HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY Writ Petition No.11226 of 2013 Date: 2904-2014 Between:
M/s. VBC Industries Limited, represented by its General Manager & Authorised Signatory K. Mutyala Babu and another .. Petitioners AND The Central Power Distribution Company of A.P., Limited, Represented by its Managing Director, Mint Compound, Hyderabad and 3 others .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY Writ Petition No.11226 of 2013 ORDER:
This writ petition is filed for declaring the letter in proceedings No.SE/O/KNL/SAO/JAO/HT.Rev/D.No.18A/13, dated 19-01-2013 and the consequential Form-A notice dated 08-03-2013 issued under Rule 4 (1) of the Central Power Distribution Company Andhra Pradesh Limited (Recovery of Dues) Rules, 1985 by the 4th respondent-Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, Kurnool as illegal and arbitrary.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the 1st petitioner took over the erstwhile A.P. Carbides Limited in the auction conducted by the Official Liquidator of the High Court of A.P. by Bharat Alloys and Energy Limited in the year 2000 and thereafter, Bharat Alloys and Energy Limited got merged with VBC Industries Limited w.e.f.
01-04-2006. The petitioner entered into H.T. agreement with the respondents on 04-12-2003 for supply of one MVA power, which was enhanced to 12 MVA by making an additional load of 11 MVA and accordingly final H.T. supply agreement for 12 MVA was entered on 04-06-2004 and the 1st petitioner unit commissioned in December, 2003 and took more than five months to stabilize the operation of the plant and from the date of purchase of the defunct unit, the petitioner is facing troubles in the hands of the respondents. Initially, the 4th respondent raised a demand vide letter dated 01-01-2005 demanding the petitioner company to pay deemed consumption charges of Rs.9,10,96,806/- calculating the shortfall of energy consumption of the petitioner referring to 18 MVA as the CMD of the petitioner contrary to the written agreement for 12 MVA of CMD, for which the petitioner submitted a letter stating that the CMD is 12 MVA and requesting to issue revised demand. The 4th respondent issued revised demand vide letter dated 21-04-2005 revising the demand from Rs.9,10,96,806/- to Rs.2,14,54,200/- and stating the same to be subject to finalization of the representation of the petitioner dated 10-02- 2005. When the representation of the petitioner dated 09-09-2005 to revise the bill was under consideration, the power supply was disconnected for non-payment of the bills raised and that the petitioner unit was closed by September, 2005. Further, on a letter dated 10-04-2006 made by the petitioner company to restore the power connection, the 2nd respondent vide letter dated 18-04-2006 agreed to restore power supply subject to certain conditions, wherein the petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,27,31,454/-, which was payable up to April, 2006 working it out to Rs.6,10,56,869/-, which includes instant payment against CC charges, surcharge on CC charges, Surcharge on developmental charges, surcharge on Annual Consumption Deposit and the penal interest. Thereafter, on a representation dated 24-05-2006 made by the petitioner requesting to revise the said demand and to restore the power supply enabling the petitioner to run the unit, the APCPDCL adjusted the consumption deposit of Rs.2,80,24,704/- against the CC charges and other penalties as specified in the demand.
3. It is stated that the petitioner received a letter dated 05-06- 2006 stating that pending finalization of the issues, APCPDCL is agreeable for restoration of power supply subject to payment of a sum of Rs.2,57,10,170/- in four equal monthly instalments towards CC charges and a sum of Rs.3,37,08,960/- towards the earlier demands. When the respondents are collecting deemed energy charges, the petitioner approached the A.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission for exemption of payment of deemed energy consumption charges equivalent to the minimum load factor of 85% of CMD, when the production is suspended/stopped and in consequence power is not drawn from the respondents, which was numbered as O.P.No.18 of 2005 and thereafter, the same was dismissed on 06-07-2006. The petitioner preferred Appeal No.243 of 2006 before the Appellate Authority and the said appeal was also dismissed by order dated 29-03-2007. It is further stated that when the 4th respondent issued repeated demand notices on various dates demanding arrears to be paid and threatening disconnection of power supply without any notice, the petitioner made a representation on 05-07-2008 to the Director (Finance), CPDC of A.P., Hyderabad, but without passing any orders or deciding the actual liability, the 2nd respondent issued letter dated 31-07-2008 directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.30,16,71,022/- towards arrears right from 2003-2004. The 2nd respondent also issued another letter dated 06-08-2008 directing the petitioner to pay Rs.1,17,73,500/- towards ACD charges in six monthly instalments threatening to disconnect in default of payment, on receipt of which the petitioner made a representation on 25-08-2008 denying the liability to pay the same. The 4th respondent also issued demand notice dated 17-01-2009 directing to pay a sum of Rs.25,36,72,655/- and Rs.1,17,73,500/-.
4. Further, the 4th respondent issued letter dated 14-05-2009 directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.3,06,75,486/- towards 85% deemed energy charges within fifteen days, but when the petitioner requested the respondent authorities to review the matter, there was no response from them and that according to the petitioner, the petitioner company is liable to pay the entire liability of Rs.4,50,47,107/-. The 4th respondent also issued a letter dated 24-03-2011 directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.11,11,85,307/- towards 85% annual load factor deemed energy charges for the years from 2003-2004 to 2007-2008 subject to condition of disconnecting the power supply for default of the said payment. The petitioner also received another letter dated 26-04- 2011 from the 4th respondent demanding Rs.1,03,32,816/- as deemed energy charges for the year 2010-2011 and the petitioner informed the authorities that imposition of 85% deemed energy charges is illegal and not justifiable. The petitioner also received another letter dated 03-01-2011 directing to implement the load relief 50% load during off peak and 30% of load during peak hours. The petitioner received a letter from the 3rd respondent dated 19- 11-2012 permitting the petitioner to pay CC arrears of Rs.48,81,65,173/- in two instalments as per the schedule given in the said letter. The 4th respondent issued two consequent letters dated 19-11-2012 and 04-08-2012 demanding to pay the CC charges failing which it would terminate H.T. agreement as per clause 5.9.4.3 of the General Terms and Conditions of Supply. To the utter surprise, the petitioner also received proceedings of the 4th respondent dated 19-01-2013 terminating the H.T. agreement dated 04-12-2003 w.e.f. 18-01-2013 without prejudice to the rights and obligations incurred or accrued to such termination. It is also informed that the balance of Rs.48,08,85,646/- will be recovered under Revenue Recovery Act. The petitioner made a representation on 21-02-2013 to the 4th respondent requesting him to determine actual liability of the petitioner. The petitioner stated that without considering the request of the petitioner for determining the actual liability of the petitioner, the action of the respondents in issuing the impugned proceedings terminating H.T. agreement is totally illegal and arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice. Aggrieved by the said order and consequential notice in Form-A, the present writ petition has been filed by stating the dues relating to 2003-2004 to 2007-2008 are time barred. The petitioner also stated that if the prescribed authority was exercising power under Section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1984, the prescribed authority must issue notice of demand under Section 4 of the Act in Form-B and that the petitioner has not received any notice of demand in Form-B of the said Rules, 1985 and hence, the Form-A notice under the said Rules, 1985 is bad and is liable to be set aside. It is also stated that under Rule 4 (2), the Notice of demand shall be in Form-B and the said Act, 1984 and the Rules, 1985 prescribed particular procedure and any action contrary to the prescribed procedure will be void and liable to be set aside. It is also stated that Section 3 of the Act says that any amount due is recoverable in the manner laid down in the said Act.
