M/S BENGANI FOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD AND ANOTHERversusNATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND OTHERS

                 [2025] 7 S.C.R. 1756 : 2025 INSC 902

           M/s Bengani Food Products Pvt Ltd and Another
                                 v.
               National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others
                       (Civil Appeal No. 6406 of 2016)
                                  24 July 2025
           [B.R. Gavai, CJI and Augustine George Masih,* J.]


                            Issue for Consideration
       Whether the repudiation of the insurance claim by the first
       Respondent-Insurer was valid in light of the terms of the Marine
       Open Policy and the factual matrix of the case; construction of
       Clause 5 of the Inland Transit (Rail/Road) Clause A and the insured’s
       obligations under Clause 8 thereof.

                                   Headnotes†
       Insurance – Marine Transit Open (Declaration) Insurance
       Policy – Repudiation of insurance claim of the Appellant-
       Insured, by the Respondent-Insurer, owing to damage of
       goods while being in transit at the Shalimar Railway Godown
       at Howrah in West Bengal – Repudiation affirmed by NCDRC –
       Sustainability:
       Held: Impugned order upheld – Insured cannot claim anything more
       than what is covered under the Insurance Policy – Policy terms
       must be construed as they stand without adding or subtracting
       words – Clause 5 of the Inland Transit (Rail/Road) Clause A of
       policy is clear and unambiguous – No extended interpretation can
       be given to continue coverage once the goods were delivered and
       remained stored at the siding – The maize consignment arrived at
       the Shalimar Railway Yard on 07.02.2007 and was fully unloaded
       by that evening – A portion of the goods was promptly dispatched
       displaying the possession having been taken by the Appellant of the
       unloaded goods, although a substantial quantity remained stacked
       at the siding – On 07.02.2007 evening and afternoon 08.02.2007,
       there was heavy rainfall, resulting in damage to the consignment,
       allegedly rendering it unfit for poultry consumption – Admittedly,
       the consignment was unloaded and taken into possession by the
       Appellant on 07.02.2007 when the railway receipt was issued on
       delivery – Nothing on record to show that onward movement was

* Author
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                             1757

           M/s Bengani Food Products Pvt Ltd and Another. v.
                National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others.

     scheduled or arranged within the next seven days – In the absence
     of any declaration followed by arrangement to that effect, the
     conclusion that the coverage ceased upon unloading is justified –
     The argument that the maize remained in the ‘course of transit’
     not accepted – The consignment, once unloaded and lying at the
     open siding under the control of the insured, no longer retained
     the character of goods in movement – Mere logistical delay or
     the need to vacate wagons does not extend the policy coverage –
     Once goods are voluntarily stored post-delivery or the risk
     environment is altered, the Respondent-Insurer stands discharged.
     [Paras 19, 22-24, 30-32]

     Insurance – Marine Transit Open (Declaration) Insurance
     Policy – Clause 8 – Duty of the insured to exercise reasonable
     care – Insurance claim by Appellant-Insured repudiated by
     the first Respondent-Insurer also invoking Clause 8 – It was
     alleged that the Appellant had failed to exercise reasonable
     care to protect the goods as the consignment was stored in an
     open siding; and had also breached the packaging standards
     by packing the maize in second hand gunny bags violating the
     policy terms related to the duty of the Appellants to prevent
     and minimise the loss – Repudiation affirmed by NCDRC:
     Held: The damaged maize was stacked in old and torn gunny
     bags, inadequately covered by the HDPE sheets as the outer
     periphery was vulnerable to weather and human hazard – The
     consignment was left exposed in an open railway yard, despite
     sufficient opportunity to take protective steps – The rainfall began
     around 2:30 p.m. on 08.02.2007 and the Appellant had the entire
     morning and early afternoon to act but failed to do so – While it may
     be true that second-hand gunny bags are often used in the trade,
     such a practice cannot justify the absence of basic precautions,
     particularly in the face of an approaching weather event – It is not
     the use of second hand material per se that is in question, but
     the failure to ensure that such material was adequate under the
     circumstances – The plea that the surveyor acted arbitrarily or
     without application of mind is also devoid of substance. [Para 26]

