall prevail and be observed with regard to -

..
(a),debts provable;

- (b) the valuation of annuities and future and contingent
liabilities; and
B

(c) the respective rights of secured and unsecured creditors;

as are in force for the time being under the law of insolvency with C
respect to the estates of persons adjudged insolvent:

Provided that the security of every secured creditor shall be
deemed to be subject to a pari passu charge in favour of the
workmen to the extent of the workmen's portion therein, and,
where a secured creditor, instead of relinquishing his. security and D
proving his debt, opts to realise his security,-

(a) the liquidator shall be entitled to represent the workmen
and enforce such charge;

(b) any amount realised by the liquidator by way of enforce- E
ment of such charge shall be applied rateably for the dis-
charge of workmen's dues; and

(c) so much of the debt due to such secured creditor as could
not be realised by him by virtue of the' foregoing provisions
of this proviso or the amount of the workmen's portion in his F
security, whichever is less, shall rank pari passu with the
workmen's dues for the purposes of section 529A.

(2) All persons who in any such case would be entitled to prove
for and receive dividends out of the assets of the company, may G
come in under the winding up, and make such claims against the
company as they respectively are entitled to make by virtue of this
section:

Provided that if a secured creditor instead of relinquishing his
security and proving for his debt proceeds to realise his security, H.
966 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 2 S.C.R.

A he shall be liable to pay (his portion of} the expenses incurred by
the liquidator (including a provisional liquidator, if any) for the
preservation of the security before its realization by the secured
creditor).

Explanation : For the purposes of this proviso, the portion of
B expenses incurred by the liquidator for the preservation of a
security which the secured creditor shall be liable to pay shall be
the whole of the expenses less an amount which bears to such
-
expenses the same portion as the workmen's portion to the security
bears to the value of the security.
c (3) xxx xxx xxx

529A. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other
provision of this Act or any other law for the time being in force,
in the winding up of a company-
D
(a) workmen's dues; and

(b) debts due to secured creditors to the extent such debts
rank under clause (c) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of
section 529 pari passu with such dues,
E shall be paid in priority to all other debts.

(2) The debts payable under clause (a) and clause (b) of sub-sec-
tion (1) shall be paid in full, unless the assets are insufficient to
meet them, in which case they shall abate in equal proportions.
F
537. (1) Where any company is being wound up by or subject to
the supervision of the Court -

(a) any attachment, distress or execution put in force, without
leave of the Court, against the estate or effects of the com-
G pany, after the commencement of the winding up; or

(b) any sale held, without leave of the Court, of any of the
properties or effects of the company after such commence-
ment;

H shall be void.
l.C.I.C.I. LTD. v. AGENCIES [HANSARIA, J.] 967

(2) Nothing in this section applies to any proceedings· for the A
recovery of any tax or impost or any dues payable to the Govern-
ment."

4. A combined reading of the aforesaid provisions leads to the
following results:

(i) A winding-up court has jurisdiction, inter alia, to entertain or
dispose of any suit or proceeding by or against the company, even if such
suit or proceeding had been instituted before an order for winding-up had
been made. This apart, the winding-up court has jurisdiction to transfer
C
- such a suit or proceeding to itself and dispose of the same. These follow
from sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 446.

(ii) When a winding-up order has been made or the official liquidator
has been appointed as provisional liquidator, no suit or other legal
proceeding, even if pending at the date of the winding-up order, can
proceed against the company, except by leave of the Company Court vide D
sub-section (1) of section 446.

(iii) Any sale held, even without the leave of the winding-up court
pursuant to order of a civil court on it being approached by a secured
creditor to realise its debt will not ipso facto be void, in view of the holding E
in Ranganathan's case that section 537, dealing with voidness of sale,
operates when the sale is pursuant to attachment of company court. This,
however, would be the position where a company has not been would up,
but is in the process of being would up.

5. None of the parties has assailed the aforesaid propositions of law F
as well. The real bone of contention is as to when (i) leave of the winding-
up court should be granted to a secured creditor to proceed with the suit
after an order of winding-up has been made; and (ii) when should a
winding-up court transfer to itself any suit or proceeding by or against the
company during the pendency of the winding-up proceeding.
G
6. The aforesaid questions arise because a secured creditor who has
initiated a suit or proceeding in a civil court is interested in realisation of
his debt only, whereas the company court looks after the interest of all the
creditors; so too, the workmen's dues, which rankpari passu with debts due
to secured creditors. This is brought home not only by section 529-A, which H
-
968 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] 2 S.C.R.