5. The 4th respondent filed his counter admitting the issuance of the impugned proceedings dated 19-01-2013 as per clause 5.9.4.3 of the General Terms and Conditions of Supply. It is stated that one month notice was served to the petitioner after three months from the date of disconnection i.e. on 18-09-2012. The request of the petitioner company for restoration of supply was accepted by the Corporate Office of the CPDCL, vide letter dated 05-06-2006 and also sanctioned four equal monthly instalments to restore the power supply to the petitioner company. The 4th respondent stated that the guaranteed energy take off at 85% Annual Load Factor Shortfall deemed energy charges are levied as per the Tariff Order as approved by the A.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission (APERC) from time to time at 6701 units (KVAH) per KVA per annum. The APERC considered the nature of the operation involved in manufacturing the Alloys and lifted the demand charges of Rs.250/- per KVA per month and also energy charges are fixed as low as no other industrial unit supplied the power at Rs.3.65/- per unit and also exempted from monthly minimum billing and for other industrial consumers, APERC approved two part billing duly collecting the demand charges at Rs.250/- per KVA per month and energy charges at Rs.3.97/- per unit and duly observing the monthly minimum billing for the financial year 2012-2013 and such benefits are allowed by APERC for the previous financial years also and for the present financial year 2013-2014 also. It is also stated that due to the above exemptions allowed to the Ferro Alloys Industries, APERC imposed the guaranteed energy take off at 6701 units per KVA per annum on Average Contracted Maximum Demand or Average Actual Demand whichever is higher and the energy falling short of 6701 KVAH per annum per KVA will be billed as deemed energy charges from the Ferro Alloys Consumers i.e. H.T. category I-B.
6. The 4th respondent also stated that R & C period will be excluded while calculating Annual Load Factor Short Fall Deemed Energy Charges for the period 2012-2013 and the same provision also was granted by the APERC in the R & C orders dated 14-09- 2012, 01-11-2012 and 17-04-2013. Further, all the Annual Load Factor short fall deemed energy charges are calculated and demand notice was issued as per the Tariff order that is in force, which was approved by the APERC from time to time. It is also stated that the 4th respondent issued notice to pay the Annual Load Factor Short fall Deemed Energy charges because these charges are calculated based on the average consumption duly observing the Guaranteed take off at 6701 units per KVA per annum on Average Contracted Maximum Demand or Average Actual Demand whichever is higher. It is further stated that Ferro Alloys Industries are categorized separately under HT category I- B and is a subsidized conditional Tariff category and the petitioner is well aware of the terms and conditions of supply and the same is accepted and entered into Agreement by the petitioner company with APCPDCL on 04-06-2004 for 12 MVA in the HT agreement, the petitioner company also accepted to pay all the charges that are levied by the APCPDCL which are approved by APERC from time to time. The 4th respondent further stated that the petitioner has implemented Load Relief and observed Monday and Thursday as power holidays as per the instructions issued by the Divisional Electrical Engineer/Operation/Kurnool vide letter dated 09-03-2009 with peak load restriction. On verification, it was observed that the petitioner industry utilized more than restricted load i.e. 4.8. to 7.2 MW during off peak hours and 7.8 to 8.4 MW during peak hours during random check made on 09-10-2011 and 25-10-2011 respectively i.e. 6.0 to 9.00 MW during off peak hours and 4.0 to 8.8 MW during peak hours. It is further stated that the office of the 4th respondent issued one month notice to the petitioner dated 18- 12-2012 after three months from the date of disconnection i.e. on 18-09-2012 and the proceedings dated 19-01-2013 is issued as per 5.9.4.3 of the General Terms and Conditions of Supply, and hence, the 4th respondent sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
7. The petitioner filed his reply affidavit stating that the respondents never finalized the issues raised by the petitioner and the 4th respondent issues notices with regard to Annual Load Factor Short Fall Deemed Energy Charges and the petitioner also denied the fact that the petitioner industry utilized more power than restricted load. It is also stated that the issue raised by the 4th respondent was already considered by the Committee member on 31-01-2011 and that the observation of the committed is never communicated to the petitioner and that it is only the observation of the committee but not the decision on the various issues that was raised by the petitioner from time to time.
8. Heard Sri P. Kamalakar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned standing counsel for the respondents.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents first issued demand for a sum of Rs.9,10,96,806/- for the deemed energy consumption charges calculating the shortfall of energy on the assumption that the petitioner’s HT agreement with APCPDCL is for 18 MVA instead of 12 MVA. He contends that when the petitioner by its letter dated 10-02-2005 informed that their agreement is only 12 MVA, the respondents corporation revised the demand and reduced it from Rs.9,10,96,806/- to Rs.2,14,54,200/- by its letter dated 21-04-2005 stating that the said revision is subject to condition of pending finalization of the representation addressed to the Director (Finance), APCPCDL. He further contended that the respondent Corporation raised another bill for Rs.5,27,31,954/- for the year 2004-2005 stating the same to be pending finalization of the case with APCPDCL, which means the earlier demand was not finalized. He further contends that the petitioner addressed several representations in response to which the respondents corporation also addressed several letters, but the respondents in their entire correspondence stated that the letters were issued only pending finalization of the case of the petitioner. He further contends that no notice was issued before terminating the H.T. agreement and the actual amount to be payable was not determined before issuing Form-A notice dated 08-03-2013. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that imposition of deemed energy charges for the period for which the department imposed the load relief factor on the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. He further contended that when the actual sum payable by the petitioner is not determined, the imposition of surcharge on CC charges, Surcharge on development charges, surcharge on ACD and the penal interest on the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. The respondents cannot demand the arrears for the period from 2003-2004 to 2007-2008, which is barred by time and also cannot impose the deemed energy charges for the year 2008- 2009, 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 as the petitioner is not liable to pay the same because the department itself imposed the Load Relief factor on the petitioner. He also argued that the termination order is passed without issuing a show cause notice for termination and without hearing the petitioner and hence, the same is violative of principles of natural justice. He further argued that when the respondents cannot supply the energy, they cannot impose deemed consumption charges. He also contended that the impugned orders are passed without giving any reasons and without hearing the petitioner, and hence, the impugned orders are illegal.
10. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on D. Venkateshwara Rao v. Collector,
[1]
Nizamabad and others , B.C. Mulajkar v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Industries
[2]
and Commerce Dept. , N.A. Radha and others v. State of
[3]
Andhra Pradesh, Revenue Department and others , G.
Rajender Reddy and Company, represented by Managing Partner, G. Rajender Reddy v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Roads & Buildings
[4]
Department and others , The Associated Cement Companies Ltd., Mancherial Cement Works, Adilabad District, represented by its General manager v. A.P. State Electricity Board,
[5]
Hyderabad, represented by its Secretary , A.P. State
[6]
Electricity Board and another v. Andhra Sugars Limited , KCP Limited (Ramakrishna Cements), Macherla, Guntur District, represented by its Chief Accountant v. APSEB,
[7]
Hyderabad and others , M/s. Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar
[8]
v. State of U.P. and others and Kesar Enterprises Limited v.
[9]
State of Uttar Pradesh and others .
11. Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned standing counsel for the respondents contends that the impugned proceedings dated 19-06- 2013 are issued as per 5.9.4.3 of General Terms and Conditions of supply. He also contends that one month notice was served on the petitioner after three months from the date of disconnection i.e. 18-09-2012. He also contends that the Corporate Office of APCPDCL sanctioned four monthly instalments for restoration of power supply to the petitioner. He also contends that the respondent authorities have taken into account all the facts while issuing the impugned proceedings. The petitioner was issued several demand letters for payment of due amounts, but the petitioner went on giving representations one after the other without paying the amounts as demanded by the respondents. He also contends that the petitioner is well aware of the terms and conditions of supply and the same was accepted and entered into agreement with APCPDCL on 04-06-2004 and in the HT agreement, the petitioner company also accepted to pay all the charges levied by APCPDCL which are approved by the APERC from time to time and Clause-4 in the HT agreement is very clear.
12. In the instant case, the petitioner entered into HT agreement with the respondents on 04-12-2003 for supply of one MVA power, which was enhanced to 12 MVA by making additional load of 11 MVA and a final H.T. supply agreement for 12 MVA was entered on 04-06-2004. The 4th respondent raised a demand vide its letter dated 01-01-2005 demanding the petitioner company to pay deemed consumption charges of Rs.9,10,96,806/-.
