Ramaswamy Kuchana vs Sebi

utilized for the purposes other than disclosed in the

offer document.

4. Therefore, it was alleged that the TSL, Pavan Kuchana

and Ramaswamy Kuchana violated provisions of Section

12A(a), (b) and (c) of SEBI Act, 1992 read with Regulations 3

(a), (b), (c), (d), 4(1), 4(2), (a), (d), (e), (f), (k) and (r) of the

SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practice

relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 ("PFUTP

Regulations" for short) and also Regulations 57 (1), 58(1), 60

(1), 60 (4)(a), 60 (7)(a), 57 (2)(a), Clauses 2 (VII)(B)(4),

(2)(VII)(G), 2(IX) (12) and 2 (XVI)(B)(2) of Part A of Schedule

VIII and Clause (IX) of Part D of Schedule VIII of SEBI (Issue

Of Capital And Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2009

("ICDR Regulations" for short). Durga Kuchana and Ravi

Kusum were associated/ involved/ created/ incorporated 8

fictitious entities as vendors/ clients of TSL in the USA and

these vendors/ clients were used to siphon off the IPO proceeds,

which were later recorded as expenditure and revenue.

Accordingly, they have violated provisions of Section 12A(a),

(b) and (c) of the SEBI Act read with Regulations 3(b), (c) and

(d), Regulations 4(1), 4(2)(e), (k) and (r) of the PFUTP

Regulations, 2003.

5. Learned counsel Shri Ankit Lohia, appearing for

Appellant Pawan Kuchana in Appeal No. 70 of 2019, contended

that there are some inadvertent defects in the offer documents

which crept in because of a "cut and paste" job done by the

Merchant Banker. For evidence, it was contended that, records

itself states that while TSL had employees in the „United States,

Europe and other Countries‟ the latter two crept in the offer

documents inadvertently. Moreover, the Merchant Banker had

admitted to such inadvertent mistakes also. Similarly, it was

contended that the allegation of transactions with a KMP of

TSL is not correct since the said KMP had resigned prior to the

alleged transactions and even before the IPO itself. Similar

contention was taken with respect to the charge of related party

transactions where it was contended that the mother-in-law of

the MD who is alleged to be a Director with a related party had 9

also resigned before the alleged transactions. As far as the

charge of siphoning off of funds to various entities the learned

counsel submitted that it was because of the unwillingness of

SEBI to accept its contention that TSL made all efforts to get

back Rs. 23 crores given to Silverpoint. TSL had written to both

Silverpoint as well as the technology company which it planned

to acquire as part of the proposed expansion of business.

Similar arguments have been made in respect of other

allegations that sufficient documentary evidence was given to

SEBI to prove the veracity regarding inter-corporate loan,

acquisition of property and companies etc. which SEBI has not

considered while passing the impugned order. The learned

counsel, however, fairly admitted that all the facts and figures

given in the impugned order are correct, only that the

submissions and interpretations made by the appellant were not

accepted which if considered would have resulted in much less

penalty on the appellant instead of more than 9 years restraint

imposed on him.

Appeal No. 186 of 2018

6. The learned counsel Ms. H. V. Tamana, appearing for

appellant, Durga Kuchana contended that it is a fact that the

appellant was instrumental in incorporating four entities in the

US. This was done on the instructions of her husband, Pawan, 10

who was MD of TSL. These four entities were incorporated

with the help of Ravi Kusum during 1st and 2nd March, 2011 but

between 8th and 12th March, 2011 itself these companies were

transferred to different entities with whom she had no

connection; neither she has any connection to these companies

after the transfer. Though, she continued to remain a promoter

to TSL, she had no role in its management or operation as such

just because of being a party to incorporating a few companies

in the US legally she cannot be held to be liable for any wrong

doing because of being a namesake promoter of TSL and in no

way can she be punished under the stringent provisions of the

PFUTP Regulations, 2003.

Appeal No. 187 of 2018

7. The learned counsel Shri Shikhar Sthapak, appearing for

the appellant Ramaswamy Kuchana, contended that the

appellant herein (who is the father of the Appellant No. 2 in

Appeal No. 70 of 2019 who was the MD of TSL) joined the

company as a Director on the request of his son. Other than

being a Director he had no functional/ operational role in the

affairs of the company nor was involved in any way in the

alleged transfer/ siphoning off of funds etc. It was also

contended that the impugned order in paragraph 70 itself has

noted that "the show cause notice has not brought out any 11

specific role played by him in the manipulative activities

indulged into by Pavan Kuchana and others". Therefore it was

contended by the learned counsel that the appellant deserved to

be discharged fully from any wrong doings, as alleged in the

impugned order.