     Insurance – Marine Transit Open (Declaration) Insurance
     Policy – Principle of contra proferentem – When not
     applicable – Insurance claim by Appellant-Insured repudiated
     by the first Respondent-Insurer citing Clause 5 of the Inland
     Transit (Rail/Road) Clause A of the Insurance Policy – As per
1758                                                          [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


    the Respondents, the coverage of the insurance had ceased
    once the goods were unloaded at the Shalimar Railway yard,
    and the loss occurred outside the period of risk covered under
    the policy – Repudiation affirmed by NCDRC:
    Held: Clause 5 is worded with clarity and precision – There is no
    ambiguity in the manner of termination of coverage which was
    rightly invoked – Therefore, the principle of contra proferentem
    has no application. [Para 30]

    Doctrine – Doctrine of uberrima fides – Non-disclosure of
    material fact –Effect:
    Held: In the realm of insurance contracts, the doctrine of uberrima
    fides demands complete and truthful disclosure of all material facts –
    A departure therefrom strikes at the very root of the contractual
    obligation and materially impairs the integrity of the claim so
    preferred – Substantial movement of stock, occurring shortly after
    the alleged incident of loss, militates against the foundational plea
    of total destruction – The subsequent transportation of 10,910.40
    quintals of maize from Shalimar Railway Yard, Howrah to Rishra
    Warehouse during the period between 14.02.2007 and 15.02.2007,
    was neither disclosed by the Appellants in their initial claim nor
    during the course of the preliminary correspondence – It was
    only upon inspection of material by the Respondents that this fact
    surfaced – The belated explanation tendered by the Appellants
    that the said consignment was returned due to alleged rejection
    was wholly unsubstantiated. [Para 28]

                             Case Law Cited
    Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited and Another v.
    State of Madhya Pradesh [2020] 6 SCR 198 : (2020) 18 SCC
    376; Vikram Greentech India Limited and Another v. New India
    Assurance Company Limited [2009] 5 SCR 437 : (2009) 5 SCC
    599 – relied on.

                                List of Acts
    Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

                             List of Keywords
    Insurance; Insurance claim; Marine Transit Open (Declaration)
    Insurance Policy; Marine Open Policy; Insurance contracts; Export
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                            1759

           M/s Bengani Food Products Pvt Ltd and Another. v.
                National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others.

     of poultry and cattle feed; Consignment consisting of maize; Poultry
     feed; Damage of goods in transit; Repudiation of the insurance
     claim; Heavy rainfall; Damage of goods; Inland Transit (Rail/Road);
     Consignment unloaded; Consignment taken into possession by
     Insured; Principle of contra proferentem; Insured’s obligations;
     Duty of the insured; Reasonable care; Railway receipt issued on
     delivery; Coverage ceased upon unloading; Consignment unloaded;
     Consignment lying at the open siding; Goods voluntarily stored post-
     delivery; Risk environment altered, Insurer discharged; Packaging
     standards breached; Logistical delay; Wagons; Maize consignment;
     Policy coverage; Second hand gunny bags; Shalimar Railway
     Godown, Howrah, West Bengal; Absence of basic precautions;
     Surveyor; Report of surveyor; Substantial movement of stock;
     Warehouse-to-warehouse basis; Ordinary course of transit; Old and
     torn gunny bags; Tarpaulin; Inadequately covered; HDPE sheets;
     Railway rakes; Basic storage norms; Non-disclosure of fact.

                            Case Arising From
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6406 of 2016
     From the Judgment and Order dated 18.02.2016 of the National
     Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in CCN
     No. 42 of 2009

                         Appearances for Parties
     Advs. for the Appellants:
     Dr. Sumant Bharadwaj, Vedant Bharadwaj, Ms. Mridula Ray
     Bharadwaj, Mrs. Pooja Gupata, D.m.sharma, Mrs. Surbhi Sharma.
     Advs. for the Respondents:
     Niraj Singh, Dr. Mrs. Vipin Gupta.

                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                 Judgment

     Augustine George Masih, J.

1.   The Appellants challenged the repudiation decision dated 07.09.2007
     of Marine Transit Open (Declaration) Insurance Policy claim of M/s
     Bengani Food Products Pvt. Ltd., being Appellant No. 01 herein,
     by the National Insurance Company Ltd., being Respondent
1760                                                     [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


     No. 01 herein, owing to damage of goods while being in transit
     at the Shalimar Railway Godown at Howrah in West Bengal. Vide
     impugned order dated 18.02.2016, the National Consumer Disputes
     Redressal Commission at New Delhi affirmed the repudiation of the
     said insurance claim, which is now being challenged through this
     Civil Appeal.
2.   M/s Bengani Food Products Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter the “Appellant-
     Insured”) is a company dealing in the export of poultry and cattle
     feed. On the other hand, the National Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter
     the “Respondent-Insurer”) is the concerned insurer for the marine
     open transit policy.
3.   The relevant facts pertaining to this matter are that the Appellant-
     Insured had obtained a Marine Insurance Policy from the Respondent-
     Insurer which had a coverage of INR 200 Crores for the period
     between 25.01.2007 to 24.01.2008. The consignment consisting of
     maize meant for the commercial use in poultry feed weighing 24,700
     quintals in railway rake of 40 wagons was unloaded on 07.02.2007
     at the Shalimar Railway Yard in Howrah, West Bengal. The stock
     was dumped at the open siding of the railway yard and out of which
     around 2,627 quintals were immediately sold to a third-party by the
     Appellant-Insured. On the evening of 07.02.2007 and then from the
     afternoon of 08.02.2007, the area experienced heavy rainfall and
     since the consignment of maize in gunny bags was left in the open
     siding, it got exposed to rain leading to the fungal contamination
     and mycotoxins were developed, thereby making it unfit for poultry
     consumption.
4.   The Appellant-Insured informed the Respondent-Insurer regarding
     the incident vide Letter dated 09.02.2007 seeking instructions for
     urgent disposal of the maize, valued at INR 2.12 Crores and to
     stop incurring the Wharfage from Indian Railways. The Respondent-
     Insurer appointed a surveyor the same day to assess the extent
     of the loss. The report submitted by the surveyor on 06.03.2007
     estimated the loss at INR 62,25,012.77/- (Rupees Sixty-Two Lakh
     Twenty-Five Thousand Twelve and Seventy-Seven Paise only).
     Subsequently the report submitted by the surveyor on 22.05.2007,
     the amount was revised to INR 36,17,610/- (Rupees Thirty-Six Lakh
     Seventeen Thousand and Six-Hundred Ten only) as it came to light
     that substantial part of the consignment about 10,910.4 quintal
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                       1761

           M/s Bengani Food Products Pvt Ltd and Another. v.
                National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others.

     was on 14.02.2007-15.02.2007 shifted to a warehouse in Rishra
     without intimation to the Respondent-Insurer. As the surveyor took
     in account the salvage value and made adverse observations that
     the Appellant-Insured failed to take reasonable preventive measures
     as there was a delay in mitigating the damage.
5.   However, vide letter dated 07.09.2007, the Respondents repudiated
     the whole claim citing Clause 5 of the Inland Transit (Rail/Road)
     Clause A of the Insurance Policy. According to the Respondents,
     the coverage of the insurance had ceased once the goods were
     unloaded at the Shalimar Railway yard, and the loss occurred outside
     the period of risk covered under the policy. Clause 8 of the Insurance
     Policy was also invoked by the Respondents. It was alleged that the
     Appellant-Insured had failed to exercise reasonable care to protect
     the goods and breached the packaging standards by packing the
     maize in second hand gunny bags and basic storage norms which
     resulted in the direct violation of the policy terms related to the duty
     of the Appellants to prevent and minimise the loss.
6.   Thereafter, the Appellants filed a Writ Petition in the Calcutta High
     Court challenging the repudiation of the claims. The High Court
     directed the Respondent-Insurer to furnish detailed reasons for the
     repudiation vide order dated 27.06.2008. In compliance with the
     directions of the High Court order, the Respondents reissued the
     same rejection letter under cover letter dated 17.07.2008 which
     reconfirmed their stand.
7.   The Appellants then filed a Consumer Complaint No. 42 of 2009
     before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
     New Delhi (hereinafter referred as “NCDRC”), under the Consumer
     Protection Act, 1986. Seeking compensation of INR 3,06,38,351/-
     (Rupees Three Crore Six Lakh Thirty-Eight Thousand Three Hundred
     and Fifty-One only) which included the estimated loss, compensation,
     interest and legal costs.
8.   The NCDRC dismissed the complaint vide its order dated 18.02.2016.
     The commission upheld the Respondents position as the loss had
     occurred after the goods had been finally delivered and unloaded. At
     that point the transit had ended and the coverage of the insurance
     had lapsed. The Commission also highlighted that the Appellant-
     Insured failed to exercise the required degree of care to protect the
     consignment of maize from foreseeable rain damage. The Appellant-
1762                                                        [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


     Insured also did not act in accordance with the terms and obligations
     under the Insurance Policy. Leading to the filing of the present Civil
     Appeal challenging this order.
9.   Learned Counsel for the Appellant-Insured contends that the
     repudiation of the insurance claim was contrary to the terms of the
     Marine Open Policy issued by the Respondent-Insurer. He submitted
     that as per Clause 5 of the Inland Transit (Rail/Road) Clause A, the
     Policy was on a warehouse-to-warehouse basis and covered the
     goods during the ordinary course of transit, including up to seven
     days after the arrival of the consignment at the final destination.
10. He further submitted that the consignment was still within the control
    of Indian Railways and the delivery was not complete. Due to the
    logistical limitations and the need to release the railway rakes, the
    consignment of the maize was dumped at the siding temporarily.
    Therefore, the risk under the policy continued to operate at the time
    when the damage occurred to the consignment.
11. Counsel for the Appellant-Insured submits that prompt steps were
    taken to protect the consignment from rain by covering it with tarpaulin.
    The Respondents were informed and requested for instructions for
    the disposal of the deteriorating cargo. The Respondent-Insurer
    failed to take timely decision or steps, which led to increase in the
    damage of the consignment.
12. He submitted that the Marine Insurance Policy did not mandate the
    use of new gunny bags. As these are ambiguous words and there
    was no clarity regarding what kind of gunny bags are to be used.
    The use of old gunny bags is a trade custom followed in the industry.
    He asserted that both the survey reports acknowledged the damage
    and despite that the Respondents repudiated the entire claim. He
    prayed for allowing the Appeal by setting aside the impugned order
    dated 18.02.2016 and grant the compensation as claimed.
13. On the other hand, Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent-
    Insurer submitted that the Insurance Policy provided that the coverage
    ceased either upon delivery or after seven days of arrival of the
    consignment at the destination whichever is earlier. He submitted
    that the railway rakes were fully unloaded and the goods were
    received by the Appellant-Insured on 07.02.2007 and the Railway
    Receipt was also received by the Appellant-Insured. Hence, the
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                     1763

            M/s Bengani Food Products Pvt Ltd and Another. v.
                 National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others.

     risk was terminated on that day itself. To support this contention
     the Respondent-Insurer has relied upon the decision of this Court in
     Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited and Another v.
     State of Madhya Pradesh1.
14. He also relied upon another judgment of this Court in Vikram
    Greentech India Limited and Another v. New India Assurance
    Company Limited2 to the effect that the terms and conditions
    specified in the Insurance Policy binding effect as the insurance
    contract is a species of commercial transactions and must be
    constructed like any other contract. In the light of above principle,
    Counsel asserts that there was a breach of the terms and conditions
    on behalf of the Appellants in not exercising reasonable care and
    thus, the repudiation is in accordance with the terms of contract.
15. It is further submitted that there was a breach of Clause 8 of the
    Insurance Policy. The Appellant-Insured failed to take reasonable
    measures to protect the consignment despite having reasonable time
    on 08.02.2007. The consignment was stored in an open siding and
    only the top layer of the stacks was covered with tarpaulin, the sides
    of the consignment were exposed to the rain. Old gunny bags were
    used to pack the maize which also breached the Clause 8 of the
    Insurance Policy. Damage caused due to weather condition could
    have been avoided if the packaging material was of good quality.
16. He asserts that the Appellant-Insured had dispatched 10,910.40
    quintals of maize to a warehouse in Rishra on 15.02.2007 to
    16.02.2007. This was further delivered to the buyers, but this fact
    was concealed by the Appellant-Insured. The non-disclosure of the
    fact violated the duty of utmost good faith under insurance law.
17. He also contended that the surveyor had assessed the goods as not
    wholly damaged and concluded that part of the total consignment
    was salvageable. The repudiation of the claim was justified as the
    damage occurred outside the coverage period and the Appellant-
    Insured failed to take timely action to mitigate the loss.
18. We have heard Learned Counsel for both the parties at length and
    have carefully considered their respective submissions. The issue


