1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU R DATED THIS THE28H DAY OF MARCH, 2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION No.5145 OF2023(GM –RES) BETWEEN: NEW HORIZON EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL TRUST100FEET ROAD, INDIRANAGARA BENGALURU – 560 038 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE DR.MOHAN MANGNANI. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI UDAYA HOLLA, SR.ADVOCATE A/W SRI RAJENDRA M.S., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. . THE FEDERAL BANK LIMITED NO.13, CHURCH STREET II FLOOR, MSR WEST PARK BENGALURU – 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. 2 . THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK SIB ARCADE NO.61, WHEELER ROAD COX TOWN BENGALURU – 560 005 REPRESENTED BY ITS JOINT GENERAL MANAGER. 2 3 . AUTHORISED OFFICER UNDER SARFAESI ACT AND ASST. VICE PRESIDENT FEDERAL BANK NO.3, CHURCH STREET, II FLOOR MSR WEST PARK BENGALURU – 560 001. 4 . THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER. 5 . SRI B.V.SADANAND S/O VENKATASWAMY REDDY MAJOR. 6 . MRS.S.L.MANJULA W/O B.V.SADANANDA MAJOR. 7 . MS. SAHANA REDDY D/O B.V.SADANANDA MAJOR. 8 . MS.SANJANA REDDY D/O B.V.SADANANDA MAJOR RESPONDENTS NO.5 TO8ARE RESIDING AT NO.801, MVR NILAYA9H MAIN ROAD3D BLOCK, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU – 560 034.
9. KLSR INFRATECH LIMITED HN.NO.2-56/D/213/9A&9B FLAT NO.4B, KLSR TOWERS3NEAR YSR STATUE AYYAPPA SOCIETY MADHAVPUR HYDERABAD – 560 081 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.R.VISWANATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI FRANCIS XAVIER, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI SATEESH S.KUDTARKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R5 AND R6; SRI ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SR.ADVOCATE FOR SRI ABHIJITH HARANAHALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R9) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226AND227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE AUCTION HELD BY R - 1 TO3ON2802.2023 FOR SALE OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY AS PER ANNEXURE-B IS ILLEGAL AND VOID; DIRECTING THE R-1 TO3HEREIN TO CONDUCT FRESH AUCTION FOR SALE OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY. THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER
S ON2103.2023, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- ORDER
The petitioner in the subject petition seeks a declaration that e-auction held by respondents 1 to 3 declaring sale of schedule property to be illegal and void and has sought for a further direction directing respondents 1 to 3 to conduct a fresh auction of sale. Though the matter was listed in orders, the matter was taken up for its final disposal with consent of parties. 4
2. Brief facts that lead the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:- Respondents 5 to 8 were borrowers from respondents 1 and 2 Banks. The loan becoming sticky, proceedings were instituted under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (‘SARFAESI Act’ for short). The initiation of proceedings under the SARFAESI Act led the 1st respondent/Federal Bank Limited to conduct an e-auction of the property seeking to sell the property to redeem its mortgage and clearance of dues which according to the Bank at that point in time was `51 crores. The issue in the lis is not with regard to the amount borrowed and its validity or otherwise, as the borrowers are not before the Court. The Federal Bank on the loan becoming a non-performing asset notifies a date 28-02-2023 for conduct of e- auction. Certain nuances of e-auction were also made known to the participants in the said auction. The auction did take place on 28-02-2023 and the petitioner and the 9th respondent are the participants in the said e-auction. The 9th respondent was declared to be the successful bidder. The successful bidder was not made a 5 party to these proceedings. The 9th respondent then files an impleading application which comes to be allowed and, therefore, he is a party to these proceedings. The issue is between the petitioner, the Federal Bank Limited and the 9th respondent, now the successful bidder and they are the three main protagonists in the issue. The challenge is to the manner in which e-auction is conducted by the 1st respondent/Bank and in that light the petitioner has sought the prayer to declare e-auction conducted to be null and void.
