ADVOCATE ARVIND GUPTA: Tuesday, November 22, 2022

Tuesday, November 22, 2022

Convenience of Parties and witnesses

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

TRANSFER PETITION (Crl.) NO. 366 OF 2019

TESHI YAMI & ORS. Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

CBI/ACB Respondent(s)

O R D E R

This Transfer Petition has been filed by the

petitioners for transfer of CBI Case No. 3 of 2019

(arising out of RC No. 4A of 2016/SHG) titled as CBI/ACB

vs. Teshi Yami & Ors. Pending before the Court of Special

Judge, CBI, Shillong, Meghalaya to the Court of Special

Judge, CBI/ACB, Yupia, District Papum Pare, Arunachal

Pradesh.

The court is of the opinion that looking at the

number of witnesses (who reside in Arunachal Pradesh)

further having regard to the fact that most of other

witnesses do not reside within Meghalaya and also that a

large number of accused reside in Arunachal Pradesh, it

would be in the larger interest of justice that the

proceedings are transferred. Accordingly, CBI Case No.

3 of 2019 titled as CBI/ACB vs. Teshi Yami & Ors. pending

before the Court of Special Judge, CBI, Shillong,

Meghalaya is hereby transferred to the Court of Special

Judge, CBI/ACB, Yupia, District Papum Pare, Arunachal

Pradesh.

The Petitioners who are accused in the said case are

bound out to appear before the Special Judge, CBI /ACB,

Yupia, District Papum Pare, Arunachal Pradesh on 13th July 2020.

The transferee court shall secure the presence of

all the other accused and proceed further with the matter.

The transferor court shall forthwith transmit the

record of the aforesaid case to the transferee court.

Accordingly, the Transfer Petition is allowed in the

above terms.

Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.

.............................J.

(S. RAVINDRA BHAT)

NEW DELHI

JUNE 01, 2020

ITEM NO.5 Virtual Court 7 SECTION XVI-A

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Transfer Petition(s)(Criminal) No(s). 366/2019

TESHI YAMI & ORS. Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

CBI/ACB Respondent(s)

Date : 01-06-2020 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Siddharth Luthra, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Piyush Sharma, Adv.

Mr. Arvind Gupta, AOR

For Respondent(s) Ms. Aishwarya Bhatti, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR

Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, Adv.

Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

The Transfer Petition is allowed in terms of the signed

order.

Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.

(NEELAM GULATI) (RAJINDER KAUR)

ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

(Signed order is placed on the file)

Reservation in Jharkhand Higher Judicial Services

ITEM NO.13 COURT NO.16 SECTION XVII

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.13307/2019

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 06-03-2019

in WP No. 48/2017 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi)

DINESH CHOUDHARY Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND & ORS. Respondent(s)

(IA No. 85438/2019 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)

Date : 07-09-2022 These matters were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Arvind Gupta, AOR

Mr. Anil Kumar Sahu, Adv.

Mr. Mohit Bidhuri, Adv.

Mr. Pran Krishna Jane, Adv.

Ms. Nazish Fatima, Adv.

Mr. Utkarsh Sahu, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Krishnanand Pandeya, AOR

Mr. Tapesh Kumar Singh, AOR

Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

The petitioner is before this Court assailing the

order dated 06.03.2019 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand

at Ranchi in WP No. 48/2017.

The issue which arose for consideration in the said

Writ Petition was with regard to the claim of the petitioner

and certain other similarly placed persons seeking for

providing reservations for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes

and other Backward Classes in the recruitment to the Higher

Judicial Services in the State of Jharkhand.

In that light it was contended that the Notification

for recruitment was issued without providing for reservation

and was violative of the Reservation Policy of the State of

Jharkhand. Though several contentions were urged in the Writ

Petition, considering the fact that the Public Advertisement

No. 1/2017/Apptt. was already issued and as on such date the

Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service (Recruitment, Appointment

and Conditions of Service)Rule,2001 did not provide for

reservation, the High Court was of the view that no

interference in the process which had already commenced is

contemplated when as on the date of the advertisement there

was no provision for reservation in the Rules,2001. The High

Court accordingly dismissed the Writ Petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioners contends, though

that be the position, subsequent recruitments have been made

and in future also the recruitments are to be made and

therefore the reservation is to be provided in terms of the

reservation policy of the State.