A was inserted by the Companies (Amendment) Act, 1985, but also by the
proviso to sub-section (1) of section 529 inserted by the same Amendment
Act. The winding-up court does these acts through a liquidator, who has
been given wide powers by se~tion 457 of the Act. As against this, a
receiver appointed by a civil court on being approached by secured
creditor would basically look after the interest of that creditor, whose
B
interest may in ~any .cases be in conflict with that of liquidator, as was
acknowledged in In re Karamelli & Barnett, Limited, (1917) 1 CH 203. We
feel no difficulty in stating that in case of such confli-::t, the interest of
liquidator has to receive precedence over that of the receiver inasmuch as
the former looks after the interest of a large segment of creditors alongwith
C that of workmen, whereas the latter confines his concern to the interest of
the secured creditor on whose approach the receiver had been appointed.
Th.is view cannot also be, and has indeed not been, contested by the learned
-
counsel appearing for the appellants.

D 7. The real controversy is as to when a winding-up court should get
transferred to itself a pending proceeding initiated by secured creditor; and
when a winding-up court should grant leave to the secured creditor to
pursue his remedy in the civil court, despite winding-up order having been
passed. Shri Salve brought to our notice, on the first aspect of the con-
troversy, a decision of two-Judge bench decision of this Court in Central
E Bank of India v. M/s. Elmot Engi,neeling Company, [1994] 4 SCC 159. It was
held therein that the aim of section 446 is to safeguard the assets of the
company against wasteful or expensive litigation as for as matters which
could be expeditiously and cheaply decided by the company court. It was
also observed that while granting leave under this section the court always
F takes into consideration whether the company is likely to be exposed to
unnecessary litigation and cost.

8. In this context. It would be apposite and useful to note what was
stated by a three~Judge bench in Sudarsan Chits (I) Ltd. v. O. Sukumaran
Pillai, [1984] 4 SCC 657, which has traced the historical evolution as well
G as the present setting of section 446(2). A need for such a provision was
felt because section 171 of the predecessor Act had only provided for stay
of suits and proceedings pending at the commencement of winding-up
proceeding, alongwith the embargo against the commencement of any suit
or other legal proceedings against the company except by the leave of the
H court. That provision, with little modification, was re-enacted in sub-section
1.C.l.C.I. LTD. v. AGENCIES (HANSARIA, J.] 969

(1) of section 446. There was thus no specific provisions conferring juris- A
diction to the court winding-up the company analogous to the one con-
ferred by sub-section (2), which was introduced to enlarge the jurisdiction
of the winding-up court so as to facilitate the disposal of winding-up
proceedings. This sub-section, as originally enacted, did not meet with the
requirement fully, with the result that the Committee appointed for ex- B
amining comprehensive amendment to the Companies Act recommended
that "a suit by or against a company in winding-up should notwithstanding
any provision in law for the time being be instituted in the court in which
the winding-up proceedings are pending". The Committee made this
recommendation having noticed that on winding-up order being made and
the official liquidator being appointed, he has to -take into his custody C
company property as required by section 456. Then, section 457 confers
power on the liquidator to sell the properties of the company and to realise
the assets. The Committee felt that at the stage when winding-up order is
made, the company may as well have subsisting claims and to realise these
claims the liquidator will have to file suits. To avoid this eventuality and to D
keep all incidental proceedings in winding-up before the court, its jurisdic-
tion was required to be enlarged to entertain petition, amongst others, for
recovering the claims of the company. To give effect to this recommenda-
tion, sub-section (2) was suitably amended to bring it to its present form
by the Companies (Amendment) Act, 1960. The amendment obviated the
need filing of suits by the liquidator (which are prolix and expensive) to E
realise and recover lhe claims and subsisting debts owed to the company;
and instead, provided a cheap and summary remedy by conferring the
required jurisdiction on the company court.

9. Shri Salve's entire submission had been that a working principle F
may be got evolved which would, on the one hand, protect the substantive
right of a secured creditor, specially in view of large sums of money being
advanced of late of such creditors and, on the other hand, not jeopardise
the interest of other secured creditors. According to the learned counsel,
these twin objects can be achieved if the company court were to grant leave
wherever required as a rule, subject to reasonable conditions. This would G
preserve the integrity of the substantive right of the secured creditor. The
terms to be imposed which should facilitate, rather than obstruct, the
realisation of security. Further, wherever a receiver has been appointed
prior to the commencement of the winding-up proceedings, he should be
permitted to continue in general run of cases. As to the suits to be filed H ·
970 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] 2 S.C.R.

A after the winding-up proceeding has commenced, the learned counsel
urged that such a permission should normally be granted by the winding-up
court. On this being done, when the question of appointment of receiver
would arise, the civil court would do so if a case for same were to be made
out after hearing the liquidator, who would be a defendant in the suit. As
regards transfer of the pending suit by the company court, the submission
B
was that convenience may not be the guiding factor; the preservation of
integrity of the substantive right of the creditor should be the main con-
sideration.