Appeal No. 188 of 2018

8. The learned counsel Shri Saurabh Bacchawat, appearing

for the appellant Ravi Kusum contended that the appellant was

the Vice President (Business Development) of TSL at the

relevant time and worked with company from September 2000

to January 2014. He was instrumental in incorporating four

companies in his name and four companies in the name of

Durga Kuchana and the said companies were transferred to

other entities shortly thereafter. However, he admitted that

certain blank cheques were given from the account of Kyros

Tech Systems Inc., one of the companies incorporated by Durga

Kuchana and where he was the authorised signatory to operate

the bank account. Therefore, it is the contention of this

appellant that apart from incorporating companies on the

instructions of his Managing Director, Pavan Kuchana in his

name and in the name of Durga Kuchana he had no other role in

the alleged violations.

12

9. We have also heard Shri Gaurav Joshi, learned senior

counsel appearing for SEBI who guided us through the detailed

findings in the impugned order such as how ICDs worth several

crores was given to entities with a networth of just a few lakh

rupees; how the appellant-company and its directors and other

appellants were instrumental in creating a web of entities in the

United States which have similar names, website address etc. as

detailed in the impugned order and also how funds/IPO

proceeds were transferred to these entities. These tell-tale

details are given in paragraphs 43 to 49 of the impugned order.

The learned senior counsel also submitted that for the disclosure

violations concerned the Merchant Banker was also penalized

through a different order.

10. Learned senior counsel for SEBI also placed reliance on

the orders of this Tribunal in P.G. Electroplast Ltd. vs. SEBI

(Appeal No. 144 of 2014 decided on 30.08.2016, Brooks

Laboratories Ltd. & Ors. vs. SEBI (Appeal No. 246 of 2015

decided on 21.03.2018 and Bharatiya Global Infomedia Ltd. &

Ors. vs. SEBI (Appeal No. 481 of 2016 decided on 25.06.2019)

to emphasis their contentions that ICDs are „bridge loans‟ and it

is mandatory to make disclosures relating to the same in the 13

offer documents and failure to disclose the same as such is

manipulative and hence would fall under PFUTP violations.

11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after

perusing the records before us, we are constrained to state that

the violation graphically described in the impugned order is not

only of a very serious magnitude but also would fall in a rare

category of extreme manipulation. It is a clear case of a

company and some of the associated entities

[promoters/Directors/Officials] clearly playing out a well

crafted strategy of fraud in trying to depict the company as a big

player in the area of technology and therefore by presenting a

rosy, bombastic profile of having global operations and with

further plans for Indian and global expansion through

acquisition etc. The company, however, went into liquidation

within 8 years of such a high profile IPO. From the way the

issue documents were drafted, we have no doubt that the

disclosures made in term of operations in "Europe and other

Countries" or regarding "global expansion plans" are

deliberately made to woo investors with the IPO. Therefore,

there is no merit in the arguments by the learned counsel for the

appellant in Appeal No. 70 of 2019 that the alleged disclosure

violations were the mistakes arising from a „cut and paste‟ job 14

of the Merchant Banker. In fact on specific query from the

Bench regarding operations in the US prior to the issue of IPO it

was admitted that there were only some clients, neither officials

nor operations in the strict sense of those terms.

12. As regards the findings in the impugned order regarding

multiple other violations relating to misuse of funds such as for

development of SEZ centre; non-disclosure of ICD transactions

with various entities such as Silverpoint and WTPL; related

party transactions; manipulation of books of accounts; using

foreign entities established by the some of the appellants/

noticees for siphoning off of funds etc. the evidence relating to

such violations is so crystal clear that the fraud committed by

the parties herein is of an extra-ordinary nature and strategically

planned. Virtually the entire IPO proceeds have been

misutilized by the various fraudulent schemes after mobilising

more than Rs. 82 crores through the IPO, by painting a rosy

picture of TSL to start with.

13. The submission of Ramaswamy Kuchana (Appellant in

Appeal No. 187 of 2018) that he had no role in the manipulative

activities is admitted. However, that does not absolve him from

the role as a Director of TSL and hence the supervisory 15

responsibilities. Further, he was admittedly signatory to the

offer documents which were found to be misleading and

wanting in several aspects. In any case the impugned order has

considered that he had no role in the day to day management of

TSL and hence absolved him from any role in the fraud and as

such the restraint order imposed on him through the interim and

confirmatory orders has been revoked by the impugned order.