In that regard, learned counsel appearing for the High

Court has referred to the Objection Statement filed herein

indicating that Hon’ble the Chief Justice vide Minutes dated

29.01.2019 has constituted a special Committee of five Hon’ble

Judges to consider the matter for reservation in Jharkhand

Higher Judicial Services. It is also stated therein that that

the Committee had considered the matter in its meeting dated

29.07.2019 and had issued certain directions.

In that view it is indicated that the matter is under

active consideration before the High Court. The High Court

having taken note of this aspect and taking into consideration

the fact that steps have been taken by the High Court to

constitute a Committee and the matter is under due

consideration, we see no reason to pass any specific

directions in this petition.

We are confident that the High Court would take an

appropriate decision in accordance with law after securing the

recommendation from the Committee. It would also be open to

the petitioner to file appropriate representation before

Hon’ble the Chief Justice putting forth their grievances, if

any.

With the above observations, the Special Leave

Petition stands disposed of.

(RAJNI MUKHI) (DIPTI KHURANA)

COURT MASTER (SH) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

After a long battle, 79 persons got employed

ITEM NO.7 COURT NO.9 SECTION XVI

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No. 25749/2022

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 19-03-2021

in WPCRC No. 267/2019 29-07-2022 in WPCRC No. 35/2022 passed by the

High Court At Calcutta)

THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

ALOK RANJAN ROY & ORS. Respondent(s)

(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.119286/2022-CONDONATION OF DELAY

IN FILING and IA No.119288/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE

IMPUGNED JUDGMENT)

Date : 23-09-2022 This matter was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI

For Petitioner(s) Ms. Madhvi Divan, ASG

Mr. R. Balasubramanian, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Rajan Kr. Chourasia, Adv.

Ms. Vaishali Verma, Adv.

Mr. Sahil Monga, Adv.

Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. Partha Sarathi Bhattacharyya, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Arvind Gupta, AOR

Mr. Amit S., Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

Delay condoned.

The learned Additional Solicitor General has, today, placed

before us a communication sent by the Senior Divisional Personnel

Officer, Eastern Railway, Sealdah dated 22.09.2022, stating that

the competent authorities of railways have initiated the process to

employ 79 (seventy nine) applicants. It has further been stated

that the general medical fitness test would be completed by

14.10.2022 and final appointment order would be issued by

21.10.2022.

In continuity with the order dated 26.08.2022, we could only

observe that even if late, when the authorities concerned have

taken concrete steps for compliance, it may not be a case of

willful and deliberate disobedience on their part.

Having said so and having taken note of the submissions made

on behalf of the petitioners, we would modify the impugned order

dated 29.07.2022 in the manner that the observations therein shall

not operate against the petitioners provided the process is

completed as contemplated by the communication dated 22.09.2022,

punctually and without fail. We would leave other aspects of the

matter open for consideration by the High Court in the pending

contempt petition.

A copy of the said communication dated 22.09.2022 may be

placed on record.

It goes without saying that the decision as taken by the

competent authorities in this matter had been in reference to the

peculiar circumstances of the case and orders earlier passed in the

matter.

Subject to the observations foregoing, this petition seeking

special leave to appeal stands disposed of.

All pending applications stand disposed of.

(SNEHA DAS) (RANJANA SHAILEY)

SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT COURT MASTER (NSH)

SC granted higher the rate of interest on enhanced compensation

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8103 OF 2022

(@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 5851 /2020)

SHAMSHER SINGH & ORS. APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

LILA RAM & ORS.

RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

Leave granted.