10. To buttress his submissions, Shri Salve has referred as to the
C Recovery of D<:bts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993,
which was recently enacted because of the considerable difficulty being
experienced by financial institutions in recovering loans and enforcement
-
securities charged with them. Earlier, recovery procedure used to block a
significant portion of their funds in unproductive assets, the value of which
D deteriorates with the passage of time. An urgent need was, therefore, felt
for successful implementation of the financial sector reforms, to work out
a suitable mechanism through which dues to these institutions could be
realised without delay. To achieve this purpose, the aforesaid Act visualises
establishment of the Debts Recovery Tribunal(s) by the Central Govern-
ment, with its own procedure which is speedy in nature. Section 18 of this
E Act has barred Jurisdiction of other courts, except the writ power of the
higher courts, in relation to the matters specified in section 17 - the same
being recovery of debts due to such institutions.

11. Shri Subha Rao, who appeared for official liquidator in many
F cases, however, urged that it is the liquidator who can look after the
• interests of all the secured creditors, and so, his actions should be allowed
to prevail over that of the receiver. He submitted that section 529 of the
Act contains many provisions to duly protect the interest of secured
creditors. Shri Grover, appearing for some of the respondents, brought to
G our notice that part of sub-section (1) of section 446 which mentions about
the grant of leave on "such terms as the Court may impose", which
provision, according to learned counsel, means that the terms have to be
reasonable. The underlying idea of this contention is that there cannot be
any uniform working principle, and the question whether leave should be
granted, if so, on what terms and whether transfer should at all be ordered
H would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.
I.C.l.C.I. LTD. v. AGENCIES [HANSARIA, J.] 971

12. We have duly applied our mind to the rival contentions. It is no A
doubt correct that the interest of the secured creditor, who has taken
recourse to an independent proceeding to realise his debt has to be
protected; but it is apparent this cannot be done at the cost of other
secured creditors. To preserve the integrity of one secured creditor,
another secured creditor cannot be discredited - his integrity has to be of B
equal concern. It may, however, be that in a particular case the secured
creditor who has approached the civil court happens to be one who has
lent huge amount, or be one who is the main secured creditor. In such a
situation, on approach being made by such creditor, we have no doubt that
company court would duly take note of this fact and should like to grant
leave required by sub-section (1) of section 446; and by the same token C
refuse to transfer the proceeding to his court. This is not to say that in all
cases where the proceedings have been initiated by the main secured
creditor, the company court would grant leave. Much would depend on the
circumstances of each case. But, if the position be that the secured creditor
who had approached the civil court is one amongst many similar creditors, D
it may be that the company court feels that to take care of the interest of
other secured creditors, either the relief of leave does not deserve to be
granted or that the proceeding is required to be transferred to it for
disposal. It may be pointed out that sections 529 and 529A of the Act do
contain provisions in so far as the priority of secured creditor's claim is
concerned. Of course, the company court would not transfer the proceed- E
ing to it merely because of its convenience ignoring the difficulties which
may have to be faced by the secured creditor, who may be at a place far
away from the seat of the company court. The need to protect the company
from unnecessary litigation and cost have, however, to be borne in mind
by the company court.
F
13. We are, therefore, of the view that the approach to be adopted
in this regard by the company court does not deserve to be put in a straight
jacket formula. The discretion to be exercised in this regard has to depend
on the facts and circumstances of each case. While exercising this power
we have no doubt that the company court would also bear in mind the G
rationale behind the enactment of Recovery of debts Due to the Banks and
Financial Institutions Act, 1993, to which reference has been made above.
We make the same observation regarding the terms which a company··court
should like to impose while granting leave. It need not to be stated that the
terms to be imposed have to be reasonable, which would of course, vary H
972 :SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) 2 S.C.R.

A from case to case. According to us, such an approach, would maintain the
integrity of that secured creditor who had approached the civil court or
desiies to do so and would take care of the interest of other secured
creditors as well which the company court is duty bound to do. The
company court shall also apprise itself about the fact whether dues of
workmen are outstanding; if so, extent of the same. It would be seen
B whether after the assets of the company are allowed to be used to satisfy
the debt of the secured creditor, it would be possible to satisfy the
workmen's dues pmi passu.

14. The appeals and transfer cases stand disposed of with these
C observations, leaving the company court to pass appropriate orders in the
concerned matters in the light of what has been stated by us. No order as
to cost.

T.N.A. Appeals and T.C. disposed of.

-