That Issue of Paddy to Be Limited to the Extent of Costs of Vs. Food Corporation of India ........Appellant - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1091059
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnSep-13-2013
AppellantThat Issue of Paddy to Be Limited to the Extent of Costs of
RespondentFood Corporation of India ........Appellant
Excerpt:
fao no.435 of 2006 -1- in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh ***** fao no.435 of 2006 date of decision : 13.9.2013 food corporation of india ........appellant versus m/s shiv shakti rice mills, bhucho mandi and another ....respondents coram: hon'ble mr.justice jasbir singh, judge present:- mr.hari pal verma, advocate, for the appellant mr.rajinder singla, advocate, for respondent no.1 --- jasbir singh, j. (oral) food corporation of india (fci) has filed this appeal to lay challenge to an order passed by the district judge on 8.11.2005, vide which objections, filed by the appellant, to an award, passed by the arbitrator on 4.7.2002, were dismissed. as per facts on record, the appellant entered into an agreement with the respondent, for milling the paddy. it was decided that the respondent shall lift paddy to the extent of 2000 metric tonnes upto 30.3.1997, for the milling purposes. relevant clause of the agreement to reads thus :- “b (i) the agent shall undertake shelling of paddy and charges the milling rate as fixed by the corporation and transportation on paddy at slab rate on paddy awarded for conversion into conventional raw/parboiled rice. rice shall be delivered with machine stitched (double line) bags for which incentive as fixed by govt. of india from kumar ashwani 2013.09.24 16:53 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document fao no.435 of 2006 -2- time to time will be given. present incentive for double line machine stitching bags is ` 1.25 (` one and paise twenty five) per bag which include all services :- name of name of vari qty. milling tran qty. name of fci depot/ ety in rate sport of fci, district centre of of qtls. ation paddy swc, issue of padd , if which cwc, paddy y any can be depot milled centre of upto delivery 30.3.1 of rice 997 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 bhatinda bhuchchu fine as fixed 2000 bhuchchu 20000 by fci mt m. the issue and lifting of paddy and delivery of rice by miller will be regulated as under :- .............(ii) the agent shall be required to lift paddy stock from the godowns/mandies/railway stations or any other place as mentioned in the release order, within 20 (twenty) days of issues of release order including sundays and all other holidays observed by the fci. (iii) the agent will be required to lift a minimum of 200 metric tonnes or 10% of the contracted paddy, whichever is higher in every period of 20 (twenty) days. the quantity in default could however be withdrawn by fci and got milled/sold/liquidated at the risk and cost of the miller.”. it is case of the appellant that upto the time period fixed, only 139 metric tonnes of paddy was lifted for the purpose of milling. by alleging breach of contract, towards damages, the fci claimed an amount of ` 14,27,745/-. detail of the amount claimed and amount due to the respondent, is given as under :- kumar ashwani 2013.09.24 16:53 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document fao no.435 of 2006 -3- a (i) expenditure on dispatch/handling of paddy at despatching/recipient end @ `767.40p per mt ` 14,27,745.00 (ii) amount recoverable from miller on account of (a) cost of 1190 gunnies retained by miller @ ` 19.18p ` 23,574.00 (b) sales tax @ 4.4% ` 1,037.00 (c) income tax on milling charges/stitching 34.00 charges ` 6,172.00 (d) quality cut ` (e) any other misc. charges recoverable ` xxx (iii) total amount recoverable from the miller ` 14,58,886.00 b. (iv) amount payable to miller : (a) milling charges @ ` 10/- ` 13,950.00 ` 1,250.00 (b)machine stitching charges `1.25p (c) amount deposited by the miller towards ` security deposit 50,000/- (d) amount deposited by the miller towards cost ` 10,000.00 of gunnies total ` 75200 (v) net amount recoverable from the miller ` 13,83,662.00 (` thirteen lacs eighty three thousand six hundred and sixty two only.) as per agreement, matter went before an arbitrator. the sole arbitrator, vide award dated 4.7.2002, rejected claim filed by the fci, stating that it was on account of its fault, in not fulfilling its obligation under the contract. then the contractor failed to lift the paddy for milling. the appellant by invoking the provisions of section 34 of the indian arbitration and conciliation act, 1996, filed objections. after recording evidence of both the parties, those objections were dismissed vide the impugned order dated 8.11.2005. it is contended by counsel for the appellant that the findings, as given by the arbitrator and the court below, are contrary to the kumar ashwani 2013.09.24 16:53 