13. Further, the petitioner through letter dated 10-04-2006 requested the Chief General Manager, Commercial, APCPDCL, Hyderabad to restore the power supply for which the Chief General Manager through letter dated 18-04-2006 agreed to restore the power supply to the petitioner’s unit subject to certain conditions mentioned in the said letter apart from finalization of the case by APCPDCL, whereby the petitioner was requested to pay a sum of Rs.5,27,31,454/-. The 4th respondent also issued another letter on 20-05-2006 informing the petitioner that the amount payable by the petitioner up to the month of April, 2006 worked out to Rs.6,10,56,869/- including payment against CC charges, surcharge on CC charges, and all other statutory payments, for which the petitioner made a representation on 24-05-2006 stating that the figures arrived at by the respondents are not correct and requesting them to revise the demand and restore the power supply, in spite of which the APCPDCL adjusted the consumption deposit of Rs.2,80,24,704/- against CC charges. Further, the petitioner received a letter dated 05-06-2006 from the Chief General Manager, Commercial, APCPDCL stating that pending finalization of the issues, APCPDCL is agreeable for restoration of power supply subject to payment of a sum of Rs.2,57,10,170/- in four equal monthly instalments towards CC charges and a sum of Rs.3,37,08,960/- towards consumption deposit. The 4th respondent issued repeated demand notices on different dates asking the petitioner to pay the arrears and threatening with disconnection of power supply for which the petitioner made a representation dated 22-05-2008. It is stated that when the Chief General Manager (Finance) through letter dated 17-07-2008 requested the petitioner to depute the representative with the records for reconciliation, the petitioner approached the Superintending Engineer and made a representation dated 05-07- 2008. The Chief General Manager (Commercial) also issued another letter dated 06-08-2008 directing the petitioner to pay ACD charges for an amount of Rs.1,17,73,500/- in six monthly instalments threatening to disconnect the power supply in case of default of payment of the said amount, for which also the petitioner made a representation on 25-08-2008 disputing its liability for the said amount. The Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, APCPDCL, Kurnool through letter dated 17-01-2009 requested to pay a sum of Rs.25,36,72,655/- and Rs.1,17,73,500/-, for which the petitioner made a representation disputing the said liability.
14. The Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle through his letter 10-12-2012 requested the petitioner to pay first instalment due amount of Rs.24,40,82,585 + 10/12 CC charges immediately for getting the supply restored and the Superintending Engineer also informed about liability of the petitioner to pay 2nd instalment for an amount of Rs.24,40,82,588/- along with 11/12 CC bill with a threat the terminate the H.T agreement as per clause 5.9.4.3 of the General Terms and Conditions of Supply. Finally, the Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, APCPDCL, Kurnool issued proceedings dated 19-01-2013 terminating H.T. agreement dated 04-12-2003 with effect from 18-01-2013 and informing that the balance amount of Rs.48,08,85,646/- will be recovered under Revenue Recovery Act.
15. Having gone though the pleadings of the parties carefully and material on record and after considering the arguments of both sides, I am of the view that the petitioner went on giving several representations in response to the several notices issued by the respondents demanding various amounts as mentioned above. It appears that respondents without determining the actual liability went on giving various demand notices demanding deemed energy charges. The respondent authorities have not properly determined the actual liability of the petitioner. The amounts stated by the respondents as well as the petitioner varied from time to time and in each proceedings some variations are found as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Though the issue of limitation is raised in the writ petition, the counter filed by the respondents is silent about the same. In the counter, the respondents have not disputed about non-issuance of notice in Form-B under Section 4 of the Act, 1984 as per Rules.
16. In D. Venkateshwara Rao v. Collector, Nizamabad and others (1 supra), a Division Bench of this Court, while dealing with the provisions of A.P. Revenue Recovery Act, 1864, wherein similar provisions like in the present case, held that the amount to be recovered must be an ascertained sum.