14. As regards the submissions of the appellants Pavan

Kuchana, Durga Kuchana and Ravi Kusum are concerned, we

consider them devoid of any merit. Pavan Kuchana as MD and

CEO of TSL was the mastermind behind the entire strategy and

scheme of fraud committed on the innocent investors by

hoisting an IPO and thereafter diverting virtually the entire

amount of proceeds for other than the purpose stated, including

to entities abroad which, based on the records available, are

undoubtedly front entities of the appellant. Durga Kuchana as a

connected entity and a promoter and who was instrumental in

setting up four entities abroad and thereby enabling the transfer

of funds by TSL and appellant Ravi Kusum as a senior official

of TSL who was instrumental in incorporating eight entities

abroad, including by helping Durga Kuchana in setting up four

of them, which were found to be front entities set up with the 16

help of TSL in the manipulative scheme cannot be absolved of

the charges leveled against them and as held in the impugned

order. They even continued to operate the bank accounts of

some of these entities as subsequent to their „transfer‟ as

claimed by these appellants, cheques signed by these appellants

have been issued by those entities. Appellants‟ submission that

they were post-dated cheques signed by them does not have any

merit in the given facts and circumstances and with

overwhelming evidence of fraud available in the impugned

order. On the charge of diversion of funds, some of the details

as in the impugned order are reproduced below:-

"39. It has been alleged in the SCN that there were circular movement of funds between suppliers, TSL and its clients in the garb of vendor/client payment and receipts which resulted in incremental revenue on the one hand and corresponding inflation of profitability of TSL on the other. In this process, IPO money was also alleged to be siphoned off. It has been also alleged that the entities amongst whom the IPO proceeds were churned were entities connected to TSL as they were created by Pavan Kuchana, Durga Kuchana, Kamal Kuchana and Ravi Kusum and they were themselves the bank account signatories of these companies.

40. The list of clients and vendors (16 clients and 4 vendors) was provided by TSL during the investigation. On the basis of analysis of further details obtained during the investigation about these clients and vendors, it has been observed in the SCN that the address of most of the clients and vendors, their website creation dates, 17

website contents etc. were similar. The similarities are summarized as under:

Table - 3

Sl. Name Client/ Address Website Website Website No. vendor as per registratio registered by list provided n date by TSL

1. Ami Client 325 Cranbury NJ - www.amitechin 31.05.11 Taksheel Technologies 08540 c.com Solutions Inc. Limited

2. Cvcox Client 3240 E State Street www.cvcoxnet 31.05.11 Networks Ext, Hamilton worksinc.com Inc. New Jersey 08619

3. Ermin Client 3240 E State Street www.ermintec 31.05.11 Technologies Ext, Hamilton hinc.com Inc. New Jersey 08619

4. Fausta Client 3240 E State Street www.faustasoft 31.05.11 Software Ext Hamilton New solinc.com Solutions Jersey 08619 Inc.

5. Rasax Soft Client 3240 E State Street www.rasaxsofti 31.05.11 Inc. Ext Hamilton New nc.com Jersey 08619

6. Cyma Vendor 3240 E State Street www.cymanets 31.05.11 Network Ext, Hamilton ol.com Solutions New Jersey 08619 Inc. USA

7. Helia Vendor 3240 E State Street www.heliasofts 31.05.11 Software Ext, Hamilton olinc.com.

Solutions New Jersey 08619 Inc. 8. Kyros Tech Vendor 3240 E State Street www.kyrostech 31.05.11 Systems Inc. Ext Hamilton New sysinc.com Jersey 08619 USA 9. Crest Vendor 2540 US Highway www.crestsol.c 26.11.11 TSL Solutions 130 Suite 101 om through Inc. Cranbury New Virtu Tech Jersey 08512 Solutions 10. Felix Client 4 Cotton Woods www.felixtechi 26.11.11 Pvt. Ltd. Technologies Drive Westwindor nc.com Inc. NJ 08550 11. Lorven Client 1006 Manhattan www.lorvenph 26.11.11 Pharmacy Avenue arma.com

Brooklyn NY 11222 12. Naras Client 5L Reading Road www.narastech 26.11.11 Technologies Edison NJ 08817 inc.com Inc. 13. Vemury Client 465, Meadow www.vemurysy 26.11.11 Systems Inc. Road #7105 s.com Princeton NJ 08540 14. Avalon Tech Client 1075 Easton www.avalontec 26.11.11 18

Systems Inc. Avenue Tower 2 hsys.com Suite Sommerset NJ

41. It has been also brought out in the SCN that the contents of the websites of entities at Sl.

No. 1 to 8 in the table 3 above were similar. All these websites had 4 links (Home, Ourselves, Technology and Contact Us). The contents of each of these links provided in the websites were same across all these websites. For instance, under the weblink "Ourselves", all of the webpages wrote that "...over 70% of ...

candidates are sourced from referrals". In the Technology page, all these websites had a write up which stated that the company ".... Will meet with key business leaders to determine a hiring strategy that supports (client's) specific environment...." All the websites also claimed that the company "... helps its clients in planning, implementing and upgrading various ERP Technologies including SAP, Oracle...." Further, apart from the address, no other contact details such as phone numbers, email ids etc. were provided on the web-pages of any of these entities. With regard to websites of 6 entities (from Sl. No. 9 to14 in table 3), it has been mentioned in the SCN that they were registered by TSL through Virtu Tech Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (a company based in Hyderabad) on November 26, 2011, i.e. two days after TSL received SEBI summons to provide complete details about its clients and vendors and payments for the same were made by TSL.

43. The SCN mentions that many of the vendors and clients of TSL were created by Pavan Kuchana, the MD of TSL, Smt. Durga Kuchana, wife of Pavan Kuchana, Ravi Kusam, VP-

Business Development of TSL and Kamal Kuchana, one of the promoters of TSL and brother of Pavan Kuchana. It has been also brought out that Durga Kuchana and Ravi Kusum were shareholders of many of these companies. Ravi Kusum, Durga Kuchana or Pavan Kuchana were the bank account 19

signatories of the companies mentioned at Serial no. 1 to 10 of Table 3. The details of such clients/vendors of TSL are as under:

Table - 4 Sl. Entity Name Relation- Bank Role / Bank Account Account Name of No ship Account designation Name No opened Shareholder with signatory date name Taksheel (DD/MM/Y Y)

1. AMI Client Ravi Director/ Sovereign 842356800/ Ravi Technologies Kusam Incorporator Bank 511065132 Kusum Inc. (200 shares)

2. CV COX Client Durga Sovereign 511065108/ 03/03/20 Durga Networks Kuchana Bank 842356762 11/3/3/1 Kuchana Inc. 1

3. Ermin Client Ravi Secretary JP 922483771 11/03/11 Durga Technologies Kusam / Morgan Kuchana Inc. Treasurer Ravi Secretary Sovereign 1411115155 10/03/11 (200 Kusam Bank shares)

4. Fausta Client Durga Sovereign 842356754/ Durga Software Kuchana Bank 511065094 Kuchana Solutions Inc.

5. Rasax Soft Client Ravi President JP 970533311 10/03/11 Inc. Kusam Morgan

6. CYMA vendor Ravi President JP 970533386 10/03/11 Network Kusam Morgan Solutions Inc.

7. Helia vendor Ravi Director Sovereign 0842356797 Ravi Software Kusam Bank Kusum Solutions (200 Inc. shares)

8. Kyros Tech vendor Ravi Secretary JP 922483755 11/03/11 Durga Systems Inc. Kusam / Morgan Kuchana Treasurer (200 Ravi Authorise Sovereign 1411115147 10/03/11 shares) Kusam d by Bank Durga Kuchana

9. Crest vendor Ravi VP/ Bank of 3810290262 07/03/11 Solutions Kusam Secretary America 76 Inc.

10. Felix Client Pavan President Bank of 3810290261 technologies kuchana/ /VP America 37 Inc. Ravi &Secretar Kusam y

11. Alagya Client/ Kamal President Bank of 3817329214 08/11/06 Technoligies vendor Kuchana America Inc. Preeti Secretary JP 943789362 17/03/11 Mulbagal Morgan

45. On the basis of analysis of bank account statements of clients and vendors of TSL, as 20

obtained from Securities and Exchange Commission, USA, circular movement of funds between TSL and its clients and vendors (mentioned at Sl. No 1 to 10 in the table above) have been brought out in the SCN. TSL utilised the IPO money to make transfer of funds to its vendors and part of it came back to it in the garb of receipts from clients. After receipt of the IPO money, TSL utilised them to repay the loan amount of ` 34.50 crore raised by it through ICD from different entities during May 2011, June 2011 and September 2011. From the amounts raised through ICD, an amount of ` 30.15 Crore was transferred to Helia Software Solutions Inc., Crest Solutions Inc., CYMA Network Solutions Inc. and Kyros Tech Systems Inc. as vendor payments. Apart from the transfer of ` 30.15 crore to the aforesaid four purported vendors of TSL, an amount of ` 5.30 crore was also transferred to them on December 13, 2011 from the IPO proceeds. The details of funds transfer and its further movement as brought out in the SCN are as follows.

A. TSL after raising the loan through ICDs in the month of May 2011, June 2011 and September 2011, immediately transferred ` 30.15 crore (i.e. $66,66,069) to the entities located in USA as "vendor payments" through its Account No. 039651100001144 with IDBI Bank in Mumbai. The details are as follows.

Table - 5 - Transfer of ICD proceeds by TSL

Accnt Sl. Name of the Name of the Transferred Transferred No. entity bank in which Account No. Amount (` amount ($ it maintained in crore) in lac) account 0511065140,Helia Software Soverign Bank

1. Solutions Inc., 0511065140, 8.39 18.52 USA 381029026276

2. Crest Solutions Bank of 381029026276 5.05 11.20 Inc., USA America

3. CYMA Network JP Morgan Solutions Inc., Chase 970533386 6.50 14.43 USA

4. Kyros tech JP Morgan Systems Inc., Chase 922483755, 10.21 22.51 USA 21

Total 30.15 66.66

The further movement of funds, from the amount of ` 30.15 crore transferred to the aforesaid vendors of TSL, to other entities are detailed as follows.

Crest Solutions Inc. - Crest Solutions Inc. received ` 5.04 crore ($11,20,387) in the month of May 2011 from TSL, prior to which there was a negligible balance of $295 in its account. Crest transferred $3,10,545 to Ermin Technologies on May 13, 2011 and $8,06,421 to Felix Technologies Inc. in the month of May- June 2011. The entire amount credited in Ermin's account was transferred to 2 entities namely Asia Rich Ventures Ltd. and East Fortune Industrial Ltd. Felix after receipt of credit of $8,06,321 in its account from Crest transferred $3,31,240 (` 1.49 Crore) to TSL (IDBI Bank Account). TSL accounted for the same as revenue. Prior to the credit from Crest, Felix maintained a negligible credit balance of $238. Felix also transferred $1,50,105 (` 67 lakh) to bank account of Pavan Kuchana maintained with Axis Bank. Out of this, an amount ` 55 lakh was transferred by Shri Pavan Kuchana to Verisoft Business Solutions which in turn transferred this amount to Wise Link Technology and to TSL. The remaining amount with Felix was transferred to Asia Rich Venture ($1,92,128 on June 6, 2011) and to East Fortune Industrial Ltd ($1,31,125 on May 18, 2011). The entities Asia Rich ventures and East Fortune Industrial are not located either in India or in USA. Thus, out of ` 5.04 crore an amount of ` 1.49 crore was received by TSL from its client Felix and shown as revenue in its books. It is also relevant to mention here that Pavan Kuchana and Ravi Kusam are the bank account signatories of Felix.

22

48. At the outset, it is unheard of that the directors/employees of an Indian software company would float companies abroad for their clients and vendors by partaking in holding their shares as well as operationalizing the company by opening bank accounts for them and thereafter end up transferring the companies/entities to foreign clients totally. In the process, I find that the clients enter the picture as transferees, according to TSL's version. This explanation for the fund flow and existence of such companies from which the transactions are evidenced as clients/vendors are merely imaginary and not supported by any document. In any case, it does not stand to logic that TSL will have to transfer funds to the clients, shown at Table 3. In my view, the transfer of funds is only justifiable through connections with those clients. With regard to TSL's submission that the companies were transferred to others, it is observed that the purported "minutes of shareholder's meeting"

of such companies floated abroad were recorded on a plain sheet of paper and were signed by either Ravi Kusum or Durga Kuchana. The share transfer document provides the name of the transferee and an identification number of the assignee. In order to get further details and verify the genuineness of these companies, communications were sent to them during the course of the investigation. These communications returned undelivered and no registered agent or contact person associated with these companies could be contacted. The return of the unserved letters confirms the doubt about the existence and genuineness of these entities. Further, during the course of hearing on April 12, 2017, in order to verify the claim made by Noticees that these are genuine companies and TSL was having business relationships with these companies, TSL was advised to furnish the pre-incorporation communications between them and the present address of these companies. Pavan Kuchana, vide e-mail dated April 14, 2017, provided 23