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document fao no.435 of 2006 -4- provisions of contract between the parties. whereas to the contrary, counsel for the respondents has supported the award, passed by the arbitrator. heard. it was noted, as a matter of fact, by the arbitrator and also by the court below, that the appellant was at fault in not issuing release orders to lift the paddy. it was so said by noting an admission, made by the appellant, as per documents on record. after noting evidence of both the parties, the court below observed as such :- “13. nature of the dispute rightly considered by arbitrator by formulating question as so whether the breach of the contract committed by fci or respondent no.1. after going through clauses m(iii) of the contract agreement it is obvious that respondent no.1 required to lift minimum of 200 tons of paddy or 10% or the contracted paddy, whichever is higher. so, it is obvious that 200 tons of paddy has to be released in the firs.instance, but statement of aw1 establishes that only 139 mt paddy lifted against contracted quantity of 2000 mt. when obligation on part of fci was to release 200 tons paddy in the firs.instance then action of supply of 139 mt of paddy by fci itself suggests that violation of the terms of the contract agreement especially clause m(iii) committed by fci and not by respondent no.1. certainly clause m(ii) of the contract agreement provides that paddy to be lifted within 20 days of issuance of released order. it is admitted by aw1 that department i.e.fci has not issued any release order in one instance or 200 mt because rice in advance has to supplies by respondent no.1. however, aw1 admits that this fact not incorporated in the agreement specifically, but it is recorded kumar ashwani 2013.09.24 16:53 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document fao no.435 of 2006 -5- that issue of paddy to be limited to the extent of costs of paddy covered as per clause h(i).that clause h(i) of the contract agreement provides that respondent no.1 will furnish bank guarantee of the value of at lease one lac, or security of the hike amount. validity period of that bank guarantee will be at-least upto 31.3.1997 but that period extendable at discretised of s.r.m./rm/dm till finalisation of the accounts. the paddy lifted to be got insured as per clause (i) of the contract agreement and as such in view of these clauses and in view of clause g (iii) of the contract agreement it is obvious that out of the total paddy of 2000 mt to be lifted at-least 200 mt should be released in the firs.instance. interest of fci secured due to furnishing of bank guarantee by respondent no.1. it is admitted by aw1 that after issue of release order respondent no.1 delivered rice weights 474.5 quintals in advance. when advance quantity of the rice was supplied by respondent no.1, then it is obligatory on part of fci to release at-least 200 mt of paddy is the firs.instance, but so much of the paddy not supplied, but only 139 mt of paddy supplied is a fact born form statement of pw1 and as such, in view of this virtually breach of contract contacted by petitioner and not by respondent no.1. so finding recorded by arbitrator based on proper appreciation of material available on records arbitrator has not made out a new case for the parties at all. rather it adjudged a case as is born from the interpretation of different clauses of the contract agreement and the material available on record. so submissions of counsel for petitioner has no force that proper material of documents not considered by arbitrator. 14. by keeping in view clause m (iii) of the contract agreement the interpretation drawable is the 200 mt of paddy must be supplied in the firs.instance by petitioner, to respondent no.1 and if in clause l of the contract agreement kumar ashwani power given to fci to get the contract performed at expenses 2013.09.24 16:53 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document fao no.435 of 2006 -6- of respondent no.1. on his failure or neglect to observe contract agreement terms then due to that clause it cannot be inferred that actual breach of the terms of the contract committed by respondent no.1. even if in release order condition stipulated that further supply of paddy by fci to respondent no.1 will be on deposit of the milled rice, but despite that said condition no inconsonance with the terms of the various clauses of the contract agreement and as such terms of the release order not to govern case of parties. as per terms of the contract agreement 200 mt of paddy must be supplied in the firs.instance, but that is not supplied and as such learned arbitrator rightly found the breach of the contract to be committed by petitioner. even if by reading terms of the release order a different view is possible despite that award cannot be set aside because law laid down in the above cited cases itself shows that when two views are