R. V. Shekar & Ors. vs Sebi

Order Reserved On: 02.05.2018 Date of Decision : 28.05.2018

Appeal No. 265 of 2015

1.

Tarun Jiwarajka A-15, Amar Marg, Asola Homes Chhattarpur, New Delhi- 110 030

2. Ayush Jiwarajka A-15, Amar Marg, Asola Homes Chhattarpur, New Delhi- 110 030

3. Manori Properties Private Limited 201, 2nd Floor, Sumer Kendra Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Behind Mahindra Towers, Worli, Mumbai- 400 018

4. Savitri Devi Jiwarajka Representing the late Sitaram Jiwarajka 4, Munirka Marg, 3rd Floor, Vasant Vihar, Delhi- 110 057

5. Savitri Devi Jiwarajka Representing the late Sitaram Jiwarajka (HUF) 4, Munirka Marg, 3rd Floor, Vasant Vihar, Delhi- 110 057

6. Gopal Kumar Jiwarajka A-15, Fatehpur Road, Asola Village Near Chhattarpur Mandir New Delhi- 110 030

7. Gopal Kumar Jiwarajka (HUF) A-15, Fatehpur Road, Asola Village Near Chhattarpur Mandir New Delhi- 110 030

8. Savitri Devi Jiwarajka 4, Munirka Marg, 3rd Floor, Vasant Vihar, Delhi- 110 057 2

9. Ms. Neetu Jiwarajka A-15, Fatehpur Road, Asola Village Near Chhattarpur Mandir New Delhi- 110 030

10. P. N. Mehta 90, Anand Lok, New Delhi- 110 049 ...Appellants

Versus

Securities and Exchange Board of India, SEBI Bhavan, Plot No. C-4A, G-Block, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400 051 ...Respondent

Mr. Somasekhar Sundaresan, Advocate with Mr. Abhishek Venkataraman, Mr. Akash Joshi, Ms. Stuti Shah, Advocates i/b J. Sagar Associates for Appellants.

Mr. Pradeep Sancheti, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mihir Mody and Mr. Nishant Upadhyay, Advocates i/b K. Ashar & Co. for the Respondent.

WITH Appeal No. 489 of 2015

1. Rajratan Investments Limited

2. Shri. Chandmahal Chordia

3. Ms. Shantadevi Chordia

4. Shri. Chandanmal Rajmal HUF

5. Shri Sunil Chordia

6. Rajratan Resources Pvt. Ltd.

7. Ms. Sangita Sunil Chordia

8. Shri. Yashovardhan Chordia

9. Ms. Baby Shubhika Chordia

10. Sunil Chandanmal HUF Address for Appellant Nos. 1 to 10 'Rajratan House' 11/2 Meera Path Dhenu Market, Indore- 452 003 ...Appellants 3

Versus

Securities and Exchange Board of India, SEBI Bhavan, Plot No. C-4A, G-Block, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400 051 ...Respondent

Ms. Harshada Nagare, Advocate i/b Joby Mathew & Associates for Appellants.

Mr. Kumar Desai, Advocate with Mr. Tomu Francis and Mr. Vivek Shah, Advocates for the Respondent.

WITH Appeal No. 128 of 2016

Walchand Kamdhenu Commercials Pvt. Ltd.

Neela House, 2nd Floor, M.L. Dahanukar Marg, Mumbai- 400 026 ...Appellant

Versus

Securities and Exchange Board of India, SEBI Bhavan, Plot No. C-4A, G-Block, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400 051 ...Respondent

Mr. J. J. Bhatt, Advocate with Ms. Rinku Valanju and Mr. Akshit Jain, Advocates i/b R. V. Legal for the Appellant.

Mr. Rajesh Nagory, Advocate with Mr. Tomu Francis and Mr. Vivek Shah, Advocates for the Respondent.

WITH Appeal No. 130 of 2016

1. Chakor L. Doshi 534, Sardar Vallabbhai Patel Road, Mumbai- 400 007

2. Champa Chakor Doshi 534, Sardar Vallabbhai Patel Road, Mumbai- 400 007

3. Sharayu Daftary 534, Sardar Vallabbhai Patel Road, Mumbai- 400 007 4

4. Walchand Chiranika Trading Pvt. Ltd. Neela House, 2nd Floor, M.L. Dahanukar Marg, Mumbai- 400 026

5. Walchand Great Achievers Pvt. Ltd.

Neela House, 2nd Floor, M.L. Dahanukar Marg, Mumbai- 400 026

6. Walchandnagar Industries Ltd.

3, Walchand Terraces, Tardeo Road Mumbai- 400 034 ...Appellants Versus

Securities and Exchange Board of India, SEBI Bhavan, Plot No. C-4A, G-Block, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400 051 ...Respondent

Mr. J. J. Bhatt, Advocate with Ms. Rinku Valanju and Mr. Akshit Jain, Advocates i/b R. V. Legal for the Appellant.

Mr. Rajesh Nagory, Advocate with Mr. Tomu Francis and Mr. Vivek Shah, Advocates for the Respondent.

WITH Appeal No. 157 of 2017

1. Mr. Asit Mehta 17A, Abhilasha Building, August Kranti Marg, Mumbai- 400 036

2. Mrs. Deena Mehta C/o Nucleus House, Saki Vihar Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai 400 072

3. Asit C Mehta Forex Private Limited Nucleus House, Saki Vihar Road, Andheri (East) Mumbai- 400 072

4. Asit C Mehta Commodity Services Private Limited Nucleus House, Saki Vihar Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai- 400 072 5

5. Aditya Asit Mehta C/o Nucleus House, Saki Vihar Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai- 400 072

6. Gopa Jayesh Desai C/o Nucleus House, Saki Vihar Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai- 400 072

7. Rupa Atul Shah C/o Nucleus House, Saki Vihar Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai- 400 072

8. Shobhnaben Thakorbhai Desai C/o Nucleus House, Saki Vihar Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai- 400 072

9. Asit Chimanlal Mehta- HUF C/o Nucleus House, Saki Vihar Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai- 400 072

10. Jayesh T Desai-HUF C/o Nucleus House, Saki Vihar Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai- 400 072 ...Appellants

Versus

Securities and Exchange Board of India, SEBI Bhavan, Plot No. C-4A, G-Block, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400 051 ...Respondent

Mr. Somasekhar Sundaresan, Advocate with Mr. Abhishek Venkataraman, Mr. Akash Joshi, Ms. Stuti Shah, Advocates i/b J. Sagar Associates for Appellants.

Mr. Pradeep Sancheti, Senior Advocate with Mr. Tomu Francis and Mr. Vivek Shah, Advocates for the Respondent. 6

AND Appeal No. 351 of 2017

1. R. V. Shekar

2. Shyamala Shekar

3. Sangeetha Shekar

4. Shwetha Shekar

Address for Appellant Nos. 1 to 4 VTN Square, 2nd Floor, 58, G N Chetty Road, T. Nagar, Chennai- 600 017 ...Appellants

Versus Securities and Exchange Board of India, SEBI Bhavan, Plot No. C-4A, G-Block, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400 051 ...Respondent

Mr. Somasekhar Sundaresan, Advocate with Mr. Abhishek Venkataraman, Advocate i/b G. M. Kapadia & Co., Chartered Accountants for the Appellants.

Mr. Pradeep Sancheti, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mihir Mody and Mr. Nishant Upadhyay, Advocates i/b K. Ashar & Co. for the Respondent.

CORAM: Justice J.P. Devadhar, Presiding Officer Dr. C.K.G. Nair, Member

Per: Justice J.P. Devadhar

1. In all these appeals, basically two questions of law are raised. They

are:-

a) Whether the second proviso to regulation 11(2) of the

Securities and Exchange Board of India (Substantial

Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 7

1997 ("1997 Regulations" for short) permits an

acquirer covered under regulation 11(2) of the 1997

Regulations to acquire additional shares without

making public announcement of an open offer,

entitling additional voting rights only up to 5% of the

total voting rights of the target company.

b) Whether the expression 'bulk deal' in the second

proviso to regulation 11(2) of the 1997 Regulations

disentitles the acquirer covered under regulation 11(2)

from acquiring additional shares entitling up to 5% of

voting rights without making open offer, if additional

shares are acquired in excess of 0.5% shares of the

target company by a single transaction executed

during the day in the normal market segment.

2. First question of law framed above arises only in Appeal No. 265

of 2015, whereas, the second question of law arises in all appeals

including Appeal No. 265 of 2015. To put it simply, in the order

impugned in Appeal No. 265 of 2015, the WTM has held that the

appellants therein have violated regulation 11(2) of 1997 Regulations,

firstly, by acquiring additional shares entitling more than 5% voting

rights without making open offer and secondly they have violated second

proviso to regulation 11(2) by acquiring additional shares in bulk deal,

that is, acquisition of more than 0.5% shares through the transactions

executed during the day in the normal market segment. In the orders

impugned in other appeals the WTM has held that the appellants therein 8

have violated the second proviso to regulation 11(2) by acquiring shares

in bulk deal that is acquisition of more than 0.5% shares through the

transactions executed during the day in the normal market segment.

Since questions raised are common, all these appeals are heard together

and disposed of by this common decision.

3. Before considering the rival contentions it would be appropriate to

quote regulation 11(2) of the 1997 Regulations, as it stood at the relevant

time:-

"Consolidation of holdings.

11(2) No acquirer, who together with persons acting in concert with him holds, fifty-five per cent (55%) or more but less than seventy five per cent (75%) of the shares or voting rights in a target company, shall acquire either by himself or through persons acting in concert with him any additional shares or voting rights therein, unless he makes a public announcement to acquire shares in accordance with these Regulations:

Provided that in a case where the target company had obtained listing of its shares by making an offer of at least ten per cent (10%) of issue size to the public in terms of clause (b) of sub-rule (2) of rule 19 of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Rules, 1957, or in terms of any relaxation granted from strict enforcement of the said rule, this sub- regulation shall apply as if for the words and figures 'seventy-five per cent (75%)', the words and figures 'ninety per cent (90%)' were substituted.

9 Provided further that such acquirer may, without making a public announcement under these Regulations, acquire, either by himself or through or with persons acting in concert with him, additional shares or voting rights entitling him up to five per cent. (5%) voting rights in the target company subject to the following:-

(i) the acquisition is made through open market purchase in normal segment on the stock exchange but not through bulk deal/ block deal/ negotiated deal/ preferential allotment; or the increase in the shareholding or voting rights of the acquirer is pursuant to a buy back of shares by the target company;

(ii) the post acquisition shareholding of the acquirer together with persons acting in concert with him shall not increase beyond seventy five per cent. (75%).

4. It is not in dispute that the appellants in all these appeals holding

more than 55% shares but less than 75% shares of the respective target

company had acquired additional shares of the respective target company

without making public announcement of open offer on ground that the

said acquisitions were within the permissible limits provided under the

second proviso to regulation 11(2) of the 1997 Regulations. However,

according to SEBI the said acquisitions were in violation of the

regulations framed by SEBI. Accordingly, SEBI initiated proceedings

and by the orders impugned in the respective appeals held that the 10

appellants are guilty of violating regulation 11(2) of the 1997 Regulations

and accordingly directed the appellants to make public announcement of

open offer within the time stipulated in the respective orders.

First question of law (raised only in Appeal No. 265 of 2015)

5. Appellants in Appeal No. 265 of 2015 holding 57.77% shares of

the target company had acquired additional shares to the extent of 4.95%

and 4.00% shares of the target company on 31.03.2009 and 19.05.2009

respectively. As a result, the shareholding of the appellants in Appeal

No. 265 of 2015 increased by 8.95% that is from 57.77% to 62.72% in

the Financial Year 2008-2009 and increased from 62.72% to 66.72% in

the Financial Year 2009-2010. Since additional shares entitling more

than 5% voting rights in the target company were acquired without

making open offer, by the impugned order dated 04.03.2015 the WTM of

SEBI has directed the appellants to make public announcement of open

offer in accordance with the provisions contained in the 1997

Regulations.

6. It is the case of the appellants in Appeal No. 265 of 2015 that due

to lack of clarity in the second proviso to regulation 11(2), they were

under the impression that the exemption from making open offer would

be available on acquisition of additional shares up to 5% in each financial

year. In support of the above contention, reliance is placed on SEBI

Board's note dated 27.10.2008. It is submitted that since regulation 11(1)

permits the acquirer specified therein to acquire additional shares

entitling them to exercise up to 5% of the voting rights in any financial 11

year ending on 31st March, the appellants were under the impression that

even under the second proviso to regulation 11(2) additional shares

entitling up to 5% voting rights in the target company could be acquired

without making any public announcement of open offer in each financial

year. It is only by issuing interpretative Circular on 06.08.2009 SEBI has

clarified that under the second proviso to regulation 11(2) additional

shares entitling maximum up to 5% of voting rights of the target

company could be acquired without making open offer. Since the

appellants had acquired additional shares in excess of the above limit

prior to the interpretative Circular dated 06.08.2009 it is submitted that

the appellants could not be said to have violated regulation 11(2) of the

1997 Regulations.

7. We see no merit in the above contentions.

8. Language used in the second proviso inserted to regulation 11(2)

with effect from 31.10.2008 does not even remotely suggest that

additional shares entitling more than 5% voting rights in the target

company could be acquired without making open offer in each financial

year. On the contrary, the second proviso to regulation 11(2) specifically

provides that additional shares entitling up to 5% voting rights of the

target company could be acquired without making open offer. Fact that

regulation 11(1) permitted the entities specified therein to acquire

additional shares entitling them to exercise up to 5% voting rights in the

target company in each financial year ending on 31 March could not be a

ground to presume that even under the second proviso to regulation 11(2) 12

additional shares entitling up to 5% voting rights in the target company

could be acquired in each financial year. It is relevant to note that the

language used in regulation 11(1) is that the entities specified therein

shall not acquire additional shares entitling to exercise more than 5%

voting rights of the target company in any financial year ending on 31 st

March without making open offer. Whereas, the language used in the

second proviso to regulation 11(2) is that the entities specified therein

may acquire additional shares entitling up to 5% voting rights in the

target company subject to the conditions set out therein. Thus, the

language used in regulation 11(1) and 11(2) being distinctively different,

appellants are not justified in contending that they were under the

impression that the language used in regulation 11(1) would be

applicable to the second proviso to regulation 11(2).

9. Reliance placed by the appellants on the SEBI Board's note dated

27.10.2008 is misplaced. After considering the said Board note dated

27.10.2008, SEBI deemed it fit to insert the second proviso to regulation

11(2) on 31.10.2008 without incorporating the proposal contained in the

Board note dated 27.10.2008. In such a case, it would be improper to

ignore the language used in the second proviso to regulation 11(2) and

place reliance on the SEBI Board's note dated 27.10.2008 which is not

accepted by the Board.

10. By the interpretative Circular dated 06.08.2009 issued under

regulation 5 of the 1997 Regulations read with Section 11 of the SEBI

Act, SEBI has merely clarified the provisions contained in the second 13

proviso to regulation 11(2). Since, the interpretative Circular dated

06.08.2009 has merely interpreted the second proviso to regulation 11(2)

as it always stood, it cannot be said the violation of regulation 11(2)

committed prior to 06.08.2009 are liable to be condoned. Therefore, the

appellants who had acquired additional shares entitling voting rights in

excess of 5% without making open offer were guilty of violating

regulation 11(2) of 1997 Regulations and hence no fault can be found

with the decision of the WTM of SEBI to that extent.

11. However, decision of the WTM of SEBI that the appellants must

make open offer within the time stipulated therein needs reconsideration

because, it is brought to our notice that in the case of Madhusudan

Jhunjhunwala & Ors, which is similar to the case of the appellants, the

WTM of SEBI by an order dated 05.09.2014 has held (see para 13 of the

said decision) that the acquisitions in violation of regulation 11(2) prior

to 06.08.2009 are entitled to benefit of doubt. Fact that the shares

acquired after 06.08.2009 were directed to be sold in the peculiar facts of

that case, would not come in the way of SEBI in reconsidering the

question as to why benefit of doubt should not be extended to the

appellants in relation to the acquisitions made prior to 06.08.2009.

12. In the present case, acquisitions made by the appellants in Appeal

No. 265 of 2015 in violation of regulation 11(2) relate to the period prior

to 06.08.2009. Therefore, if by order dated 05.09.2014 benefit of doubt

could be given to Madhusudan Jhunjhunwala & Ors. in respect of

additional shares acquired in violation of regulation 11(2) prior to 14

06.08.2009, there is no reason as to why the same benefit of doubt ought

not be extended to the appellants in Appeal No. 265 of 2015.

13. In the result, we answer the first question by holding that under the

second proviso to regulation 11(2), additional shares entitling voting

rights up to a maximum of 5% alone could be acquired without making

open offer. Since the appellants in Appeal No. 265 of 2015 had acquired

additional shares entitling more than 5% voting rights in the target

company in violation of regulation 11(2), appellants were liable to make

open offer. However, in view of the decision of WTM dated 04.09.2014

in case of Madhusudan Jhunjhunwala & Ors., we restore the issue for the

limited purpose of considering the question as to whether the benefit of

doubt extended to Madhusudan Jhunjhunwala & Ors. (Supra) in relation

to acquisitions in violation of regulation 11(2) on or before 06.08.2009

could be extended to the appellants in Appeal No. 265 of 2015 or not.

Second question of law (raised in all appeals including Appeal No. 265 of 2015)

14. In all the orders impugned in the respective appeals, the WTM of

SEBI has held that the exemption from making open offer under the

second proviso to regulation 11(2) on acquisition of additional shares

entitling up to 5% voting rights in the target company would not be

available if additional shares are acquired in 'bulk deal' that is, by

acquiring more than 0.5% shares through the transactions executed

during the day in the normal market segment. The WTM of SEBI has

arrived at the above conclusion by placing reliance on SEBI Circulars 15

dated 14.01.2004 and 02.09.2005. As the appellants in all these appeals

had acquired more than 0.5% shares of the target company during the

day, the WTM of SEBI has held that the said acquisitions constitute bulk

deal which is not permitted under the second proviso to regulation 11(2).

15. At the outset, it is relevant to note that the expression 'bulk deal' is

not defined under the 1997 Regulations. Therefore, the WTM of SEBI

has deemed it fit to place reliance on SEBI Circulars dated 14.01.2004

and 02.09.2005. In our opinion, even SEBI Circular dated 14.01.2004

does not define the expression 'bulk deal'. Clause 1.1 of the said

Circular dated 14.01.2004 merely records that with a view to imparting

transparency in bulk deals and to prevent rumours/ speculation about

such deals causing volatility in the scrip price it has been decided that

disclosure shall be made with respect to all transactions in a scrip where

total quantity of shares bought/ sold is more than 0.5% of the number of

equity shares of the company listed on the Stock Exchange. Thus, the

directions given in the Circular dated 14.01.2004 for disclosure of shares

bought/sold in excess of 0.5% shares of the company in the context of

imparting transparency in bulk deals cannot be a ground to hold that by

that Circular dated 14.01.2004 SEBI has defined the expression 'bulk

deal' for all purposes.

16. In the subsequent SEBI Circular dated 02.09.2005, it is however

stated that as per para 1.1 of Circular dated 14.01.2004, a 'bulk deal'

would be a transaction in a scrip (on an exchange) where total quantity of

shares bought/ sold is more than 0.5% of the number of equity shares of 16

the company listed on the Exchange and where the quantitative limit of

0.5% is reached through one or more transactions executed during the

day in the normal market segment. In our opinion, even the Circular

dated 02.09.2005 does not define the expression 'bulk deal' to be applied

generally for all purposes.

17. Assuming that acquisition of more than 0.5% shares during the day

constitutes 'bulk deal' under the SEBI Circulars dated 14.01.2004 and

02.09.2005, since the interpretative Circular issued by SEBI on

06.08.2009 specifically provides that under the second proviso to

regulation 11(2) additional shares up to a maximum of 5% voting rights

in the target company could be acquired in one or more tranches, it

becomes abundantly clear that under the second proviso to regulation

11(2), additional shares entitling up to a maximum 5% voting rights in

the target company could be acquired even by a single transaction during

the day. In view of the above interpretative Circular dated 06.08.2009,

the WTM of SEBI was not justified in taking into consideration the SEBI

Circulars dated 14.01.2004 and 02.09.2005 which are not comparable

with the interpretative Circular of SEBI dated 06.08.2009.

18. It is not the case of SEBI that the interpretative Circular dated

06.08.2009 which is quasi-judicial in nature was erroneously issued

without noticing the earlier Circulars issued on 14.01.2004 and

02.09.2005. Therefore, when the Circulars dated 14.01.2004 and

02.09.2005 were issued for the limited purpose of imposing disclosure

obligations, in the present case the WTM of SEBI was not justified in 17

seeking to nullify the clarification given in the interpretative Circular

dated 06.08.2009 by referring to the Circulars dated 14.01.2004 and

02.09.2005 which were issued totally in a different context.

19. It was contended on behalf of SEBI that the words 'in one or more

tranches' used in the interpretative Circular dated 06.08.2009 was in the

context of the question as to whether acquisition of shares entitling

voting rights up to 5% allowed under the second proviso to regulation

11(2) was only a one time measure or not and therefore, the appellants

are not justified in contending that under the second proviso to regulation

11(2) additional shares could be acquired by a single transaction. We see

no merit in the above contention, because the Memorandum No. 40 of

2009 dated 08.07.2009 (based on which the interpretative Circular dated

06.08.2009 was issued) clearly proposed, firstly, that under the second

proviso to regulation 11(2), additional shares or voting rights up to a

maximum of 5% could be acquired in one or more tranches and secondly

such acquisition shall not carry any restriction that it should be completed

within a specific period. Thus, the Memorandum dated 08.07.2009 as

also the interpretative Circular dated 06.08.2009 clearly postulate that

there was no time limit prescribed for acquiring additional shares up to a

maximum of 5% either by a single transaction or multiple transactions.

This view is also reflected in the SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares

and Takeovers) Regulations 2011, wherein no such restriction on

acquisition of shares in excess of 0.5% have been imposed. Therefore,

the argument advanced by SEBI to the contrary cannot be accepted. 18

20. Fact that the appellants in their letters/ reply had erroneously

admitted that by acquiring additional shares in excess of 0.5% they have

committed technical breach cannot be a ground to disregard the

clarification issued by SEBI vide interpretative Circular dated

06.08.2009. Similarly, fact that BSE and NSE have shown the

transactions of the appellants in the category of 'bulk deal' cannot be a

ground to deny the benefit of the second proviso to regulation 11(2)

especially in view of the interpretative Circular of SEBI dated

06.08.2009.

21. Accordingly, we answer the 2nd question by holding that as per the

second proviso to regulation 11(2) of the 1997 Regulations read with the

interpretative Circular issued by SEBI on 06.09.2009, an acquirer

covered under regulation 11(2) could acquire additional shares entitling

more than 0.5% voting rights in a single transaction up to a maximum of

5% voting rights without making an open offer.

22. In the result, we pass the following order:-

a) Under the second proviso to regulation 11(2) of the

1997 Regulations, an acquirer covered under

regulation 11(2) could, without making an open offer,

acquire additional shares entitling only up to a

maximum 5% voting rights of the target company.

Decision of SEBI on this issue is accordingly upheld. 19

b) Second proviso to regulation 11(2) of the 1997

Regulations read with the interpretative Circular

issued by SEBI on 06.08.2009, make it clear that an

acquirer covered under regulation 11(2) could acquire

additional shares entitling up to a maximum 5%

voting rights of the target company even by a single

transaction. In view of the above, decision of the

WTM of SEBI based on the SEBI Circulars dated

14.01.2004 and 02.09.2005 that appellants who had

acquired more than 0.5% shares during the day were

not entitled to be benefit under the second proviso to

regulation 11(2) cannot be sustained.

c) Accordingly, order impugned in Appeal No. 265 of

2015 is quashed and set aside and restored to the file

of WTM of SEBI for the limited purpose of

reconsidering the directions issued against the

appellants to make offer, in the light of decision of the

WTM of SEBI dated 05.09.2014 in the case of

Madhusudan Jhunjhunwala & Ors.

d) All other appeals are allowed by quashing the

decisions impugned in the respective appeals. 20

23. All the appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms with no order

as to costs.

Sd/-

Justice J.P. Devadhar Presiding Officer

Sd/-

Dr. C.K.G. Nair Member 28.05.2018 Prepared & Compared By: PK