We have heard Learned Counsel for the

appellants. The only ground of challenge in this

appeal filed by the claimant is that the High Court

while allowing enhancement of the compensation only

awarded 6% interest on the enhanced amount of

compensation though Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal

(‘the tribunal’) has awarded 9% interest. Learned

Counsel for the appellants contends that there

appears to be no rationale in not awarding the same

interest which was awarded by the tribunal even on

the enhanced amount of compensation.

Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent-

insurance company tried to justify the order by

saying that the High Court has rightly reduced the

rate of interest since the amount of compensation was

being enhanced.

We are not impressed by this submission made

on behalf of the learned counsel for the respondent.

We do not find any justification for the High

Court to have reduced the interest component on the

enhanced amount of compensation only because of the

fact that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal

was being enhanced by it.

In view of above, the part of the impugned

order passed by the High Court, awarding only 6%

interest on enhanced amount of compensation is set

aside and the appellants-claimants shall be entitled

for the payment of 9% interest on the total amount

payable as compensation.

The appeal accordingly, stands allowed to the

extent directed above.

…………………………………….J.

[KRISHNA MURARI]

…………………………………….J.

[S. RAVINDRA BHAT]

NEW DELHI;

November, 2022

ITEM NO.6 COURT NO.15 SECTION IV-B

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 5851/2020

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 11-08-2014

in FAO No. 875/2002 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at

Chandigarh)

SHAMSHER SINGH & ORS. Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

LILA RAM & ORS. Respondent(s)

([MACT MATTER] )

Date : 03-11-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA MURARI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Arvind Gupta, AOR

Mr. Madhurendra Kumar, Adv.

Mr. Anil Kumar Sahu, Adv.

Mr. Mohit Bidhuri, Adv.

Mr. Utkarsh Sahu, Adv.

Mr. Arun Kumar Tiwari, Adv.

Mr. Nazish Fatima, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. S.L. Gupta, Adv.

Mr. Ashutosh Sharma, Adv.

Ms. Gunjan sharma, Adv.

Mata Prashad Singh, Adv.

Mr. Neeraj Srivastava, Adv.

Ms. Ranjana R. Singh, Adv.

Mr. Gurmeet Singh, Adv.

Mr. Dharam Pal Singh, Adv.

Mr. Varinder Kumar Sharma, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

Leave granted.

The order inter alia reads as under:-

“We are not impressed by this submission made

on behalf of the learned counsel for the

respondent.

We do not find any justification for the High

Court to have reduced the interest component on the

enhanced amount of compensation only because of the

fact that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal

was being enhanced by it.

In view of above, the part of the impugned

order passed by the High Court, awarding only 6%

interest on enhanced amount of compensation is set

aside and the appellants-claimants shall be

entitled for the payment of 9% interest on the

total amount payable as compensation.”

The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.

Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

(SONIA GULATI) (RENU BALA GAMBHIR)

SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT COURT MASTER (NSH)

(Signed order is placed on the file)

Article 142 invoked and granted Divorce to the parties by mutual consent

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1343 OF 2021

RINKI

PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

ARUN KUMAR GAUD

RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

We have learned counsel for the parties.

During the pendency of this transfer petition,

the parties have entered into a compromise and a

joint application has been filed with a prayer to

dissolve the marriage in exercise of the powers

conferred by Article 142 of the Constitution of

India.

Further prayer has also been made to quash all

the pending proceedings, civil as well as criminal

mentioned in points (b) to (g) of the prayer clause

of the joint application.

Parties are present in person and have been

identified by their learned counsel. Affidavits filed

by them are also on record.

Considering the above facts and circumstances

exercising the powers under Article 142 of the

Constitution of India, we hereby grant Divorce to the

parties by mutual consent. Various disputes civil as

well as criminal pending between the parties as

detailed in clause (b) to (g) of the prayer clause

also stand quashed. The parties henceforth, shall not

have any claim against each other whatsoever in

respect of the matrimonial dispute. The petitioner-

wife is present before us and has confirmed that she

has received the amount of 14 lakhs 50 thousand

towards full and final settlement between them as

agreed in the settlement.

With the aforesaid orders and directions, this

Transfer application stands disposed of. Let a decree

of divorce be drawn and the settlement agreement

shall be made part of the decree.

The transfer petition stands disposed of.

Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed

of.

…………………………………….J.

[KRISHNA MURARI]

…………………………………….J.

[S. RAVINDRA BHAT]

NEW DELHI;

November, 2022

ITEM NO.13 COURT NO.15 SECTION XVI-A

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Transfer Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 1343/2021

RINKI Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

ARUN KUMAR GAUD Respondent(s)

IA No. 56280/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.

IA No. 95367/2021 - STAY APPLICATION)

Date : 03-11-2022 This matter was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA MURARI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT

For Petitioner(s)

Mr. Arvind Gupta, AOR

Mr. Anil Kumar Sahu, Adv.

Mr. Mohit Bidhuri, Adv.

Mr. Utkarsh Sahu, Adv.

Mr. Arun Kumar Tiwari, Adv.

For Respondent(s)

Mr. Rajesh Kumar Chaurasia, AOR

Mr. S.P. Sharma, Adv.

Mr. Sujeet Kumar, Adv.

Mr. Sunil Kumar Tomar, Adv.

Mr. Anurag Jain, Adv.

Mr. Mohd. Hasibuddin, Adv.

Mrs. Manjulika Pal, Adv.

Mr. Ranjeet Kumar, Adv.

Mr. Anant Kumar, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

The transfer petition stands disposed of in terms of the

signed order.

Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

(SONIA GULATI) (RENU BALA GAMBHIR)

SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT COURT MASTER (NSH)

(signed order is placed on the file)

Article 142 invoked to do complete justice & passed decree of divorce by mutual consent

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

TRANSFER PETITION(CIVIL) NO. 2655 OF 2019

PRASANT KANKRANIA … Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

NEHA KANKRANIA NEE AGARWAL … Respondent(s)

WITH

TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 485 OF 2020

O R D E R

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Pursuant to the order dated 22.01.2021, the parties were

referred to the Supreme Court Mediation Centre.

With the assistance of the learned Mediator, Mr. Snehasish

Mukherjee, Advocate, the parties have settled their disputes and

have executed an agreement. The parties have agreed to dissolve

their marriage by a decree of divorce as the marriage has

irretrievably broken down. Both the parties being economically

independent, they do not have any pecuniary claims against each

other.

In exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142 of the
Constitution of India, to do complete justice, this Court deems it
appropriate to pass a decree of divorce by mutual consent under
Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act dissolving the marriage
between the petitioner and the respondent.

The cases filed by the petitioner and the respondent

respectively, as noticed in paragraph 2 of the settlement agreement

shall stand disposed of.

This order shall be communicated to the concerned courts for

necessary action to update the records.

The transfer petitions are, accordingly, disposed of in terms

of the settlement.

Pending connected applications, if any, stand disposed of

accordingly.

………………………………………………………,J.

(Indira Banerjee)

………………………………………………………,J.

(J.K. Maheshwari)

New Delhi;

February 11, 2022.

ITEM NO.30 Court 8 (Video Conferencing) SECTION XVI-A

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Transfer Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 2655/2019

PRASANT KANKRANIA Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

NEHA KANKRANIA NEE AGARWAL Respondent(s)

(MEDIATION REPORT HAS BEEN RECEIVED IA No. 71113/2020 - APPLICATION

FOR PERMISSION IA No. 171472/2019 - EX-PARTE STAY IA No. 69687/2020

- EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 69686/2020 - PERMISSION TO FILE

ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)

WITH

T.P.(C) No. 485/2020 (XVI-A)

(FOR STAY APPLICATION ON IA 41186/2020 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING

O.T. ON IA 41193/2020)

Date : 11-02-2022 These matters were called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI

For Parties

Mr. Arvind Gupta, AOR

Dr. Kamal Yash Sahwal, Adv.

Mr. Brahma Prakash, Adv.

Mr. Kumar Law, Adv.

Mr. Vivek Bhojrajka, Adv.

Mr. Pran Krishna Jana, Adv.

Mr. M. P. Vinod, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

(GULSHAN KUMAR ARORA) (MATHEW ABRAHAM)

AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)

Article 142 Invoked by SC and quashed all the cases between parties

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

Transfer Petition (Crl.) Nos.349-350/2021

MOHIT BHANDARI Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

SUMEDHA BHANDARI & ORS. Respondent(s)

O R D E R

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel parties state that the parties have settled

their dispute and are living together.

The question which has to be still examined is in what

manner the litigation already initiated by the parties be

quashed. In terms of the settlement agreement dated 09.06.2022

following cases are mentioned which are lying pending between

the parties:

“CASES FILED BY MOHIT BHANDARI- PETITIONER

a. Criminal Revision No.95/2021 pending before the Ld.

Addl. Session Judge, Ludhiana (Punjab) wherein the

next date of hearing is 27.7.2022.

b. Criminal Miscellaneous No.316 of 2020 filed before

Ld. Principal Judge, Family Court, Gautam Budh Nagar

(UP), U/s. 6 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act

1956 r/w Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

for seeking custody of the child wherein next date

of hearing is 20.7.2022.

CASES FILED BY SUMEDHA BHANDARI-RESPONDENT

Because of the misunderstanding, the respondent wife filed

following cases:

a. FIR No.91/2019 dated 29.7.2019 at PS Mahila Thana,

District-Gautam Budh Nagar (UP) u/S 313/323/504/498-A,

R/W Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,

wherein the Police filed chargesheet against the

Petitioner u/S 323, 504, 498-A R/W Section 3 and 4 of

the Dowry Prohibition Act and is now pending before

the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar

bearing Criminal Case No.160862/2020 wherein the next

date of hearing is 28.6.2022.

b. A Maintenance Petition u/S 125 Cr.P.C. bearing

No.MNT/125/2075/2019 in the Court of Hon’ble Principal

Judge, Family Court, Ludhiana wherein the next date of

hearing is 26.9.2022.

c. A complaint case bearing No.COMA/27328/2019, u/S 12 of

the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,

2005 before the Illaqa Magistrate, Ludhiana, wherein

the next date of hearing is 06.8.2022.”

Prayer is made on behalf of the parties for quashing of above-

mentioned proceedings initiated against each other and/ or the

proceedings should be treated as withdrawn.

In view of the endeavour of the parties to live together,

existence of these cases would certainly come in the way.

Therefore, we are inclined to exercise our jurisdiction under

Article 142 of the Constitution of India and quash all the cases

filed inter se the parties.

The Settlement agreement is taken on record and the IA No.

106534/2022-application for settlement stands disposed of.

In view of the settlement agreement the transfer petitions

have become infructuous and are accordingly disposed of.

………………………………………………………J.

(SANJAY KISHAN KAUL)

………………………………………………………J.

(ABHAY S. OKA)

NEW DELHI

September, 2022

ITEM NO.10 COURT NO.3 SECTION XVI-A

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Transfer Petition(s)(Criminal) No(s). 349-350/2021

MOHIT BHANDARI Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

SUMEDHA BHANDARI & ORS. Respondent(s)

(IA No.105377/2021-EX-PARTE STAY

IA No. 106534/2022 - APPLICATION FOR SETTLEMENT)

Date : 07-09-2022 These matters were called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Arvind Gupta, AOR

Mr. Anil Kumar Sahu, Adv.

Mr. Mohit Bidhuri, Adv.

Mr. Vinod Kaushik, Adv.

Mr. Arun Kumar Tiwary, Adv.

Mr. Pran Krishna Jana, Adv.

Mr. Utkarsh Sahu, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Karan Dewan, Adv.

Miss Aanchal Jain, AOR

Mr. Kartik Yadav, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The transfer petitions have become infructuous in terms of the

signed order.

Pending applications stand disposed of.

(RASHMI DHYANI PANT) (POONAM VAID)

COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

(signed order is placed on the file)