3. Heard Sri Udaya Holla, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner; Sri B.R.Viswanath, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1; Sri Francis Xavier, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2; Sri Sateesh S.Kudtarkar, learned counsel appearing for respondents 5 and 6 and Sri Ashok Haranahalli, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.9.
4. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that arbitrariness in the entire process is palpable and demonstrable. At the time the petitioner bid for `52 crores he was the highest bidder at 3.54 p.m.; 5 minutes thereafter 6 the 9th respondent is said to have emerged as the successful bidder quoting `52.10 crores. Therefore, the entire process is smacked by arbitrariness is his emphatic submission. In order to buttress his submission, he has taken this Court through the entire papers regarding conduct of e-auction and the manner in which it is allegedly arbitrary.
5. On the other hand, the learned senior counsel appearing for the 9th respondent, the successful bidder, refutes every submission made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and seeks to contend that the process of e-auction was made known to the petitioner and all other bidders. The process is transparent. What the petitioner alleges is only a figment of imagination and, therefore, would contend that this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not interfere in the auction where there is neither arbitrariness nor illegality and the procedure is strictly followed in terms of what is notified.
6. The other learned counsel representing respective parties would tow the lines of the learned senior counsel appearing for the 7 9th respondent except the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/Federal Bank who has independently filed an application seeking vacation of the interim order by producing plethora of documents again to buttress the submission that there is no illegality in the entire process of the Bank.
7. In reply to the aforesaid submissions, the learned senior counsel Sri Udaya Holla would, though accept the fact that everything was earlier notified in the sale notice, it is his submission that fraud has been played by the Federal Bank Limited in collusion with the 9th respondent to take away the right of the petitioner to become the successful bidder. It is, therefore, he seeks entire e- auction to be re-conducted.
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned senior counsels and the other learned counsel and have perused the material on record.
9. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute, respondents 5, 6 and 7 are the borrowers from the Federal Bank Limited and the amount was borrowed both from the Federal Bank Limited and the 8 2nd respondent/South Indian Bank in connection with the business. In order to get the finance from the aforesaid Banks the schedule property was mortgaged to the Federal Bank Limited. The loan became sticky and was declared to be a non-performing asset by the 1st respondent/Federal Bank Limited in consultation with the South Indian Bank. In unison the Banks decided to put the schedule property for sale, as by then the amount that was due to the Federal Bank Limited was `27,14,49,150/- and to the South Indian Bank `15,80,56,800/- crores. The sale was sought to be conducted by way of e-auction. The notice for such sale was issued on 08-02- 2023. Since the entire issue now springs from the sale notice, it is germane to notice its terms and conditions. The terms and conditions read as follows: “Terms and Conditions 1. Auction sale/bidding would be only through “online electronic bidding” process through the website www.bankauctions.In.
2. Last date for the online submission of documents with EMD (Earnest Money Deposit) is 27-02-2023 before 05.00 PM. 9
3. The date and time of auction is on 28-02-2023 between 11 a.m. – 1 p.m. (IST) with unlimited extension of 5 minutes each.
4. The auction would commence at the reserve price as mentioned above. Bidders shall improve their offers in multiples of `10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh only). Any increase in the bid amount over and above the reserve price should be in the multiples of `10,00,000/-.
5. The intending bidders shall hold a valid e-mail address and register their names at portal and get their user id and password free of cost from M/s 4Closure (website:http://bankauctions. in), where upon they would be allowed to participate in online e-auction.
6. The prospective bidders may avail online training on e- auction from M/s 4Closure (website:http://bankauctions. in) 605A, 6th Floor, HMDAMaitrivanam, Ameerpet, Hyderabad-500038, Telangana, Mobile No.8142000064/9515160062. Contact person Mr. Bhaskar, Mobile 9515160061, Email: [email protected] and [email protected] 7. All the payments shall be made in the form of DD drawn in favour of the Federal Bank Limited, payable at Bangalore or by way of RTGS, Bank details are: The Federal Bank Limited, LCRD/Bangalore Division, Account No.17630051030001, IFSC Code FDRL0001763.
8. The Bank/ M/s 4 Closure shall not have any liability towards bidders for any interruption or delay in access to the site irrespective of the cause.
9. EMD amount shall be adjusted in case of the highest/ successful bidder, otherwise refunded within two working days of finalization of sale. The EMD shall not carry any interest.
10. The intending purchasers can inspect the property on 22-02-2023. 10
11. The intending purchasers who wish to inspect the property and/or for further details/conditions may contact LCRD/Bangalore Division (080-22220897/ 898), 9986591245, 8816097340.
12. The successful bidder shall deposit 25% of the bid amount/sale price on the same day on acceptance of his tender/offer by the Bank or not later than the next working day and the balance 75% within 15 days, failing which the entire deposit made by him/her shall be forfeited without any notice and the property concerned will be re-sold.
13. The successful bidder shall bear the entire charges/ fees payable for conveyance such as stamp duty, registration fee etc. as applicable as per law.
14. No encumbrance in respect of the property has come to the knowledge and information of the Bank. The Bank will not be held responsible for any charge, lien, attachment encumbrances, arrears of property tax, electricity charges, water charges, or any dues to the Government or anybody in respect of the properties under sale. Such dues if any on the property shall be borne by the purchaser.
15. The Authorised officer has the absolute right to accept or reject the bid/all or any bid including the highest bid or adjourn/postpone/cancel the sale without assigning any reason at any time/any stage. The decision of the Authorised Officer/Bank shall be final.
16. The buyer should satisfy himself/herself/itself as to the title, ownership, statutory approvals, extent etc. of the properties before participation in the auction.
17. The borrowers/guarantors named above may treat this as the notice as stipulated in Rule 9(1) of the said Rules and pay the secured debt in full to avoid the sale of property.
18. The sale is subject to outcome of SA No.270/2021 of DRT-1, Bengaluru and WP No.24265/2022 of High Court of Karnataka.” 11 (Emphasis added)
The terms and conditions would indicate that the sale would be only through online electronic bidding; the date and time of auction was on 28-02-2023 between 11 a.m. and 1 p.m. with unlimited extension of 5 minutes each; the auction was to commence at a reserve price as mentioned in the notice and bidders would improve their offers in multiples of `10 lakhs. Any increase in the bid amount over and above the reserve price is to be in the multiples of 10/- lakhs. All other conditions stipulated were generic except the one which was mentioned hereinabove was specific.
10. The auction was conducted on 28-02-2023. The petitioner has produced certain screen shots of the website which show its participation in the auction to contend that at 15:54:21 hours the bid of the petitioner was at `52/- crores and the auction was shown to end in one second. Taking this forward, the learned senior counsel would contend that if the auction was to end in one second, the 9th respondent could not have become the successful bidder at 15:57 hours. After the closure of e-auction the petitioner submits a 12 representation to the Bank that it could not access the website after 15:54 hours and, therefore, the auction has to be recalled and redone. The representation submitted at 6.10 p.m. on 28-02-2023 reads as follows: “Dear Sir, Sub: Auction ID110530. We had participated in the above bid process to-day from 11 a.m. we kept oon increasing our bid within the time limit. We entered our last bid amount as ````52,00,000 (Rupees Fifty two crores) from whence the timer got ticking down until when the timer showed time “Auction will end in 0:00:01 (Hrs.Min.Secs.). Our rank was 1 and our last amount of bid was `52 crores and current highest bid was `52.00 crores. After 1 sec. the timer went blank and had the other bidder increased the bid, the time should have been reset by another 5 min. This did not happen. We attach the screen shot of last 1 sec. and zero timing. In view of the above, we request you to cancel the auction, not to confirm the auction in favour of the other bidder and to conduct a re-auction immediately. Sd/- PS: We have shared the pics. of last two seconds to you through Whatsapp.” (Emphasis added)
Later on, the grievance was communicated through e-mail to the Bank, all of which did not yield any result and the 9th 13 respondent was declared to be the successful bidder. It is then the petitioner knocked at the doors of this Court.