addresses of some of the entities, with a caveat that these addresses may not be authentic as most of his clients and vendors have refused to work with him subsequently. Further, no details or copy of any communication which took place between Pavan Kuchana and the transferees before incorporation of the companies on their behalf have been provided. It is observed that clients or vendors of TSL mentioned at Sl. No. 1 to 8 of Table 3 were created by TSL and these companies could not be contacted during the investigation or by Pavan Kuchana even though he is claiming to have business relationship with them. In such circumstances, it does not appear that these companies were functioning independently or were having their own clients or business. Further, the noticees have also not submitted details of any proof of consideration received from these transferees for transferring the company or expenses of incorporation and creation of websites, etc. It can thus be concluded that these companies are book companies, not carrying on any independent business, set up by the promoters/directors of TSL for the sole purpose of reflecting them as clients/vendors of TSL and for supporting fictitious accounting entries in the books of accounts of TSL.

49. Incidentally, the SCN mentions that Ravi Kusum has signed a cheque for Kyros Tech Systems Inc. on March 31, 2011 which was issued in favour of Felix technologies Inc. It has been submitted by Pavan Kuchana that all banking passwords and related information were given to the transferee of each concerned company along with signed and undated cheque. From Table 4 above, it is seen that Pavan Kuchana, his wife Durga Kuchana and Ravi Kusum are the bank account signatories of the companies at Sl. No. 1 to 10 of the table, including Kyros. The Noticees have submitted that Kyros and other such companies were created at the instance of Pavan Kuchana for 24

transferring them to others. However, the submissions of the Noticees do not appear bonafide because there is no possibility of these companies having commenced any operations before or at the time of transfer. Thus, the explanation advanced by the Noticees that as part of the transfer of the company to respective transferees some undated blank cheques were signed and handed over to them is far from being credible and satisfactory............

69. It has been found earlier that TSL and its directors have intentionally made various mis- statements in the offer document in order to project far rosier picture of its business presence and prospects and its financials in violation of the various provisions of SEBI (ICDR) Regulations, 2009. It is noted that TSL and its directors utilised ` 34.50 crore from the IPO proceeds, constituting 43% of the amount raised through IPO, to repay the loan raised in the form of ICD without giving any hint about it in the offer document to the investors. It made advance payment of ` 5.075 crore to WTPL from the IPO proceeds, which was a related party transaction and a material information, without making proper disclosure about it. Pavan Kuchana also suppressed material information about transferring 50 lakh shares of TSL for consideration other than cash to a company in which his relatives were directors. It is also noted that the IPO money was not utilised for the stated objects. It is noted that ` 9.15 crore (11.09% of IPO proceeds) was demarcated to develop new SEZ centre at Hyderabad.

However, from the submissions made, TSL has not made any effort nor progressed with respect to the said stated objects in the offer document, which is a clear case of departure from the disclosed use of funds in the offer document. Thus, the manner in which various material information was suppressed and a major part of IPO proceeds utilised for the objects other than those stated in the prospectus, it appears that the directors and relatives of TSL had pre-planned 25

to benefit from the IPO money at the cost of innocent investors."

15. Given the above facts, evidence and reasons we do

not find merit in any of the 4 appeals. Accordingly all

appeals fail and are dismissed with no orders on costs.

16. This Order has been pronounced through video

conference due to Covid-19 pandemic, since the matter had

been reserved only a few days prior to the lockdown. At this

stage, it is neither 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 Presiding Officer 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 Digitally signed by TARUN AGARWAL DN: c=IN, o=PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT UTTAR PRADESH, postalCode=221505, Presiding Officer TARUN AGARWAL st=Uttar Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=30fcf68685192bbc53e6ff1608a83fb3881de7ac2ab7954d509c85ed6e0f7c4 1, serialNumber=095f8b286bb0b1cd07ff676611f4f5e7999727d404aa38ca422f9d3529 bdb8a3, cn=TARUN AGARWAL Date: 2020.10.26 15:26:44 +05'30'

Dr. C.K.G. Nair Member

Justice M. T. Joshi Judicial Member 26.10.2020 PK