possible, then arbitrator may choose one of the view and in that eventuality award will not be illegal. same is not the position in the case before me because only inference due to non-supply of the requisite 200 mt of paddy is drawable is breach of the terms of the contract agreement committed by petitioner. when breach of the terms of the contract committed by petitioner, then quantum of damage cannot be claimed by petitioner from respondent no.1. learned arbitrator at page no.12 of its award ex.p1 took note of non- issuance of further release order by fci and those findings borrow from statement of pw1 recorded in this case before me ever. 15. learned arbitrator rightly took into consideration clause o(3) of contract agreement for awarding economic costs of the gunny bags and as such if some higher costs of gunny bags in other case may have been awarded, then the same is no ground for setting-aside award, particularly when kumar ashwani clause 0(3) provides that recovery at the economic costs of the 2013.09.24 16:53 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document fao no.435 of 2006 -7- gunny bags fixed by the state government permissible. so permissible amount as costs of the gunny bags awarded by the arbitrator in para no.21 of its award and no illegality committed in that respect. even in absence of any tax deduction certificate, fci cannot recover any amount under that head and as such, finding of the arbitrator recorded in para no.22 of ex.p1 are indicative of fact that arbitrator appraised material available on record. fact regarding acceptance of advance rice by fci rightly considered by arbitrator in para no.3 of its award, of certain claims of fci allowed, then those are allowed not due to breach of the terms of the contract committed by respondent no.1, but by keeping in view the terms of the contract agreement and as such it cannot be said that arbitrator has given contradictory findings in this respect at all. submissions of counsel for petitioner to the contrary as such has no force. 16. it is also contended by counsel for petitioner that award of interest at rate of 18% per annum is not permissible and such by grant of interest at such exorbitant rate arbitrator has mis-conducted the proceedings. after going through clause l of the contract agreement it is obvious that when breach of the terms of the contract not on party of respondent no.1, then respondent no.1 entitled to refund of the security deposit in the same way as fci entitled to recover the dues from respondent no.1. there is no bar in contract agreement regarding charging of interest on due amounts by one party from the other. when grant of interest not prohibited by terms of the contract agreement, then in case the arbitrator awarded interest at the above said rate, then no illegality committed by arbitrator, particularly when, ratio of cases titled as s.m.mehta & co.v.national industries development corporation 2002 ( ).arbitration law reporter, 248 : b. y.radha krishna v. spoage iron india ltd.1997(1) arbitration law reporter kumar ashwani 412, foundry of india v. oriental fire and general ins. 1992 2013.09.24 16:53 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document fao no.435 of 2006 -8- (2) arbitration law reporter 324, lays that it is within domain of arbitrator to award interest. so arbitrator while awarding interest has not acted in violation of the terms of the contract agreement. as the arbitrator interpreted terms of the contract agreement in best suitable way, sitting in the facts and circumstances of the case and as such there is no mis-conduct on part of the arbitrator at all the submission of counsel for petitioner to the contrary has no force. arbitration agreement is not such in which parties are under some in capacity and nor the arbitration agreement shown to be invalid or opposed to public policy. rather the arbitrator passed award by keeping in view the terms of the contract agreement and as such case of petitioner not covered by any of the clauses of section m (2) of arbitration act. so award cannot be set assure.”. at the time of hearing, counsel for the appellant has failed to show any infirmity in the order passed. detailed discussion has been made by the court below on each issue. when deciding objections filed by the appellant, as per the provisions of section 34 of the act, it was rightly noted that the appellant was guilty of breach of contract and not the respondents. it was rightly noted that for want of issuance of release order, to lift the paddy, the respondents failed to execute the contract. in that event the respondents cannot be held guilty for breach of contract. counsel for the appellant has failed to show any illegality in the order passed. accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. (jasbir singh) judge 13.9.2013 ashwani kumar ashwani 2013.09.24 16:53 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Judgment:

FAO No.435 of 2006 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** FAO No.435 of 2006 Date of decision : 13.9.2013 Food Corporation of India ........Appellant versus M/s Shiv Shakti Rice Mills, Bhucho Mandi and another ....Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh, Judge Present:- Mr.Hari Pal Verma, Advocate, for the appellant Mr.Rajinder Singla, Advocate, for respondent No.1 --- Jasbir Singh, J.

(Oral) Food Corporation of India (FCI) has filed this appeal to lay challenge to an order passed by the District Judge on 8.11.2005, vide which objections, filed by the appellant, to an award, passed by the Arbitrator on 4.7.2002, were dismissed.

As per facts on record, the appellant entered into an agreement with the respondent, for milling the paddy.

It was decided that the respondent shall lift paddy to the extent of 2000 Metric Tonnes upto 30.3.1997, for the milling purposes.

Relevant clause of the agreement to reads thus :- “B (i) The Agent shall undertake shelling of paddy and charges the milling rate as fixed by the Corporation and transportation on paddy at slab rate on paddy awarded for conversion into conventional raw/parboiled rice.

Rice shall be delivered with machine stitched (double line) bags for which incentive as fixed by Govt.

of India from Kumar Ashwani 2013.09.24 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO No.435 of 2006 -2- time to time will be given.

Present incentive for double line Machine stitching bags is ` 1.25 (` one and paise twenty five) per bag which include all services :- Name of Name of Vari Qty.

Milling Tran Qty.

Name of FCI Depot/ ety in rate sport of FCI, District Centre of of Qtls.

ation Paddy SWC, issue of Padd , if which CWC, Paddy y any can be Depot milled Centre of upto delivery 30.3.1 of Rice 997 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Bhatinda Bhuchchu Fine As fixed 2000 Bhuchchu 20000 by FCI MT M.

The issue and lifting of paddy and delivery of rice by miller will be regulated as under :- .............(ii) The agent shall be required to lift paddy stock from the godowns/mandies/Railway stations or any other place as mentioned in the release order, within 20 (twenty) days of issues of release order including Sundays and all other Holidays observed by the FCI.

(iii) The Agent will be required to lift a minimum of 200 Metric Tonnes or 10% of the contracted paddy, whichever is higher in every period of 20 (twenty) days.

The quantity in default could however be withdrawn by FCI and got milled/sold/liquidated at the risk and cost of the miller.”

.

It is case of the appellant that upto the time period fixed, only 139 Metric Tonnes of paddy was lifted for the purpose of milling.

By alleging breach of contract, towards damages, the FCI claimed an amount of ` 14,27,745/-.

Detail of the amount claimed and amount due to the respondent, is given as under :- Kumar Ashwani 2013.09.24 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO No.435 of 2006 -3- A (i) Expenditure on dispatch/handling of paddy at Despatching/recipient end @ `767.40P per MT ` 14,27,745.00 (ii) Amount recoverable from miller on account of (a) Cost of 1190 Gunnies retained by miller @ ` 19.18P ` 23,574.00 (b) Sales Tax @ 4.4% ` 1,037.00 (c) Income Tax on milling charges/stitching 34.00 charges ` 6,172.00 (d) Quality cut ` (e) Any other Misc.

charges recoverable ` xxx (iii) Total amount recoverable from the Miller ` 14,58,886.00 B.

(iv) Amount payable to Miller : (a) Milling charges @ ` 10/- ` 13,950.00 ` 1,250.00 (b)Machine stitching charges `1.25P (c) Amount deposited by the Miller towards ` security deposit 50,000/- (d) Amount deposited by the Miller towards cost ` 10,000.00 of gunnies Total ` 75200 (v) Net amount recoverable from the Miller ` 13,83,662.00 (` thirteen lacs eighty three thousand six hundred and sixty two only.) As per agreement, matter went before an Arbitrator.

The Sole Arbitrator, vide award dated 4.7.2002, rejected claim filed by the FCI, stating that it was on account of its fault, in not fulfilling its obligation under the contract.

Then the contractor failed to lift the paddy for milling.

The appellant by invoking the provisions of Section 34 of the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, filed objections.

After recording evidence of both the parties, those objections were dismissed vide the impugned order dated 8.11.2005.

It is contended by counsel for the appellant that the findings, as given by the Arbitrator and the Court below, are contrary to the Kumar Ashwani 2013.09.24 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO No.435 of 2006 -4- provisions of contract between the parties.

Whereas to the contrary, counsel for the respondents has supported the award, passed by the Arbitrator.

Heard.

It was noted, as a matter of fact, by the Arbitrator and also by the Court below, that the appellant was at fault in not issuing release orders to lift the paddy.

It was so said by noting an admission, made by the appellant, as per documents on record.

After noting evidence of both the parties, the Court below observed as such :- “13.

Nature of the dispute rightly considered by Arbitrator by formulating question as so whether the breach of the contract committed by FCI or respondent No.1.

After going through clauses M(iii) of the contract agreement it is obvious that respondent No.1 required to lift minimum of 200 Tons of paddy or 10% or the contracted paddy, whichever is higher.

So, it is obvious that 200 tons of paddy has to be released in the fiRs.instance, but statement of AW1 establishes that only 139 MT paddy lifted against contracted quantity of 2000 MT.

When obligation on part of FCI was to release 200 tons paddy in the fiRs.instance then action of supply of 139 MT of paddy by FCI itself suggests that violation of the terms of the contract agreement especially clause M(iii) committed by FCI and not by respondent No.1.

Certainly clause M(ii) of the contract agreement provides that paddy to be lifted within 20 days of issuance of released order.

It is admitted by AW1 that department i.e.FCI has not issued any release order in one instance or 200 MT because rice in advance has to supplies by respondent No.1.

However, AW1 admits that this fact not incorporated in the agreement specifically, but it is recorded Kumar Ashwani 2013.09.24 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO No.435 of 2006 -5- that issue of paddy to be limited to the extent of costs of paddy covered as per clause H(i).That clause H(i) of the contract agreement provides that respondent No.1 will furnish bank guarantee of the value of at lease one lac, or security of the hike amount.

Validity period of that bank guarantee will be at-least upto 31.3.1997 but that period extendable at discretised of S.R.M./RM/DM till finalisation of the accounts.

The paddy lifted to be got insured as per clause (I) of the contract agreement and as such in view of these clauses and in view of clause G (iii) of the contract agreement it is obvious that out of the total paddy of 2000 MT to be lifted at-least 200 MT should be released in the fiRs.instance.

Interest of FCI secured due to furnishing of bank guarantee by respondent No.1.

It is admitted by AW1 that after issue of release order respondent No.1 delivered rice weights 474.5 Quintals in advance.

When advance quantity of the rice was supplied by respondent No.1, then it is obligatory on part of FCI to release at-least 200 MT of paddy is the fiRs.instance, but so much of the paddy not supplied, but only 139 MT of paddy supplied is a fact born form statement of PW1 and as such, in view of this virtually breach of contract contacted by petitioner and not by respondent No.1.

So finding recorded by Arbitrator based on proper appreciation of material available on records Arbitrator has not made out a new case for the parties at all.

Rather it adjudged a case as is born from the interpretation of different clauses of the contract agreement and the material available on record.

So submissions of counsel for petitioner has no force that proper material of documents not considered by Arbitrator.

14.

By keeping in view clause M (iii) of the contract agreement the interpretation drawable is the 200 MT of paddy must be supplied in the fiRs.instance by petitioner, to respondent No.1 and if in clause L of the contract agreement Kumar Ashwani power given to FCI to get the contract performed at expenses 2013.09.24 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO No.435 of 2006 -6- of respondent No.1.

On his failure or neglect to observe contract agreement terms then due to that clause it cannot be inferred that actual breach of the terms of the contract committed by respondent No.1.

Even if in release order condition stipulated that further supply of paddy by FCI to respondent No.1 will be on deposit of the milled rice, but despite that said condition no inconsonance with the terms of the various clauses of the contract agreement and as such terms of the release order not to govern case of parties.

As per terms of the contract agreement 200 MT of paddy must be supplied in the fiRs.instance, but that is not supplied and as such learned Arbitrator rightly found the breach of the contract to be committed by petitioner.

Even if by reading terms of the release order a different view is possible despite that award cannot be set aside because law laid down in the above cited cases itself shows that when two views are possible, then arbitrator may choose one of the view and in that eventuality award will not be illegal.

Same is not the position in the case before me because only inference due to non-supply of the requisite 200 MT of paddy is drawable is breach of the terms of the contract agreement committed by petitioner.

When breach of the terms of the contract committed by petitioner, then quantum of damage cannot be claimed by petitioner from respondent No.1.

Learned Arbitrator at page No.12 of its award Ex.P1 took note of non- issuance of further release order by FCI and those findings borrow from statement of PW1 recorded in this case before me ever.

15.

Learned Arbitrator rightly took into consideration clause o(3) of contract agreement for awarding economic costs of the gunny bags and as such if some higher costs of gunny bags in other case may have been awarded, then the same is no ground for setting-aside award, particularly when Kumar Ashwani clause 0(3) provides that recovery at the economic costs of the 2013.09.24 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO No.435 of 2006 -7- gunny bags fixed by the state Government permissible.

So permissible amount as costs of the gunny bags awarded by the Arbitrator in para No.21 of its award and no illegality committed in that respect.

Even in absence of any tax deduction certificate, FCI cannot recover any amount under that head and as such, finding of the Arbitrator recorded in para No.22 of Ex.P1 are indicative of fact that arbitrator appraised material available on record.

Fact regarding acceptance of advance rice by FCI rightly considered by Arbitrator in para No.3 of its award, of certain claims of FCI allowed, then those are allowed not due to breach of the terms of the contract committed by respondent No.1, but by keeping in view the terms of the contract agreement and as such it cannot be said that arbitrator has given contradictory findings in this respect at all.

Submissions of counsel for petitioner to the contrary as such has no force.

16.

It is also contended by counsel for petitioner that award of interest at rate of 18% per annum is not permissible and such by grant of interest at such exorbitant rate Arbitrator has mis-conducted the proceedings.

After going through clause L of the contract agreement it is obvious that when breach of the terms of the contract not on party of respondent No.1, then respondent No.1 entitled to refund of the security deposit in the same way as FCI entitled to recover the dues from respondent No.1.

There is no bar in contract agreement regarding charging of interest on due amounts by one party from the other.

When grant of interest not prohibited by terms of the contract agreement, then in case the Arbitrator awarded interest at the above said rate, then no illegality committed by Arbitrator, particularly when, ratio of cases titled as S.M.Mehta & Co.v.National Industries Development Corporation 2002 ( ).Arbitration Law Reporter, 248 : B.

Y.Radha Krishna v.

Spoage Iron India LTD.1997(1) Arbitration Law Reporter Kumar Ashwani 412, Foundry of India v.

Oriental Fire and General Ins.

1992 2013.09.24 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO No.435 of 2006 -8- (2) Arbitration Law Reporter 324, lays that it is within domain of Arbitrator to award interest.

So Arbitrator while awarding interest has not acted in violation of the terms of the contract agreement.

As the Arbitrator interpreted terms of the contract agreement in best suitable way, sitting in the facts and circumstances of the case and as such there is no mis-conduct on part of the Arbitrator at all the submission of counsel for petitioner to the contrary has no force.

Arbitration agreement is not such in which parties are under some in capacity and nor the arbitration agreement shown to be invalid or opposed to public policy.

Rather the Arbitrator passed award by keeping in view the terms of the contract agreement and as such case of petitioner not covered by any of the clauses of Section M (2) of Arbitration Act.

So award cannot be set assure.”

.

At the time of hearing, counsel for the appellant has failed to show any infirmity in the order passed.

Detailed discussion has been made by the Court below on each issue.

When deciding objections filed by the appellant, as per the provisions of Section 34 of the Act, it was rightly noted that the appellant was guilty of breach of contract and not the respondents.

It was rightly noted that for want of issuance of release order, to lift the paddy, the respondents failed to execute the contract.

In that event the respondents cannot be held guilty for breach of contract.

Counsel for the appellant has failed to show any illegality in the order passed.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

(Jasbir Singh) Judge 13.9.2013 Ashwani Kumar Ashwani 2013.09.24 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document