17. I n B.C. Mulajkar v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Industries and Commerce Dept (2 supra) , a Division Bench of this Court held as follows:
“......when there are disputes between the alleged debtor and the Government with regard to the liability itself or as to the quantum of said liability it is but proper that the alleged debtor should be furnished with the material or data on which the liability is sought to be fixed.
. before the Government could recover the sums due under Section 52 of the Act, the appellant should be furnished with the relevant material on which the amount is said to be due, and give an opportunity to the appellant to make his representations and produce the relevant material to substantiate his representations and thereafter, determine the liability. Only on such determination of the liability and the amount due thereunder, the Government can take proceedings under Section 52 of the Act for recovering the amount. In other words, the recovery proceedings under Section 52 of the Act should be preceded by an anterior determination of the liability and the amount due towards such liability ”
18. I n G. Rajender Reddy and Company, represented by Managing Partner, G. Rajender Reddy v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Roads & Buildings Department and others (4 supra), a learned single Judge, while following the principle laid down in B.C. Mulajkar v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Industries and Commerce Dept, held that such anterior determination of the liability or quantification of the amount due towards such liability have not taken place.
19. In N.A. Radha and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue Department and others (3rd supra), it is held that debts, which are time barred cannot be recovered under the A.P. Revenue Recovery Act, 1864.
20. In The Associated Cement Companies Ltd., Mancherial Cement Works, Adilabad District, represented by its General manager v. A.P. State Electricity Board, Hyderabad, represented by its Secretary (5 supra), it is held as follows:
“...... the obligation of the Board to supply energy at the specified voltage was distinct and separate from the obligation imposed under the new condition (1) on the consumer to be ready to receive the supply at the specified voltage, and that even if the Board was not ready to supply energy at the specified voltage, it could demand additional charges because the consumer was not ready to receive the supply within the period allowed. ...... The expression is “to avail supply” which would necessarily and logically mean that the supply was available but was not availed by the consumer when the supply was not available, it cannot be said that it was not availed ”
21. In M/s. Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar v. State of U.P. and others (8 supra), wherein it is stated that the administrative order affecting the rights of the parties should contain reasons.
22. In Kesar Enterprises Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (9 supra), wherein it is held as follows:
“ The phrase natural justice is also not capable of a precise definition. The underlying principle of natural justice, evolved under the common law, is to check arbitrary exercise of power by the State or its functionaries. Therefore, the principle implies a duty to act fairly i.e. fair play in action…..
……The question with regard to the requirement of an opportunity of being heard in a particular case, even in the absence of provisions for such hearing, has been considered by this Court in a catena of cases. However, for the sake of brevity, we do not propose to refer to all these decisions. Reference to a recent decision of this Court in Sahara India (Firm), Lucknow Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-I & Anr.6 would suffice. In that case, the question for adjudication was whether in the absence of a provision in the Income Tax Act, 1961, an opportunity of hearing was required to be given to an assessee before an order under Section 142(2-A) of the said Act, directing special audit of his accounts was passed ”
23. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down in the decisions supra, I am of the opinion that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.
24. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the letter in proceedings No.SE/O/KNL/SAO/JAO/HT.Rev/D.No.18A/13, dated 19-01-2013 and the consequential notice in Form-A dated 08-03-2013 and the respondents are directed to pass a detailed order after giving proper notice indicating the amounts due and by considering the explanation/pleas raised by the petitioner company in accordance with law and quantify the amount payable by the petitioner and thereafter take appropriate action in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
A. RAJASHEKER REDDY, J Date: 29-04-2014 Ksn
[1] 1998 (1) Andhra Law Times 229 (D.B.)
[2] AIR 1971 Andhra Pradesh 169
[3] 2000 (2) Andhra Law Times 484
[4] 2013 (1) Andhra Law Times 682
[5] 1996 (4) Andhra Law Times 1011 (D.B.)
[6] 2004 (6) Andhra Law Times 303 (D.B.)
[7] 2011 (6) Andhra Law Times 614 (D.B.)
[8] AIR 1970 Supreme Court 1302
[9] (2011) 13 Supreme Court Cases 733