11. The 1st respondent/Bank and the 9th respondent/auction purchaser have filed several documents concerning the auction. The 1st respondent/Bank has filed its application for vacating the interim order wherein the access of the petitioner from two different internet portal addresses (IP address) is depicted. The report submitted by Foreclosure India.com, a certified company for tracking and recording the first access time and the last access time in such e-auctions read as follows: “In response to your e-mail cited and in continuation to telephone conversation, it is submitted that we have analysed our website BankAuctions.in AWS Cloud Access logs, and the following our findings: We have conducted auction of Property pertain to Mr. B.V. Sadanand, with listing ID-1110530 on 28th Feb., 2023. The scheduled duration of auction is from 11.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. The auction was extended up to 4.05 p.m. due to bids being placed in the final five minutes of the auction and the auction end time being extended by 5 minutes each time. The auction was extended 37 times and the total time of the auction is 5 hours 5 minutes. One Bidder “NEW HORIZON EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL TRUST” has submitted a letter stating that the auction time did not extend up to 4.05 p.m. The countdown display showed 0.00.01 and went blank showing their Rank as 1 and Rs.52 CR as the highest bid. 14 We have analysed our website BankAuctions.in AWS Cloud Access Logs, and the following are our findings. We have observed that the bidder “NEW HORIZON EXUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL TRUST” has accessed our website from 2 different IP address on 28-02-2023. Sr.No.IP Addreess First Access Last Access Time Time 1 14,99,188,242 28-02-2023 28-02-2023 11:00:09 a.m 03:54:21 pm 2 202.62.95.70 28-02-2023 28-02-2023 04:07:35 p.m. 04:19:07 pm The bidder had logged in, opened and participated in the auction from ‘IP Address 1’ with the last request being made from ‘IP Address 1” to our website being at 3:54 p.m. when they successfully submitted a bid of ````52,00,00,000 At 4.00 p.m. when the countdown reached 0:0:1, a request should have been sent from the browser to our website, to refresh the auction data being shown. No such request has been found in our logs from the bidder’s browser. Between 3:55 p.m. and 4:07 pm no requests were made from the bidder’s browser or from the two ip address’s the bidder has used. The next request from the user was at 4:07 pm from IP Address 2’. A public lookup of IP address is showing that IP Address 1 belongs to ISP: Tata Teleservices Ltd., while the that IP address 2 belongs to ISP: City Online Services Limited. As such our conclusion is that between 3:55 p.m. and 4:07 p.m. some issue occurred with the bidder’s internet connection and the bidder connected to a 15 working internet connection hence getting the new ‘IP Address 2’ and reopened our website at 4:07 p.m. The countdown timer, rank and highest bid might not have been updated on the bidder’s screen due to an issue with the internet connection on the bidder’s computer. It is also submitted that this auction has been monitored by the Authorised officer. On 28-02-2023 we have conducted a total of 13 auctions for various institutions including this auction and have received no other complaints from anyone else. The auction countdown timer and ranks of other bidders in this auction and other auctions were updated correctly. It is verified that no error occurred in the auction process from our side. As stated earlier we cannot be liable or responsible in any manner whatsoever for due to loss of internet connectivity,, electricity failure, virus attack, problems with the PC of the bidder, any other unforeseen circumstances etc. before or during the auction event. We are also not liable as per sl.No.9 of terms and conditions signed and accepted by the bidder. This is submitted for favour of information and taking further necessary action. Encl:
1. As above AWS Cloud Access Logs of NEW HORIZON EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL TRUST (Please note that the time in the logs is in UTC).
2. Auction Report Listing ID-1110530.” (Emphasis added)
E-auction report of listing would indicate that auction is extended 37 times and at last at 15:57 hours the 9th respondent 16 had placed its bid which was the highest at `52.10 Crores. The timeline and the summary read as follows: “Start time 28-02-2023 End Time 28-02-2023 11:00 am 1:00 pm Final End 28-02-2023 No of 37 Time 4:05 pm Extensions Extensions If a bid is placed in the last 5 minutes of the auction end time, Auction end time is extended by 5 minutes. Reserve price `44,00,00,000 Min.Increment `10,00,000 No.of Bidders 2 Status Closed Event Summary: Highest bid is ````52,10,00,000.00 placed at 28-02-2023 03:57:00 pm by Ms KLSR Infratech Limited.” (Emphasis added)
A certificate is also produced as obtaining under Section 65B of the Evidence Act with regard to bids quoted hereinabove. The certificate is issued after perusal of the entire documents. These are the documents placed on record by the 1st respondent/Bank. The 9th respondent/auction purchaser has also produced certain documents appended to its application for impleading. In terms of what it has produced, the auction closed the moment the last bid was indicated at `52.10 crores. The screen shot appears as follows: “Your Rank :1 Current Highest Next Minimum Bid Bid: ````52,20,00,000 17 ````52,10,00,000 Reserve Price: Your Last Accepted ````44,00,00,000 Bid: ````52,10,00,000/- Increment: placed at 2023-02- ````10,00,000 28 15:57:00 Action Closed”. (Emphasis added)
The 9th respondent also pays 25% of the bid amount immediately after it being declared the successful bidder. The declaration insofar as it is germane reads as follows: “We are happy to inform you that in the e-auction conducted on 28-02-2023 for the secured asset in the above-mentioned account, you are declared as the successful bidder for having quoted the highest bid amount of ````52,10,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty two crore ten lakh only). You have already paid 25% of the bid amount i.e., ````13,02,50,000 (Rupees Thirteen Crore two Lakh Fifty Thousand only). You are hereby advised to pay balance of 75% of the bid amount i.e., ````39,07,50,000/- (Rupees Thirty Nine Crore Seven Lakh Fifty Thousand only) on or before 14-03-2023 so that the Bank will be in a position to register the property in your name. It may be noted that if you fail to make the payment of the balance of the bid amount as stipulated above, the bid amount already paid by you will be forfeited and you will not have any claim for the amount or against the Bank.” (Emphasis added)
The e-auction report declared the 9th respondent to be the highest bidder for the amount as already quoted hereinabove. 18
12. The conditions of e-auction were that they would be operational from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. with unlimited extension of 5 minutes each. Therefore, whenever a bid is increased by `10 lakhs from the reserve price, the time of the e-auction gets extended by 5 minutes. It is not in dispute that e-auction time got extended 37 times and stood closed on the last increase of `10 lakhs and no bids came forward beyond the said amount within the window of five minutes. Thus, the last of the bid placed by the petitioner was at 15:54:21 hours. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the auction would close in one second that is the screen shot of his website. If the other bidder would increase it by ten more lakhs the time would get increased by five more minutes. It is then in those five minutes the successful bidder/9th respondent has increased the bid by `10 lakhs. This is what could be discerned from the documents produced.
13. Beyond what is discernible from the documents, this Court cannot telescope its imagination into what has transpired during e-auction to hold it to be arbitrary, as arbitrariness is neither palpable nor demonstrable, as is alleged. In the considered view of 19 this Court, the nuances and interpretation of an electronic auction is within the domain of technical experts. This Court admittedly does not possess such expertise to sit in the armchair of such experts and review intricate details of conduct of e-auction. The certificate produced under Section 65B of the Evidence Act would suffice for this Court to be satisfied, in the peculiar facts of this case, that the procedure has indeed been appropriately followed. This Court has no reason to doubt such certificate.
14. The allegation of the petitioner is that there was a technical glitch, because of which he could not access the website cannot become foundation for arbitrariness, as the other bidder/s have accessed it and submitted their bids. The petitioner also had accessed and submitted its bid up to 15:54 hours and it is then he alleges that there was a technical glitch. This cannot be accepted and the e-auction cannot be interfered with for the technical difficulties of the petitioner. The scope of judicial review in a tender or matters of auction has been considered by the Apex Court in the 20 case of TATA CELLULAR v. UNION OF INDIA1. The Apex Court holds as follows: “77. The duty of the court is to confine itself to the question of legality. Its concern should be:
1. Whether a decision-making authority exceeded its powers?.
2. Committed an error of law, 3. committed a breach of the rules of natural justice, 4. reached a decision which no reasonable tribunal would have reached or, 5. abused its powers. Therefore, it is not for the court to determine whether a particular policy or particular decision taken in the fulfilment of that policy is fair. It is only concerned with the manner in which those decisions have been taken. The extent of the duty to act fairly will vary from case to case. Shortly put, the grounds upon which an administrative action is subject to control by judicial review can be classified as under: (i) Illegality : This means the decision-maker must understand correctly the law that regulates his decision-making power and must give effect to it. (ii) Irrationality, namely, Wednesbury unreasonableness. (iii) Procedural impropriety. The above are only the broad grounds but it does not rule out addition of further grounds in course of time. As a matter of 1 (1994) 6 SCC65121 fact, in R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex Brind [(1991) 1 AC696 , Lord Diplock refers specifically to one development, namely, the possible recognition of the principle of proportionality. In all these cases the test to be adopted is that the court should, “consider whether something has gone wrong of a nature and degree which requires its intervention”. …. …. ….
94. The principles deducible from the above are: (1) The modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action. (2) The court does not sit as a court of appeal but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made. (3) The court does not have the expertise to correct the administrative decision. If a review of the administrative decision is permitted it will be substituting its own decision, without the necessary expertise which itself may be fallible. (4) The terms of the invitation to tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny because the invitation to tender is in the realm of contract. Normally speaking, the decision to accept the tender or award the contract is reached by process of negotiations through several tiers. More often than not, such decisions are made qualitatively by experts. (5) The Government must have freedom of contract. In other words, a fair play in the joints is a necessary concomitant for an administrative body functioning in an administrative sphere or quasi-administrative sphere. However, the decision must not only be tested by the application of Wednesbury 22 principle of reasonableness (including its other facts pointed out above) but must be free from arbitrariness not affected by bias or actuated by mala fides. (6) Quashing decisions may impose heavy administrative burden on the administration and lead to increased and unbudgeted expenditure. Based on these principles we will examine the facts of this case since they commend to us as the correct principles.” (Emphasis supplied) The Apex Court holds that judicial review in such matters will only be to prevent arbitrariness which is either palpable or demonstrable in any auction process. I find neither in the case at hand.
15. What becomes germane to be noticed is who are the protagonists in the lis. The petitioner a private bidder; 9th respondent another private bidder; respondents 1 and 2 private Banks, all of whom are twined in an action of private bidding. I fail to understand what is the public function that is involved in the case at hand for this Court to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The only circumstance is, that the auction is a product of proceedings 23 instituted under the statute i.e., the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Barring the invocation of the statute for the purpose of conduct of auction, every other right, is a private right. Therefore, what can be reviewed is the action qua Article 14 of the Constitution of India i.e., arbitrariness. As observed hereinabove, I do not find the process to be arbitrary. Complicated nuances of conduct of an electronic auction is sought to be projected by the petitioner, which this Court admittedly does not have such expertise to decipher and assess threadbare. Going by what the documents are produced as certificates by the competent Authorities with regard to the conduct of auction, the petition does not merit any indulgence at the hands of this Court and would necessarily meet its dismissal.
16. The petition thus stands rejected. Interim order granted stands dissolved. Pending applications also stand disposed accordingly. Sd/- JUDGE bkp CT:MJ