GREATER MOHALI AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (GMADA) THROUGH ITS ESTATE OFFICER (H)versusANUPAM GARG ETC.

                 [2025] 7 S.C.R. 380 : 2025 INSC 808

     Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA)
                Through Its Estate Officer (H)
                              v.
                      Anupam Garg Etc.
                   (Civil Appeal No(s). 7392-93 of 2025)
                                 04 June 2025
            [Sanjay Karol* and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.]


                            Issue for Consideration
       Matter pertains to correctness of the order passed by the National
       Commission imposing liability on the Development Authority to
       pay for interest paid by the respondents-buyers for loans secured
       for the flat, on account of delay in delivery of possession of flats.

                                   Headnotes†
       Consumer Protection Act, 1985 – Compensation – Liability
       of the Development Authority to pay interest on the loan
       taken by the buyers for delay in delivery of flats/plots – On
       facts, consumer complaint by the buyer for refund of money
       paid on account of delay in delivery of flat – Direction by the
       State Commission to the Development Authority to refund the
       entire amount deposited by the buyers in respect of securing
       flats along with 8% interest and additional costs for mental
       harassment, litigation and the interest paid by buyers to the
       Bank for the loans secured to arrange for the funds to be
       invested in the project – Appeal thereagainst dismissed –
       Interference with, as regards the award of interest on the loan
       taken by buyers to be paid to the Development Authority:
       Held: Commission was to compute an amount as compensation,
       in which one of the factors would be that in order to secure a
       property in the scheme floated by the Development Authority, the
       buyers had taken out a loan and would be liable to pay interest
       thereon – However, this order does not permit the interest on the
       loan, in its entirety, to be saddled by the authority responsible for
       the housing scheme and the delay – Orders of the Commissions
       does not reveal any exceptional or strong reasons for the interest
       on the loan taken by the buyers to be paid by the Development
       Authority – Whether the buyers of the flat do so by utilizing their

* Author
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                             381

   Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA) Through Its
               Estate Officer (H) v. Anupam Garg Etc.

     savings, taking a loan for such purpose or securing the required
     finances by any other permissible means, is not a consideration
     that the developer of the project is required to keep in mind – The
     one who is buying a flat is a consumer, and the one who is building
     it is a service provider – That is the only relationship between the
     parties – If there is a deficiency or delay in service, the consumer
     is entitled to be compensated for the same – Repayment of
     the entire principal amount along with 8% interest thereon, as
     stipulated in the contract, alongside the clarification that there
     would be no other liability on the authority, sufficiently meets this
     requirement – Amount of interest awarded is the compensation to
     the investment maker for the amount of money and the time he has
     been denied the fruits of that investment – 8% interest awarded
     on the entire amount that is being invested, is the compensation
     for being deprived of the investment of money – Apart from this
     no amount of interest on the loan taken by the buyers could have
     been awarded. [Paras 13, 15, 17, 18]

                              Case Law Cited
     National Seeds Corporation Ltd. v. M. Madhusudan Reddy [2012] 2
     SCR 1065 : (2012) 2 SCC 505; Greater Mohali Area Development
     Authority v. Priyanka Naiyyar, 1st appeal No. 1456 of 2016;
     Bangalore Development Authority v. Syndicate Bank [2007] 7 SCR
     47 : (2007) 6 SCC 711; GDA v. Balbir Singh [2004] 3 SCR 68 :
     (2004) 5 SCC 65; DLF Homes Panchkula (P) Ltd. v. D.S. Dhanda
     [2019] 7 SCR 1061: (2020) 16 SCC 318 – referred to.

                             List of Keywords
     Compensation; Consumer; Scheme of Residential flats; Greater
     Mohali Area Development Authority; Interest paid on loans for
     investing in project; Delay in delivery of possession of flats;
     Additional costs for mental harassment and litigation; Service
     provider; Deficiency or delay in service.

                            Case Arising From
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No(s). 7392-7393
     of 2025
     From the Judgment and Order dated 01.04.2019 of the National
     Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in FA
     Nos. 1852 and 1853 of 2018
382                                                         [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


                           Appearances for Parties
       Advs. for the Appellant:
       Ms. Vagisha Kochar, Ms. Nancy Shah, Prashant Manchanda.
       Advs. for the Respondents:
       Gagan Gupta, Sr. Adv., Ananta Prasad Mishra, Saurabh Gupta,
       Jasbir Singh.

                    Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                 Judgment

       Sanjay Karol J.

       Leave Granted.
2.     Under challenge in these appeals is a judgment and final order dated
       1st April, 2019 passed in First Appeal Nos. 1852 of 2018 and 1853
       of 2018 by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
       New Delhi1, at the instance of Greater Mohali Area Development
       Authority2, who is aggrieved by the order dated 1st March, 2018
       of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab,
       Chandigarh3, whereby the State Commission partly allowed the
       respondents’ complaints (being CC No.438 of 2017 filed by respondent
       Anupam Garg; and CC No.439 of 2017 filed by respondent Rajiv
       Kumar) against GMADA directing the latter to refund the entire
       amount deposited by both parties in respect of securing flats in the
       residential scheme launched by it along with 8% interest thereon as
       also paying additional costs for mental harassment, litigation and the
       interest paid by the respondents to the State Bank of India, for the
       loans that they had secured to arrange for the funds required to be
       invested in the project.
3.     For the sake of convenience we only illustrate the facts of CC No.438
       of 2017 filed by Anupam Garg, which are similar to the facts being
       in CC No.439 of 2017 filed by Rajiv Kumar. The sequence of events
       and background (as per CC 438 of 2017), as have been culled out
       by the Commissions, leading up to these appeals are:


1    NCDRC
2    GMADA
3    State Commission
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                        383

    Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA) Through Its
                Estate Officer (H) v. Anupam Garg Etc.

     3.1 GMADA launched a scheme of residential flats termed ‘Purab
         Premium Apartments’ to be constructed in the Sector 88 locality,
         at Mohali in the year 2011. Anupam Garg secured an application
         form for a 2-BHK + Servant Room Residential Apartment-Type
         II upon payment of 10% of the total consideration of ₹ 55 lakhs,
         i.e., ₹ 5,50,000/- as earnest money.
     3.2 The allotment of the flats took place through a ‘draw of lots’
         on 19th March, 2012. He was successful and a Letter of Intent4
         was issued in his favour on 21st May, 2012. It provided details
         regarding price, payment schedule, possible plans of payment,
         locations where payment can be deposited, particulars of
         ownership, possession, management and maintenance and
         other general terms and conditions. The relevant extracts of
         the LOI are as follows:
                “PAYMENT SCHEDULE
                2.1 For Initial 30%
                (i) Payment of Rs.1100000 (Eleven Lakhs Only)
                being 20 % price of the apartment is to be made by
                22.6.2012 to complete 30% of the apartment.
                (ii) In case of failure to make the payment within
                stipulated period, the amount paid shall be refunded
                with 10% deduction and allotment cancelled.
                However, this period can be further extended up to
                30 days with 2% Penalty, up to 60 days with 3 %
                penalty and up to 90 days with 5 % penalty on prior
                written request.
                2.2 For Balance Payment of 65%
                                 Plan-A
                A sum of Rs.33,96,250/- (Thirty three lakhs ninety
                six thousand two hundred fifty only) being balance
                65% of tentative price of apartment within 60 days of
                the issue of LOI with a rebate of 5% on the balance
                amount payable.



4   LOI
384                                                [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                 Supreme Court Reports


                          Plan-B
       A sum of Rs. 35,75,000 (Thirty five lakhs seventy five
       thousand only) being balance 65% of the tentative
       price can be paid with 12% interest in 6 half yearly
       instalments from the date of issue of LOI, Payment
       schedule mentioned as under:-
       2.3 For Balance Payment of 5%
       (i) The balance amount of Rs.275000/- (Two lakhs
       seventy five thousand Only) being 5% of the tentative
       price of apartment shall be payable at the time of
       possession.
       (ii) Delays in payment of instalments shall result in
       cancellation of the allotment. However, on request
       establishing genuine grounds, delays up to 12
       months can be condoned by the Estate Officer, by
       charging 18% interest for the period of delay. Delays
       beyond 12 months shall not be condoned under
       any circumstances and shall result in cancellation
       of allotment and refund of the amounts paid, after
       forfeiture of 10% of the amount. Possession shall not
       be handed over till all dues are cleared.
       (iii) In case of fully paid apartments, the enhancement
       in price (due to the reasons laid down in para 1(ii),
       shall have to be paid within 90 days of such demand
       without payment of any interest or in 6 Half Yearly
       instalments along with interest @ 12 per annum.
       In other cases the enhancement shall be built into
       balance instalments.
       (iv) All payments shall be made by a bank draft drawn
       in favour of Estate Officer GMADA…

       OWNERSHIP AND POSSESSION
       (I)    Allotments shall be on free hold basis.
       (II)   Possession of apartment shall be handed over
              after completion of development works at site in
              a period of 36 months from the date of issuance
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                           385

   Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA) Through Its
               Estate Officer (H) v. Anupam Garg Etc.

                     of Letter of Intent. In case for any reason, the
                     Authority is unable to deliver the possession
                     of apartments within stipulated period, allottee
                     shall have the right to withdraw from the scheme
                     by moving an application to the Estate Officer,
                     in which case, the Authority shall refund the
                     entire amount deposited by the applicant along
                     with 8 % interest compounded annually. Apart
                     from this, there shall be no other liability of the
                     Authority.
                (III) The ownership and possession of apartments
                      shall continue to vest with Greater Mohali Area
                      Development Authority until full payment is made
                      of outstanding dues in respect of said apartment.
                (IV) The allottee shall be required to execute a
                     Deed of Conveyance in prescribed format
                     and manner within 90 days of payment of
                     entire money. The expenses of registration
                     and execution of Conveyance Deed shall be
                     borne by the allottee.
                (V) There shall be bar on sale of the apartment till
                    2 years after handing over of possession or 5
                    years from date of issuance of LOI whichever
                    is earlier.
                (VI) The floor of the apartment shall be allocated
                     through draw of lots.”
     3.3 The scheduled date of delivery of possession was 21st May,
         2015. It has been alleged that on his visit to the development
         site in May, 2015, the respondent found no development
         commensurate to the time that had passed. Since it did not
         appear likely that possession of the flat would be delivered to
         the respective owners for another 2-3 years, he resolved to
         opt out of the scheme.
     3.4 He approached the concerned official in this regard, who
         apparently informed him that if he chooses to pursue this route,
         GMADA would pay him the deposited amount, along with 8%
         interest thereon, from 21st May, 2015, till the date of payment.
386                                                          [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


       3.5 Given that no relevant document stipulated such a condition,
           the respondents filed a consumer complaint (CC No.197 of
           2016), which was withdrawn due to certain technical reasons.
           Shortly after, GMADA issued a letter of allotment-cum-offer of
           possession dated 29th June, 2016, stating that the ‘numbering
           draw’ was held on 5th January, 2016 and he had been allotted
           ‘Apartment No.902, Tower No.7, Block C, Floor 8, Type 2’.
       3.6 Upon visiting the allotted flat, of which he has allegedly been
           in possession as of now, he found that various changes were
           made to the project itself, as also in the facilities and amenities
           provided therein, unilaterally.
4.     It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the complaint, the subject matter
       of these appeals, came to be filed.
5.     The State Commission’s findings can be summarized inter alia as
       under :
       a)    There is no substance to the allegation that the facilities to be
             provided by GMADA have not been provided. There are no
             photographs to substantiate this, nor is there any report issued
             by a competent person to prove the absence of these facilities
             in the project.
       b)    The presence of an arbitration clause would not bar the
             jurisdiction of the State Commission, in view of the findings
             of this Court in National Seeds Corporation Ltd. v. M.
             Madhusudan Reddy5.
       c)    GMADA cannot stop the respondents from seeking a refund of
             their money because it was concluded that there is no proof
             on record that the authority completed the project within the
             stipulated time. Such desire to seek a refund is also not without
             precedent as GMADA had already extended this facility to
             another allottee.
       d)    It is an undisputed position that the respondents had paid a
             substantial amount of consideration towards the flats they were
             to receive and only a small portion of the total consideration
             remained to be paid.


5    (2012) 2 SCC 505
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                           387

     Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA) Through Its
                 Estate Officer (H) v. Anupam Garg Etc.

      e)   The respondents were entitled to withdraw from the scheme.
           GMADA cannot be accorded any benefit on the ground that
           they had offered possession to the respondents on 29th June,
           2016, which is more than a year after the stipulated date of
           completion.
6.    Having come to the conclusions as above, the State Commission
      passed the following order:
           “17. In view of the above discuss, the Consumer
           Complaint No.438 of 2017 is accepted and the opposite
           party is directed to refund the entire deposited amount of
           Rs.50,46,250/- to the complainant along with interest at
           the rate of 8%, compounded annually under Clause 3(II)
           of the Letter of Intent, Ex. C-2. The opposite party shall
           also pay a compensation of Rs.60,000/- to the complainant
           for mental tension and harassment suffered by him and
           Rs.30,000/-, as costs of litigation. The opposite party shall
           also pay the interest paid by the complainant to State Bank
           of India on the loan taken from it and paid to the opposite
           party for the purchase of the flat, as charged by the Bank
           from the complainant.
           18. In view of reasons and discussion held in Consumer
           Complaint No.438 of 2017, the Consumer Complaint
           No.439 of 2017 accepted and the opposite party is directed
           to refund the entire deposited amount of Rs.41,29,619/-
           to the complainant, along with interest at the rate of 8%,
           compounded annually under Clause 3(II) of the Letter
           of Intent, Ex. C-2. The opposite party shall also pay a
           compensation of Rs.60,000/- to the complainant for the
           mental tension and harassment suffered by him and
           Rs.30,000/- as costs of litigation. The opposite party shall
           also pay the interest paid by the complainant to State Bank
           of Hyderabad and State Bank of India on the loan taken
           from it and paid to the opposite party for the purchase of
           the flat as charged by the Bank from the complainant.”
                                                 (Emphasis supplied)

7.    GMADA carried the matter in appeals to NCDRC. In the impugned
      order, reference is made to Greater Mahali Area Development
388                                                            [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                                   Supreme Court Reports


       Authority v. Priyanka Naiyyar6, which was also referred to by the
       State Commission, where the Commission had granted compensation
       of ₹2 lakhs to the complainant in addition to the 8% interest, which
       was to be given on account of the fact that the interest charged by
       the bank in the case was @ 10.75%. It was concluded that there
       was no merit in the appeals which were dismissed on the grounds
       of delay and merit, along with costs quantified at ₹20,000/- each to
       be paid to both the respondents herein.
8.     Aggrieved by this order, GMADA is before us. Notice was issued on
       8th November, 2019 limited to that part of the order by which interest
       has been awarded on the loan taken by the respondent-Anupam
       Garg from the State Bank of India in addition to the 8% compounded
       interest already granted.
9.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
10. The appellants’ case is that casting liability for the respondents’
    loan upon GMADA is not a position under law. In contrast, the
    respondents argue to the contrary, stating that the Commissions
    have the requisite authority to grant compensation over and above
    what is agreed in the contract. It is their case that the terms of the
    agreement cannot circumscribe the authority of the Commission to
    award just compensation.
11. In Bangalore Development Authority v. Syndicate Bank7, this
    Court having surveyed several other judgments, laid down seven
    principles regarding grant/non-grant of relief to an allottee who is
    aggrieved by non-delivery or delay in delivery of plots/flats. This case
    is covered by the first one, which is as follows :
              “(a) Where the development authority having received the
              full price, does not deliver possession of the allotted plot/
              flat/house within the time stipulated or within a reasonable
              time, or where the allotment is cancelled or possession
              is refused without any justifiable cause, the allottee is
              entitled for refund of the amount paid, with reasonable
              interest thereon from the date of payment to date of


6    1st appeal No. 1456 of 2016
7    (2007) 6 SCC 711
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                              389

    Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA) Through Its
                Estate Officer (H) v. Anupam Garg Etc.

            refund. In addition, the allottee may also be entitled to
            compensation, as may be decided with reference to the
            facts of each case.”
12. The observations made in GDA v. Balbir Singh8 are also important
    when it comes to the determination of compensation. It was held
    as under :
            “…Thus the Forum or the Commission must determine that
            there has been deficiency in service and/or misfeasance in
            public office which has resulted in loss or injury. No hard-
            and-fast rule can be laid down, however, a few examples
            would be where an allotment is made, price is received/
            paid but possession is not given within the period set out
            in the brochure. The Commission/Forum would then need
            to determine the loss. Loss could be determined on basis
            of loss of rent which could have been earned if possession
            was given and the premises let out or if the consumer
            has had to stay in rented premises then on basis of rent
            actually paid by him. Along with recompensing the loss the
            Commission/Forum may also compensate for harassment/
            injury, both mental and physical. Similarly, compensation
            can be given if after allotment is made there has been
            cancellation of scheme without any justifiable cause.
            9. That compensation cannot be uniform and can best be
            illustrated by considering cases where possession is being
            directed to be delivered and cases where only monies
            are directed to be returned. In cases where possession
            is being directed to be delivered the compensation for
            harassment will necessarily have to be less because in a
            way that party is being compensated by increase in the
            value of the property he is getting. But in cases where
            monies are being simply returned then the party is suffering
            a loss inasmuch as he had deposited the money in the
            hope of getting a flat/plot. He is being deprived of that flat/
            plot. He has been deprived of the benefit of escalation of
            the price of that flat/plot. Therefore the compensation in



8   (2004) 5 SCC 65
390                                                          [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


          such cases would necessarily have to be higher. Further
          if the construction is not of good quality or not complete,
          the compensation would be the cost of putting it in good
          shape or completing it along with some compensation for
          harassment. Similarly, if at the time of giving possession
          a higher price or other amounts are collected unjustifiably
          and without there being any provision for the same the
          direction would be to refund it with a reasonable rate of
          interest. If possession is refused or not given because
          the consumer has refused to pay the amount, then on the
          finding that the demand was unjustified the consumer can
          be compensated for harassment and a direction to deliver
          possession can be given. If a party who has paid the
          amount is told by the authority that they are not in a position
          to ascertain whether he has paid the amount and that party
          is made to run from pillar to post in order to show that he
          has paid the amount, there would be deficiency of service
          for which compensation for harassment must be awarded
          depending on the extent of harassment. Similarly, if after
          delivery of possession, the sale deeds or title deeds are not
          executed without any justifiable reasons, the compensation
          would depend on the amount of harassment suffered. We
          clarify that the above are mere examples. They are not
          exhaustive. The above shows that compensation cannot
          be the same in all cases irrespective of the type of loss
          or injury suffered by the consumer.”
13. The entitlement of compensation, therefore, is not in dispute. A
    reference to Balbir Singh (supra) shows that compensation can take
    different forms, considering the facts and circumstances at hand.
    Determination has to be made, keeping in view the stage of the work
    completed, where the service provider has lapsed in duty and the
    loss caused thereby etc. Uniformity is foreign to such determination.
    Here only we may observe that the State Commission, as well as
    NCDRC’s reliance on Priyanka Nayyar (supra) is misplaced. In that
    case, ₹ 2 lakhs was given as compensation, taking into account
    that the complainant had suffered interest in the loan taken at the
    rate of 10.75%. It was not given as payment for the interest itself.
    By placing reliance on this order, against which one special leave
    petition indeed stands dismissed, what was open for the commission
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                         391

    Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA) Through Its
                Estate Officer (H) v. Anupam Garg Etc.

     to do was to, in the attending facts and circumstances, compute an
     amount as compensation, in which one of the factors would be that
     in order to secure a property in the scheme floated by the GMADA,
     the respondents had taken out a loan and would be liable to pay
     interest thereon. However, this order does not permit the interest on
     the loan, in its entirety, to be saddled by the authority responsible
     for the housing scheme and the delay, which is the genesis of the
     dispute.
14. We are supported in this view by the findings made by a coordinate
    Bench of this Court in DLF Homes Panchkula (P) Ltd. v. D.S.
    Dhanda9, which is extracted as under :
            “15. The District Forum under the Consumer Protection
            Act, 1986 (“the 1986 Act”) is empowered inter alia to
            order the opposite party to pay such amount as may be
            awarded as compensation to the consumer for any loss
            or injury suffered by the consumer due to the negligence
            of the opposite party including to grant punitive damages.
            But the forums under the Act cannot award interest and/
            or compensation by applying rule of thumb. The order to
            grant interest at the maximum of rate of interest charged
            by nationalised bank for advancing home loan is arbitrary
            and has no nexus with the default committed. The appellant
            has agreed to deliver constructed flats. For delay in
            handing over possession, the consumer is entitled to the
            consequences agreed at the time of executing buyer’s
            agreement. There cannot be multiple heads to grant of
            damages and interest when the parties have agreed for
            payment of damages @ Rs 10 per square foot per month.
            Once the parties agreed for a particular consequence of
            delay in handing over of possession then, there have to be
            exceptional and strong reasons for Scdrc/Ncdrc to award
            compensation at more than the agreed rate.”
                                                 (Emphasis supplied)

15. A perusal of the judgment and orders of the Commissions does not
    reveal any exceptional or strong reasons for the interest on the loan


9   (2020) 16 SCC 318
392                                                          [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


       taken by the respondents to be paid by GMADA. That apart, whether
       the buyers of the flat do so by utilizing their savings, taking a loan
       for such purpose or securing the required finances by any other
       permissible means, is not a consideration that the developer of the
       project is required to keep in mind. For, so far as they are concerned,
       such a consideration is irrelevant. The one who is buying a flat is a
       consumer, and the one who is building it is a service provider. That
       is the only relationship between the parties. If there is a deficiency
       or delay in service, the consumer is entitled to be compensated
       for the same. Repayment of the entire principal amount along with
       8% interest thereon, as stipulated in the contract, alongside the
       clarification that there shall be no other liability on the authority,
       sufficiently meets this requirement.
16. In DLF Homes Panchkula (P) Ltd. (supra), it was also observed
    as follows:
            “17. This Court in a judgment reported as Irrigation
            Department, State of Orissa v. G.C. Roy [Irrigation
            Department, State of Orissa v. G.C. Roy, (1992) 1 SCC
            508] examined the question as to whether an arbitrator
            has the power to award interest pendente lite. It was held
            that a person deprived of use of money to which he is
            legitimately entitled has a right to be compensated for the
            deprivation which may be called interest, compensation
            or damages. Thus, keeping in view the said principle laid
            down in the aforesaid judgment, the amount of the interest
            is the compensation to the beneficiary deprived of the use
            of the investment made by the complainant. Therefore, such
            interest will take into its ambit, the consequences of delay
            in not handing over his possession. In fact, we find that the
            learned Scdrc as well as Ncdrc has awarded compensation
            under different heads on account of singular default of
            not handing over possession. Such award under various
            heads in respect of the same default is not sustainable.”
                                                  (Emphasis supplied)

17. What flows from the above is that the amount of interest awarded is
    the compensation to the investment maker for the amount of money
    and the time he has been denied the fruits of that investment. The
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                    393

   Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA) Through Its
               Estate Officer (H) v. Anupam Garg Etc.

     8% interest awarded in this case on top of the entire amount that
     is being invested, is the compensation for being deprived of the
     investment of that money. Apart from this no amount of interest on
     the loan taken by the respondents could have been awarded.
18. We clarify that we have in no way held that the Commission is not
    empowered to give compensation, generally. For that reason, we
    do not interfere with the award of certain amounts on account of
    mental agony and litigation costs. We have only interfered with that
    part of the order as set out in the notice. It has come on record
    that the amount deposited before the State Commission does not
    include the amount of interest on the loan. In view of the above
    discussion, we hold that there is no requirement for GMADA to make
    any further deposit. The amount as it stands currently, be dispersed
    to the respondents.
19. The appeals are allowed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand
    disposed of.

     Result of the case: Appeals allowed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain