Amalendu Mukherjee vs Sebi

This appeal has been filed challenging the order of the Whole Time

Member (hereinafter referred to as „WTM‟) of Securities and Exchange 2

Board of India (hereinafter referred to as „SEBI‟) dated July 6, 2020. By

the said order, inter alia, the appellant has been directed to disgorge an

amount of Rs. 2,30,34,010/- along with the interest at the rate of 12% p.a.

from November 17, 2015 till the date of payment and prohibited from

dealing in the securities market, directly or indirectly, for a period of

seven years from the date of depositing the aforesaid amount with SEBI.

2. The impugned order has been passed in a matter relating to alleged

insider trading in the scrip of Ricoh India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as

„Ricoh‟), a listed company. Impugned Order has been passed, inter alia,

on the ground that the Appellant had contravened Regulations 3(i) and 4

of the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulation, 1992 (hereinafter

referred to as ´PIT Regulations 1992) and Regulation 4(1) of the SEBI

(Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulation, 2015 (hereinafter referred to

as ´PIT Regulations 2015) read with Sections 12A(d) & (e) of the SEBI

Act by dealing in the securities of Ricoh while he was in possession of

unpublished price sensitive information (hereinafter referred to as

´UPSI‟), being an insider and connected person under Regulations 2(c)

and 2(e) of the PIT Regulations, 1992 and Regulations 2(d)(i) and 2(1)(g)

of the PIT Regulations 2015. The case was investigated by SEBI for the

period from August 14, 2014 to November 17, 2015. On completion of

the investigation an impounding order was passed, inter alia, against the

appellant and the company by the name Fourth Dimension Solutions Ltd.

(„FDSL‟ for short), where the appellant was the majority promoter and the 3

Managing Director, impounding an amount of Rs. 2,30,34,010/- jointly

and severally on account of the illegal gains made and notional loss

avoided by the entities. Subsequently, the company FDSL went into

Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) and, therefore, after

giving an opportunity of hearing, etc. the impugned order in the appeal

has been passed holding the appellant responsible for insider trading in the

scrip of Ricoh and directing the disgorgement against him.

3. The relevant facts relating to the matter in brief are as follows:-

a. The appellant is a promoter and the Managing Director

of FDSL having 73% of its shareholding at the relevant

time.

b. FDSL was a vendor as well as a customer of Ricoh which

also used to be a regular investor in the shares of Ricoh.

FDSL was a Titanium Ricoh ITS Partner and was given

a target of bringing business opportunities of INR 500

crore for Ricoh. FDSL Being a Titanium ITS partner it

had considerable business dealings with Ricoh.

c. While conducting the limited review of the financial

statements of Ricoh for the quarter ending June and

half-year ended September 30, 2015, BSR & Co., LLP

(hereinafter referred to as „BSR‟), the newly appointed

statutory auditor, raised suspicions regarding certain 4

transactions between Ricoh and its customers and

vendors. Pursuant to the same, the Audit Committee of

Ricoh appointed M/s. Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas &

Co.,-who, in turn, appointed Pricewaterhouse Coopers

Private Limited, India ( PwC, for short)- to conduct

forensic audit of the books of accounts of Ricoh for the

half- year ended September 30, 2015. PwC submitted its

report on preliminary findings on April 20, 2016.

Relying on this Report Ricoh wrote to SEBI on April

20, 2016, that its financial statements for the quarters

ended June 30, 2015 and September 30, 2015 did not

reflect true and fair view of its state of affairs. Ricoh

also requested SEBI to investigate the matter. The

disclosure of Ricoh, that its financial statements did not

reflect true and fair view of its state of affairs, was

displayed by BSE on April 22, 2016. Therefore, the

Audit Committee of Ricoh ordered a forensic audit,

which came to the conclusion that its accounts were not

fair for the FY 2012/13 to 2015/16. This came into the

public domain only when the said information was

disclosed on the BSE platform on April 22, 2016.

Therefore, the period from April 01, 2012 to April 22,

2016 has been considered as the ´UPSI period. PwC 5

submitted its final report on November 17, 2016, a copy

of which was also submitted to SEBI on November 29,

2016.

d. SEBI also appointed a forensic auditor, M/s Pipara

&Co, to do a detailed analysis of the financials of both

Ricoh and FDSL in order to clearly bring out the

complete details and nexus. Pipara submitted its Report

dated October 25, 2019.

e. Upon completion of investigation in the matter, SEBI

passed an interim ex-parte impounding order dated

March 17, 2020 against FDSL and the Appellant

impounding an amount of INR 2,30,34,010/- from them

jointly and severally, being the amount of illegal gains

made and notional loss avoided on account of trades

carried out by FDSL in scrip of Ricoh. Thereafter, on

information from the Resolution Professional of FDSL,

appointed by the National Company Law Tribunal, that

FDSL had been undergoing corporate insolvency

resolution process under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ´IBC‟) since July

26, 2019 and thus, a moratorium under Section 14 of the

IBC had been in force, an addendum to the impounding

order was issued on March 30, 2020 wherein the 6

directions issued against FDSL in the Order were kept

in abeyance as long as the moratorium is in force. The

Appellant filed an appeal before this Tribunal against

this impounding Order, which was disposed of vide our

order dated May 27, 2020, directing the Appellant to

file a reply to the Impounding Order and further

directing SEBI to decide the matter finally by July 6,

2020 after giving an opportunity of hearing to the

appellant. In compliance with our directions, SEBI

passed the Order which is impugned in this appeal. In

the impugned order it is held that the appellant

Amalendu Mukherjee had substantial influence on the

management of Ricoh and in manipulating the purchase

orders of the company. Because of his close proximity

to the management and he being privy and party to

some of the irregularities relating to the purchase

orders, the appellant was aware of the fragile financial

position of Ricoh. Therefore, once Ricoh appointed a

new statutory auditor who raised several concerns and

therefore Ricoh deciding to appoint a Forensic Auditor

in November 2015, the appellant disposed of the shares

of Ricoh which FDSL held on 17 November 2015

before the Forensic Auditor‟s report would come out 7

and therefore traded when he was privy to unpublished

price sensitive information (UPSI), information when

published would have a material impact on the price of

the scrip of a company. By part of such sales the

appellant made an unlawful gain of Rs. 1,13,56,118/-

and through another set of sell orders he avoided a

notional loss of Rs. 1,16,77,892/-. Therefore, the gains

made and the loss avoided together comes to an amount

of Rs. 2,30,34,010/-, which has been directed to be

disgorged along with the interest calculated @12% per

annum by the Appellant. Hence this appeal.

4. It is the contention of the learned counsel Mr. Dinesh Kumar

Sabharwal, who appeared on behalf of the appellant, that the shares in

question of Ricoh were owned by FDSL and not by the appellant; the

appellant being the authorised person was only trading on behalf of

FDSL; FDSL has gone under CIRP and since SEBI cannot make any

claim now against FDSL it is claiming the said amount from the appellant

which is illegal and arbitrary. Moreover, since FDSL was needing funds

it disposed of all the securities it was holding (of 13 companies) during the

period in question (2014-15), not only that of Ricoh, and some of its stake

sales had been in excess of the sales of Ricoh shares. 8

5. It was further contended by the learned Counsel that the appellant did

not make any personal gain in the process and being a listed company the

gains or losses of FDSL should be accruable to all the shareholders. It

was further contended that SEBI did not have the power to lift the

corporate veil in an arbitrary manner and go after the appellant just

because the appellant was one of the promoters of FDSL.

6. It was vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the appellant

that the appellant was not privy to insider information of Ricoh nor the

appellant had indulged in any manipulation in the purchase orders made

by Ricoh nor influenced such decisions of Ricoh in any manner. FDSL

was just one of the vendors of Ricoh and the appellant as a director of

FDSL engaged in only genuine transactions with Ricoh. In order to prove

his contention, the learned counsel for the appellant stated that the finding

in the impugned order that names of famous companies were used in

creating purchase orders of Ricoh and to create fictitious transactions is

absolutely devoid of any merits as all these companies existed as they are

well known companies. Certain documents were also produced before us

to support the contention that a few of the entities which were held to be

non-existent by the forensic auditor do exist and there were genuine orders

and fund transfers between them and Ricoh and Ricoh had even filed

certain proceedings against some of those entities. He particularly cited

that page No. 123 of the report of Pipara relating to VEDAVAAG and

Redhex IT Solutions Private Limited. The learned counsel also relied on a 9

communication from the Economic Offences Wing, New Delhi to Ricoh

regarding a complaint filed by the latter, stating that the allegations are

based on the report submitted by a private firm without supporting

documents, the allegation of non-existent customers / vendors could not

be substantiated and all the alleged suspect transactions are supported by

the transfer of funds. The learned counsel, therefore, contended that the

report of the auditors/forensic auditors are totally unreliable as many of

their statements are not backed by any evidence and many other

statements are contrary to facts. Relying on the judgment of Samir Arora

vs. SEBI [(2005) 59 SCL 96] the appellant contended that when there are

apparent errors such reports are liable to be rejected.

7. In short, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that his

client was neither privy to the UPSI nor disposed of the shares of Ricoh

(or various companies FDSL held) on the basis of such information; nor

played any role in the purchase decisions of Ricoh nor fabricated any

purchase orders, etc. Moreover, the appellant carried out trade in the

shares of Ricoh (and other companies) for FDSL, not in his personal

behalf and, therefore, no disgorgement could have been directed against

him by resorting to lifting the corporate veil, arbitrary and illegally. It

was further contended that in any case the appellant has not earned

anything personally and, therefore no disgorgement could have been made

against him as disgorgement is an equitable remedy. It was also 10

contended that the FDSL was in need of money and has been disposing of

all the shares /securities it was holding during 2015-2016 and sales

revenue in some of which was much more than obtained from Ricoh

shares.

8. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the appellant,

citing the judgment of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of SEBI vs.

Rakhi Trading Pvt. Ltd. [2018 (13) SCC 753], that each matter has to be

considered based on the factual matrix. Further, relying on the judgment

of this Tribunal in the case of Rakesh Agarwal vs. SEBI [2004 (49) SCL

351], it was contended that the intention of the regulations was neither to

ban genuine corporate trading in securities nor to treat generally known

public information as UPSI as held by the Apex Court in Hindustan Liver

ltd. Vs. SEBI (1988) 18 SCL 311. So in short, the core of the submissions

of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the forensic audit reports on

which SEBI vests its arguments are not fully supported by facts and,

therefore, the impugned order is based on surmises and farces and,

therefore, is liable to be quashed.

9. Shri. Gaurav Joshi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of

respondent SEBI, on the other hand, vehemently contended that the UPSI

in the instant matter was manipulation of Ricoh accounts and the forensic

reports clearly brings out the manner and magnitude of such manipulation

and how the appellant herein and KMPs of Ricoh were involved. Some of 11

the entities, namely, Vedaavag, Redhex, New Code and RNM IT

Solutions pvt Ltd etc. with large business dealings between the appellant

and Ricoh were also related to the appellant. On the issue of using the

name of famous corporate houses, it was found to be fake transactions by

SEBI in the impugned order. The learned counsel submitted that it is not

the contention of SEBI that all those companies were fake in terms of their

names, but the contention is that the names were used but the addresses of

such companies were not the authentic addresses of the stated companies.

Therefore, names of known corporate entities but with different addresses

have been used to create fictitious transactions.

10. The learned senior counsel for SEBI further contended that the

submission made by the appellant that he had been selling all securities in

his portfolio during the period under consideration and some of those

stakes were of higher / high values even compared to the securities of

Ricoh have no merit since the allegation is only with respect to the stake

sale of Ricoh. Here, what is held in the impugned order is that because

the appellant and FDSL were privy to a lot of transactions of Ricoh by

virtue of the peculiar nature of their business dealing and hence privy to

the insider information, the feeble financial position which Ricoh was

facing because of several fictitious transactions was known to the

appellant. Therefore, when the forensic audit was ordered on their books

of accounts of Ricoh by Ricoh, the appellant resorted to selling the shares 12

of Ricoh which FDSL held. Being the majority owner, the main

beneficial owner, Managing Director and the authorized person in-charge

of FDSL, the appellant is squarely responsible for making good the illegal

gains/avoidance of losses to the tune of Rs. 2.3 crore.

11. The learned senior counsel for SEBI, relying on Delhi Development

Authority vs. Skipper Construction Ltd. [(1996) 12 SCC 152], submitted

that lifting of corporate veil is permitted „where the corporate character is

employed for the purpose of committing illegality or for defrauding

others, and therefore the Court would ignore the corporate character and

will look at the reality behind the corporate veil so as to enable it to pass

appropriate orders to do justice between the parties concerned.‟ On the

contention of the appellant regarding illegal lifting of corporate veil, the

learned senior counsel for SEBI also repudiated the same by relying on

the orders in N. Narayanan vs. Adjudicating Officer, SEBI [(2013) 12

SCC 152], Kemefs Specialities Pvt. Ltd. vs. SEBI (2011 SCC Online SAT

84) and Sahara Asset Management Company vs. SEBI (2017 SCC

Online SAT 173). Further, relying on S.E.C. v. Contorinis 743 F. 3d 296

(2nd Cir. 2014), the question relating to whether a disgorgement on the

appellant could have been ordered has been addressed. Reliance was

also made on SEC v. David E. Whitmore and Peter S. Cahill [659 F.3d 1

(D.C. Cir. 2011)] by the learned Counsel on the question of disgorgement

against the appellant.

13

12. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused

the documents produced before us, we are of the considered view that the

appeal lacks merit for several reasons. There is sufficient evidence to

prove a high degree of connection between Ricoh and several of its senior

employees, including CEO, with the appellant and FDSL. This is clearly

articulated in the forensic report as well as in the impugned order.

Moreover, on 12 February, 2018 the WTM of SEBI had passed an interim

order against 6 employees of Ricoh and the Appellant for fraud under the

SEBI Prevention of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Regulations.

The appeal filed by the Appellant was dismissed by this Tribunal.

Subsequent confirmation Order dated 16 august, 2018 was passed by the

WTM was not even challenged by the Appellant.

13. Further, though FDSL was a separate legal entity, the appellant was

its „soul‟- being the majority promoter and Managing Director who

managed the affairs of FDSL. Apart from FDSL being a separate legal

entity, there is nothing on record to show that anybody else other than the

appellant was in-charge of FDSL in its day-to-day management and,

therefore, the attribution of FDSL activities to the appellant does not

suffer from any lacunae. By the same reasoning, we find no legal error in

SEBI lifting the corporate veil in order to get to the root of the suspected

fictitious transactions between FDSL, Ricoh and other entities. 14

14. SEBI received a letter dated April 20, 2016, from the Company

stating that its financial statements for the quarters ended June 30, 2015

and September 30, 2015 did not reflect true and fair view of its state of

affairs, relying on the PwC Preliminary Report. The Company also

requested SEBI to investigate the matter of incorrect financial statements.

The disclosure of the Company, that its financial statements did not reflect

true and fair view of its state of affairs, was published by BSE on April

22, 2016. It is stated that any information having a material adverse

impact on the Company financials is considered to be price sensitive

information in respect of the Company. Thus, financial statements are

definitely considered as price sensitive information as they are very likely

to have impact on the share price of securities. In this regard, prior to this

disclosure by BSE, the market was relying on the misstated financials to

take investment decisions. Further, the misstated financials had impacted

the price of the scrip of the Company and thus, it is stated that the

misstated financial statements of the Company from the Financial Years

2012-2013 onwards were qualified as UPSI. This came into the public

domain only when the said information was disclosed on the BSE

platform on April 22, 2016. Therefore, the period from April 01, 2012 to

April 22, 2016 has been considered as the "UPSI period".

15. Some of the findings in the PwC reports, the Pipara report and the

investigation reports are clear evidence of the role of the appellant in 15

various wrong doings and his connection to the KMPs of Ricoh and

thereby in projecting a false rosy picture of the accounts of Ricoh. For

instance the PwC Report that highlight that financial statements of the

Company were misstated, are as follows:

i. Information Technology Services (hereinafter referred to as "ITS") of the Company had sales transactions during the half-year ended September 30, 2015 which recorded suspect sales amounting to Rs. 590.8 crore involving a select group of 18 parties wherein the Company procured products or services from one of these parties and sold it to another of these parties and these transactions were in the nature of back to back transactions;

ii. In most instances, the purchase orders of customers were sent by the Appellant to Smriti Pandey, Senior Executive, ITS Operations, of the Company, and not directly from the respective customers. Likewise, the corresponding invoices from the Company were sent by Smriti Pandey to the Appellant and not to the customers;

iii. Despite Redhex IT Solutions Private Limited, a customer of the Company, defaulting in payment of its dues to the Company totalling to approximately Rs. 80 crore, it was still granted a credit limit of Rs. 50 crore for a period of 270 days in April 2015.

iv. 99.7% of Redhex's total purchases during the half year ended September 30, 2015 was from Ricoh, which were back to back trades, as the purchases with respect to these sales were made from FDSL, and in turn a part of Redhex's sales went back to FDSL, thereby indicating circular transactions. The Appellant's brother, Mr. Bibekananda Mukherjee, was a shareholder and director in FDSL and Redhex.

16

v. The spouses of Arvind Singhal and Anil Saini and the Appellant and his wife were all directors and shareholders in RNM IT Solutions Private Limited. It is stated that funds transferred from Ricoh to FDSL were immediately transferred to another account of FDSL and then to other entities such as RNM IT Solutions. Thus, there existed a conflict of interest for Arvind Singhal and Anil Saini, as their spouses were directors and shareholders in RNM IT Solutions along with the Appellant and his wife.

vi. The Appellant advanced personal favours to Arvind Singhal and Anil Saini such as payment of tuition fees of foreign education of Anil Saini's daughter and sponsoring of several trips and hotel bookings of their families in India and abroad.

vii. Payments had been made by the Company to the select parties (Redhex, Vedavaag and New Code) for purchases despite amounts outstanding from them for sales made to them. The domain ID of New code was registered in the name of the Appellant and the Appellant and his wife were shareholders and acting as directors in New code.

viii. FDSL had traded in the shares of Ricoh from August 22, 2014 to November 20, 2015 and liquidated its shareholding in Ricoh during the week of November 20, 2015, which happens to be around the same time when BSR raised concerns relating to certain transactions.

Other findings

i During the course of the investigation, it was found, from the replies of the Company, that a major write- off involved an account of FDSL to the tune of Rs. 268 crore. However, even after the write-off, the amount receivable from FDSL as reflected in the books of accounts of Ricoh was Rs. 339.67 crore. FDSL disputed this amount and gave a counterclaim of Rs. 428.41 crore to be received from Ricoh. 17

ii From the bank account details of FDSL, it was found that the funds transferred from Ricoh to FDSL were immediately transferred to another account of FDSL and then to other entities such as New Code IT Services and RNM IT Solutions. Further, multiple transactions were carried out with RNM IT Solutions, the net of which amounted to Rs. 6.03 crore. In this respect, there existed a conflict of interest for Arvind Singhal and Anil Saini, as their spouses were directors and shareholders in RNM IT Solutions along with the Appellant and his wife, as highlighted hereinabove.

iii. Further, Ricoh had written-off amounts of Rs.72.30 crore and Rs.58.38 in respect of Redhex and Vedavaag, respectively. Redhex was a connected entity with FDSL as highlighted in paragraph h(iv) hereinabove and in the case of Vedavaag, one of the addresses of Vedavaag in the invoices, sent by the Appellant to Smriti Pandey, was actually that of FDSL, thus the ultimate beneficiary of the transactions was the Appellant.

iv. It was observed that the Appellant shared the purchase orders of the vendors and customers of Ricoh directly with Ricoh instead of the companies sending it themselves.

16. The findings in the Impugned Order is based on 4 other audit/forensic

audits and investigation by SEBI: 1) limited review of Ricoh accounts by

BSR&Co, the new statutory auditor; forensic audit by PWC and its 2) first

and 3) final reports; and 4) forensic audit report by M/s Pipara &

Company on both Ricoh and FDSL accounts and transactions as ordered

by SEBI. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that no

one sued FDSL for using fake addresses and invoices does not have any

merit because such documents/findings have come out in the process of

this investigation only. Even assuming there are some discrepancies in 18

some of these reports on the existence of a few out of the 27 entities

identified or part of the payments in question are factually correct do not

vitiate the core findings in those reports as well as in the impugned Order

since the basic question to be answered in the matter is only whether the

appellant was expected to have a reasonable understanding about the

financial position of Ricoh and hence did he come under the definition of

"insider" under the stated provisions of the PIT Regulations, 1992, which

is reproduced here for convenience.

: an ´insider' means any person who (i) is or was connected with the company or is deemed to have been connected with the company and is reasonably expected to have access to unpublished price sensitive information in respect of securities of a company, or

(ii) has received or has had access to such unpublished price sensitive information.

Connected person means any person who ....

ii. Occupies the position as an officer or an employee of the company or holds a position involving a professional or business relationship between himself and the company (whether temporary or permanent) and who may reasonably be expected to have access to unpublished price sensitive information in relation to that company....

17. Given the nature and extent of connection which the appellant had

with Ricoh and its KMPs in terms of his ability to influence orders by

even providing editable invoices, parties routing Ricoh orders through

FSDL, cross directorships in various entities in the game, ability to even

influence decision relating to appointment of auditors, all detailed in the 19

impugned order, are sufficient to conclude that appellant had an

extraordinary nature of connection/influence with Ricoh and its KMPs for

him to fall squarely within the meaning/definition of „connected person‟

and hence „insider‟ under the regulatory provisions cited above.

Cumulatively all such evidence leads to a formidable conclusion that

appellant was an insider in Ricoh and hence he sold the shares of Ricoh

while being privy to the UPSI that Ricoh‟s financials were not as being

disclosed during 2012-13 through 2015-16. The appellant does not have

any meaningful answers to the questions on his extraordinary nature of

connection and even influence with several of the KMPs of Ricoh even in

supporting the expenses of them and their family members, suggestion not

to appoint KPMG as auditor etc.

18. Once it is concluded that the accounts of Ricoh, as had been disclosed

from 2012-13 till 2015-16 had been vitiated which was disclosed to the

public only on 22 April, 2016 it is axiomatic that a UPSI exists in respect

of the price of the scrip of Ricoh as only insiders were privy to the real

financial position of Ricoh. Given the connection of the appellant with

Ricoh and its KMPs and his business relations with Ricoh and its vendors

appellant was a connected person and hence insider of Ricoh. Then the

only remaining question would be whether appellant who sold off shares

belonging to FDSL is liable to be disgorged. Here, the Orders in

Narayanan (supra), Contorinis (supra) and Whittmore (supra) would 20

squarely apply to the matter. In Contorinis it is held that "the primary

issue presented is whether an insider trader who trades on behalf of

another person or entity using funds he does not own, and thus produces

illegal profits that he does not personally realize, can nevertheless be

required to disgorge the full amount of illicit profit he generates from his

illegal and fraudulent actions. Because our cases have established that

tippers can be required to disgorge profits realized by their tippees‟ illegal

insider trading, and this case is distinguishable only insofar as Contorinis

himself executed the fraudulent trades rather than leave that task to a

tippee, we conclude that the district court was empowered to enter the

disgorgement order, and did not abuse its discretion in doing so.

Additionally, we find no abuse of discretion in the district court‟s

imposition of an injunction on Contorinis or in its order that Contorinis

pay prejudgment interest on the disgorgement amount." As such in the

instant matter where the appellant was holding an overwhelming

proportion of FDSL share capital and was also its MD and authorised

person, disgorgement of the illegal gains made by the appellant and FDSL

from the appellant alone, when FDSL has gone under CIRP, does not

suffer from any legal error. Even the earlier (pre-CIRP) direction of SEBI

was for joint and several disgorgement of the amount in question from the

appellant and FDSL. Moreover, it is an established law that for the

misdeeds of corporates going under CIRP under the IBC 2016, their

promoters/directors/officials responsible for those misdeeds can be visited 21

with the legal liabilities. Therefore, impugned directions passed for the

stated violations of insider trading regulations do not suffer from any

error.

19. Given the above factors, the overwhelming evidence available on

record proving infraction of law and the case law involved, we do not find

any reason to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal, therefore,

fails and is dismissed with no orders on costs. The appellant is directed to

pay the disgorged amount, along with interest, within 30 days from the

date of this order. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications are also

disposed of.

20. The present matter was heard through video conference due to

Covid-19 pandemic. At this stage it is not possible to sign a copy of this

order nor a certified copy of this order could be issued by the Registry. In

these circumstances, this order will be digitally signed by the Private

Secretary on behalf of the bench and all concerned parties are directed to

act on the digitally signed copy of this order. Parties will act on

production of a digitally signed copy sent by fax and/or email.

Justice Tarun Agarwala RAJALAKSH Digitally signed by RAJALAKSHMI H NAIR Presiding Officer MI H NAIR Date: 2021.01.19 16:45:34 +05'30'

Dr. C. K. G. Nair Member 22

Justice M. T. Joshi Judicial Member 19.01.2021 PTM