1   (2020) 18 SCC 376
2   (2009) 5 SCC 599
1764                                                         [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


     that falls for determination in the present appeal is whether the
     repudiation of the insurance claim by the first Respondent–Insurer
     was valid in light of the terms of the Marine Open Policy and the
     factual matrix of the case. The core questions revolve around the
     construction of Clause 5 of the Inland Transit (Rail/Road) Clause A
     and the insured’s obligations under Clause 8 of the same.
19. It is not in dispute that the maize consignment arrived at the
    Shalimar Railway Yard on 07.02.2007 and was fully unloaded by that
    evening. A portion of the goods was promptly dispatched weighing
    2627 quintals displaying the possession having been taken by the
    Appellant-Insured of the unloaded goods, although a substantial
    quantity remained stacked at the siding. On 07.02.2007 evening
    and afternoon 08.02.2007, the area experienced heavy rainfall,
    resulting in damage to the consignment, allegedly rendering it unfit
    for poultry consumption.
20. The legal position governing the interpretation of Insurance Policies
    is well settled. In Vikram Greentech India Limited and Another
    (Supra) this Court held that:
          “16. An insurance contract, is a species of commercial
          transactions and must be construed like any other contract
          to its own terms and by itself. In a contract of insurance,
          there is requirement of uberrima fides i.e. good faith on the
          part of the insured. Except that, in other respects, there
          is no difference between a contract of insurance and any
          other contract.”
21. Clause 5 of the Inland Transit (Rail/Road) Clause A, which governs
    the termination of coverage, reads as under:
          “This insurance attaches from the time the goods leave
          the warehouse and/or the store at the place named in
          the policy for the commencement of transit and continues
          during the ordinary course of transit including customary
          transshipment, if any.
               (i)Until delivery to the final warehouse at the
               destination named in the policy or
               (ii) in respect of transits by Rail only or Rail and road,
               until expiry of 7 days after arrival of the railway wagon
               at the final destination railway station or
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                            1765

           M/s Bengani Food Products Pvt Ltd and Another. v.
                National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others.

                (iii) in respect of transits by Road only until expiry of
                7 days after arrival of the vehicle at the destination
                town named in the policy whichever shall first occur.”
22. It has not been shown by the Appellants that the Shalimar Railway
    Yard was declared as the final warehouse or the named destination
    under the Insurance Policy. The consignment was admittedly
    unloaded and taken into possession by the Appellant-Insured on
    07.02.2007 when the railway receipt was issued on delivery. No
    documentary evidence was placed on record to show that onward
    movement was scheduled or arranged within the next seven days.
    In the absence of any declaration followed by arrangement to that
    effect, the conclusion that the coverage ceased upon unloading is,
    in our view, fully justified.
23. The Court affirmed that the insured cannot claim anything more than
    what is covered under the Insurance Policy, and that policy terms
    must be construed as they stand without adding or subtracting words.
    The principle laid down above applies squarely to the facts before
    us. Clause 5 of the Inland Transit (Rail/Road) Clause A of policy is
    clear and unambiguous. No extended interpretation can be given
    to continue coverage once the goods were delivered and remained
    stored at the siding.
24. The argument that the maize remained in the ‘course of transit’ cannot
    be accepted in the present factual circumstances. The consignment,
    once unloaded and lying at the open siding under the control of the
    insured, no longer retained the character of goods in movement.
    Mere logistical delay or the need to vacate wagons does not extend
    the policy coverage.
25. Coming to the duty of the insured to exercise reasonable care, Clause
    8 of the Insurance Policy provides as follows:
           “It is the duty of the Assured and their servants and agents
           in respect of loss recoverable hereunder
           8.1 to take such measures as may be reasonable for the
           purpose of averting or minimising such loss, and
           8.2 to ensure that all rights against carriers, bailees or
           other third parties are properly preserved and exercised
           by lodging a monetary claim against railway road carriers/
1766                                                       [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


          bailees within 6 months from the date of railway/lorry
          receipt or as prescribed by the relevant statute and the
          underwriters will, in addition to any loss recoverable
          hereunder, reimburse the Assured for any charges properly
          and reasonable incurred in pursuance of these duties.”
26. The factual findings recorded by the surveyor, who conducted
    multiple inspections at the site, reveal that the damaged maize was
    stacked in old and torn gunny bags, inadequately covered by the
    HDPE sheets as the outer periphery was vulnerable to weather and
    human hazard. The observations show that the consignment was
    left exposed in an open railway yard, despite sufficient opportunity
    to take protective steps. The rainfall began around 2:30 p.m. on
    08.02.2007 and the Appellant-Insured had the entire morning and
    early afternoon to act but failed to do so.
27. While it may be true that second-hand gunny bags are often used
    in the trade, such a practice cannot justify the absence of basic
    precautions, particularly in the face of an approaching weather event.
    It is not the use of second-hand material per se that is in question,
    but the failure to ensure that such material was adequate under the
    circumstances.
28. Of particular significance is the subsequent transportation of 10,910.40
    quintals of maize from Shalimar Railway Yard, Howrah to Rishra
    Warehouse during the period between 14.02.2007 and 15.02.2007,
    a fact that was neither disclosed by the Appellants in their initial
    claim nor during the course of the preliminary correspondence. It is
    only upon inspection of material by the Respondents that this fact
    surfaced. The belated explanation tendered by the Appellants that
    the said consignment was returned due to alleged rejection remains
    wholly unsubstantiated by any contemporaneous documentation or
    credible evidence on record. Such a substantial movement of stock,
    occurring shortly after the alleged incident of loss, militates against
    the foundational plea of total destruction. In the realm of insurance
    contracts, the doctrine of uberrima fides demands complete and
    truthful disclosure of all material facts. A departure therefrom strikes
    at the very root of the contractual obligation and materially impairs
    the integrity of the claim so preferred.
29. The plea that the surveyor acted arbitrarily or without application
    of mind is also devoid of substance. The surveyor submitted a
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                     1767

             M/s Bengani Food Products Pvt Ltd and Another. v.
                  National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others.

     preliminary estimate followed by a final report after site visits and
     assessment of loss. While the reduction in the loss figure may not
     have pleased the Appellants, the reports cannot be discarded merely
     on that account. The Appellants did not bring any independent expert
     evidence to discredit or rebut the survey findings.
30. As regards the argument of the Appellants based on the principle
    of contra proferentem, it must be noted that Clause 5 is worded
    with clarity and precision. There is no ambiguity in the manner of
    termination of coverage which has been rightly invoked. Therefore,
    the said principle has no application. Reliance placed by the
    Respondents on the judgment in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance
    Company Limited and Another (Supra) is well founded which
    reiterates that once goods are voluntarily stored post-delivery or the
    risk environment is altered, as in the case in hand, the Respondent-
    Insurer stands discharged.
31. In view of the above discussion, we find no fault with the decision of
    the NCDRC. The conclusions arrived at are supported by the record
    and are in consonance with the terms of the Insurance Policy calling
    for no interference.
32. The Civil Appeal is dismissed. The judgment and final order dated
    18.02.2016 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal
    Commission, New Delhi, in Consumer Complaint No. 42 of 2009 is
    upheld.
33. There shall be no order as to costs.
34. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

     Result of the case: Appeal dismissed.




     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey