Ruchi Soya Industries Limited vs Joint Commissioner Of Labour And Cess ...

Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd. ....Appellant

Vs.

Joint Commissioner of Labour And Class Cess Assessment Officer, Zone-II, Eluru & Anr. ....Respondents Present

For Appellant: Mr. Jayant K Mehta, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Simranjeet Singh, Mr. Kunal Vaishnav, Ms. Amrita Grover & Ms. Smiti Verma.

For Respondents: Mr. T. Kanaka Raju, for R-2.

With

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 69 of 2022

In the matter of:

Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd. ....Appellant

Vs.

Principal Commissioner of Customs & Anr. ....Respondents

Present

For Appellant: Mr. Jayant K Mehta, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Simranjeet Singh, Mr. Kunal Vaishnav, Ms. Amrita Grover & Ms. Smiti Verma.

For Respondents: Mr. Satish Kumar, for R-2. 2

With

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 70 of 2022

In the matter of:

Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd. ....Appellant

Vs.

The Collector, Alibaug & Ors. ....Respondents

Present

For Appellant: Mr. Jayant K Mehta, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Simranjeet Singh, Mr. Kunal Vaishnav, Ms. Amrita Grover & Ms. Smiti Verma.

For Respondents: None. With

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 71 of 2022

In the matter of:

Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd. ....Appellant

Vs.

Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax & Central Excise, Kutch (Gandhidham) ....Respondent Present

For Appellant: Mr. Jayant K Mehta, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Simranjeet Singh, Mr. Kunal Vaishnav, Ms. Amrita Grover & Ms. Smiti Verma.

For Respondent: Mr. Vijay Joshi, Advocate. Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) Nos. 68, 69, 70 & 71 of 2022 3

JUDGMENT

(03rd June, 2022)

Ashok Bhushan, J.

1. These Appeals have been filed by the same Appellant challenging the

common order dated 03.12.2021 passed by the Adjudicating Authority

(National Company Law Tribunal), Court-I, Mumbai Bench, in IA

Nos.111/2021, 1418/2021, 2562/2021 and 2577/2021 filed by the

Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA). Corporate Insolvency Resolution

Process (CIRP) was initiated against the Corporate Debtor- 'Ruchi Soya

Industries Limited' by order dated 08.12.2017. The facts and issues in all

these Appeals are similar, however, we need to notice few facts in each

Appeals separately.

2. In Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 68 of 2022, a notice dated

24.05.2018 was issued by the Respondent No.1- Joint Commissioner of

Labour and Cess Assessment Officer inter alia stating that the Appellant had

undertaken construction work for an estimated cost of construction of

Rs.77,30,030/- and failed to pay the 1% cess on the same. In response to the

above, the Appellant sent a demand draft of Rs.77,300/-. In the CIRP,

Resolution Plan was submitted by 'Patanjali Consortium' which was approved

by the Adjudicating Authority vide its order dated 24.07.2019 / 04.09.2019.

Letter dated 26.08.2020 was received from Respondent No.1 claiming that a

sum of Rs.76,52,730/- was outstanding which was asked to be paid within Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) Nos. 68, 69, 70 & 71 of 2022 4

seven days. A show-cause notice dated 01.06.2021 was issued by the

Respondent No.1 stating that the Appellant had failed to pay the cess amount

of Rs.76,52,730/-. Application being I.A 1418 of 2021 was filed by the

Appellant before the Adjudicating Authority challenging the illegal notice sent

by the Respondent No.1 which I.A was disposed of by impugned order dated

03.12.2021 observing that the Corporate Debtor has now been taken by

Patanjali Consortium, hence, after the approval of the Resolution Plan, these

matters be dealt with Monitoring Committee. The Applicant was directed to

take up the matter with the Monitoring Committee after the approval of the

Resolution Plan. Aggrieved by the said order, this Appeal has been filed.

3. In Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 69 of 2022, the order passed by

the Adjudicating Authority dated 03.12.2021 in I.A 2562/2021 has been

challenged. I.A No. 2562/2021 was filed by the Appellant for setting aside the

order dated 27.08.2020 passed by the Commissioner of Customs. In the I.A,

it was clear that the claim amounts relate to period 01.01.2013 to 31.03.2015

with regard to which no claim was filed in the CIRP. In the Interim Application,

it was prayed that as no claim has been filed, all claims prior to CIRP

Commencement Date shall stand extinguished. The Application was disposed

of by common order dated 03.12.2021.

4. In Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 70 of 2022, order dated

03.12.2021 rejecting I.A No.111/2021 has been challenged. By I.A No.

111/2021, the Appellant has prayed for quashing the notices/ report issued

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) Nos. 68, 69, 70 & 71 of 2022 5

by the Respondent under the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Land

Act, 1948. In the I.A, the Appellant has claimed that the notices and letters

have been issued on 28.02.2019 and 11.12.2019 respectively. During the

Moratorium period, the Talathi has conducted a survey of the land and

prepared a report on 28.02.2019. Allegation is that the Appellant has

breached the provisions of Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act,

1948. By the Application, the Appellant has prayed for quashing the notices

and reports.

5. In Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 71 of 2022, challenge is to the

order dated 03.12.2021 passed in I.A No. 2577/2021. I.A was filed with

respect to the order dated 30.07.2020 by which amount of Rs.3,69,62,268/-

is sought to be recovered which was alleged to have been re-credit wrongly

taken by the Appellant under the provisions of Notification dated 31.07.2001

read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Application was

disposed of by common order dated 03.12.2021.

6. We have heard Shri Jayant K Mehta, Sr. Advocate and Shri Kunal

Vaishnav, Learned Counsel for the Appellant. Shri T. Kanaka Raju, Regional

Vigilance and Enforcement Officer, Vjaywada has appeared in person for

Respondent in Company Appeal (AT) No. 68 of 2022. We have also heard Shri

Satish Kumar, Learned Counsel for the Respondents in Company Appeal (AT)

(Ins.) No.69 of 2022 and Shri Vijay Joshi, Learned Counsel for the

Respondents in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.71 of 2022. In Company

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) Nos. 68, 69, 70 & 71 of 2022 6

Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.70 of 2022, no one has appeared for the Respondents

despite service.

7. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that after approval of the

Resolution Plan, all claims of Operational Creditors and other claimants

including statutory authorities stood extinguished. By IAs filed before the

Adjudicating Authority, the Appellant has challenged the notices and

demands issued by the Respondents with regard to dues prior to Insolvency

Commencement Date which do not survive after approval of the Resolution

Plan. The Adjudicating Authority ought to have allowed the IAs filed before it

since no demand or recovery could have been pressed against the Corporate

Debtor for pre-Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process dues. Learned

Counsel for the Appellant has placed reliance on judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in "Ghanshyam Mishra & Ors. vs. Edelweiss Asset

Reconstruction Company- Civil Appeal No. 8129 of 2019" and the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 17.02.2022 in the matter of

the Corporate Debtor itself namely-- "Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd. vs. Union

of India- Civil Appeal No. 447-448 of 2013".

8. Shri T. Kanaka Raju, Respondent No.2 appearing in Company Appeal

(AT) No. 68 of 2022 submits that a report dated 12.03.2018 was submitted

about the non-payment of Labour Cess @1% against the Corporate Debtor.

1% Labour Cess to construction cost of Rs.77,30,03,000/- estimated, out of

which only Rs. 77,300/- was paid by the Corporate Debtor. Notice dated

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) Nos. 68, 69, 70 & 71 of 2022 7

24.05.2018 was issued by the Commissioner of Labour regarding 1% Cess on

estimated cost of construction. Subsequently, show-cause notices were also

issued by the Joint Labour Commissioner demanding labour cess of

76,52,730/- besides interest.

9. Shri Satish Kumar, Learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the

Respondent in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.69 of 2022 refers to an order

dated 27.08.2020 by which demand of Rs.1,77,23,493/- has been confirmed.

Apart from the imposition of penalty under the Custom Act, 1962, it is

submitted that show-cause notice was issued on 22.02.2019 which ultimately

resulted in the order dated 27.08.2020. It is submitted that the Appellant has

misclassified their products and wrongly availed the benefit of export

incentive which was inadmissible to them. Corporate Debtor is liable to pay

the said amount.

10. Shri Vijay Joshi, Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent in

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 71 of 2022 submits that the show-cause notice

dated 22.01.2016 was issued for demand of Rs.3,69,62,268/-by the

Commissioner of Central Excise, Gandhidham which was prior to initiation of

CIRP. The said demand was subsequently confirmed. It is submitted that the

Respondent could not know about the initiation of CIRP and no information

was sent by the IRP to the Respondent.

11. We have considered the submissions of the Learned Counsel for the

parties and have perused the record.

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) Nos. 68, 69, 70 & 71 of 2022 8

12. Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) Nos. 68, 69 and 71 of 2022 contain similar

issue of facts and law. We first need to notice the prayers which was sought

by the Appellant before the Adjudicating Authority in I.A 1418 of 2021

(Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) Nos. 68 of 2022). The Appellant has prayed for

quashing of the orders dated 26.08.2020, 10.11.2020 and 20.03.2021/ or any

other letter/ notice relating to the alleged cess payable for the construction of

Oil Palm Division in Ampapuram Village, Bapulapadu Mandal, Krishna. The

challenge in the Application was labour cess which was demanded by the

Respondent. By order dated 26.08.2020 amount of Rs.76,52,730/- as labour

cess was demanded. In the Rejoinder, it has been brought on record that the

aforesaid cess relate to period 2009 to 2010.

13. Similarly in I.A 2562/ 2021 (Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) Nos. 69 of

2022), the prayer was made to quash and set aside the order dated

27.08.2020 by which demand was raised as noted above. The aforesaid

demand, as noted above, was for the period 2013 to 2015.

14. In I.A 2577/ 2021 (Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 71 of 2022), similarly

the Commissioner of Central Tax, after demand notice, has issued a letter

confirming the demand and penalty as noted above. The demand related to

the period from June, 2010 to December, 2010.

15. The facts in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 70 of 2022 are little

different. I.A which was subject matter of Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 70

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) Nos. 68, 69, 70 & 71 of 2022 9

of 2022 was I.A 111 of 2021 in which IA following prayers were made by the

Appellant:-

"22. In view of the facts mentioned above, the Applicant prays for the following:

a) That this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to quash and/or set aside the i Report dated 28th February 2019 issued by Respondent No.4 to Respondent No. 3 (Exhibit "A");

ii. Letter dated 28th February 2019 issued by Respondent No. 3 to Respondent No. 1 bearing reference no. RTS/KT-7/63(1-A)/Breach of Terms/2019 dated 28/02/2019 (Exhibit "B");

iii. Notice dated 8th May 2019 issued by Respondent No. 2 (on behalf of Respondent No. 1) to the Applicant bearing reference no. Tenancy/T-2/M/s. Ruchi Soya Inds./ 12858/2019 (Exhibit "C"); and iv. Notice dated 11th December 2019 issued by Respondent No. 2 (on behalf of Respondent No. 1) to the Applicant bearing reference no. Tenancy/T- 2/M/s. Ruchi Soya Inds./ 12858/2019 dated 11.12.2019 (Exhibit "D");

b) That this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to quash and/or set aside the proceedings being conducted by Respondent No. 1 in furtherance of the Notice dated 8th May 2019 issued by Respondent No. 2 (on behalf of Respondent No. 1) to the Applicant bearing reference no. Tenancy/T-2/M/s. Ruchi Soya Inds./12858/2019 (Exhibit "C") and Notice dated 11th December 2019 issued by Respondent No. 2 (on behalf of Respondent No. 1) to the Applicant bearing reference no. Tenancy/T-2/M/s. Ruchi Soya Inds./ 12858/2019 dated 11.12.2019 (Exhibit "D");

c) That pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Application, this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to the effect, operation and implementation of the:

(i) Report dated 28th February 2019 issued by Respondent No.4 to Respondent No. 3 (Exhibit "A");

(ii) Letter dated 28th February 2019 issued by Respondent No. 3 to Respondent No. 1 bearing

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) Nos. 68, 69, 70 & 71 of 2022 10

reference no. RTS/KT-7/63(1-A)/Breach of Terms/2019 dated 28/02/2019 (Exhibit "B");

(iii) Notice dated 8th May 2019 issued by Respondent No. 2 (on behalf of Respondent No. 1) to the Applicant bearing reference no. Tenancy/T-2/M/s. Ruchi Soya Inds./ 12858/2019 (Exhibit "C"); and

(iv) Notice dated 11th December 2019 issued by Respondent No. 2 (on behalf of Respondent No. 1) to the Applicant bearing reference no. Tenancy/T-

2/M/s. Ruchi Soya Inds./ 12858/2019 dated 11.12.2019 (Exhibit "D")

and restrain the Respondents from taking any steps or in the alternative any coercive steps including repossession of any land or modification of land records, in furtherance thereof;

d) For costs; and

e) Any other reliefs that this Hon'ble tribunal may deem appropriate."

16. In the above I.A reference was made to notices issued to the Appellant

for violation of Section 63 (1-A) of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural

Land Act, 1948. Last notice was issued on 11.12.2019 and the proceedings

has not yet been culminated. In the IA, there was no imposition of fine or

financial claim rather proceeding was initiated alleging breach of the statutory

provisions.

17. Learned Counsel for the Appellant in all the Appeals except Company

Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 70 of 2022 submits that since the claims which are now

sought to be realised from the Appellant relate to the period prior to the CIRP

dues, the said claim stand extinguished by the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in "Ghanshyam Mishra & Ors. vs. Edelweiss Asset

Reconstruction Company- Civil Appeal No. 8129 of 2019". In

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) Nos. 68, 69, 70 & 71 of 2022 11

"Ghanshyam Mishra" (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has, in paragraph

102, laid down following:-

"102.In the result, we answer the questions framed by us as under:

(i) That once a resolution plan is duly approved by the Adjudicating Authority under sub section (1) of Section 31, the claims as provided in the resolution plan shall stand frozen and will be binding on the Corporate Debtor and its employees, members, creditors, including the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority, guarantors and other stakeholders. On the date of approval of resolution plan by the Adjudicating Authority, all such claims, which are not a part of resolution plan, shall stand extinguished and no person will be entitled to initiate or continue any proceedings in respect to a claim, which is not part of the resolution plan;

(ii) 2019 amendment to Section 31 of the I&B Code is clarificatory and declaratory in nature and therefore will be effective from the date on which I&B Code has come into effect;

(iii) Consequently all the dues including the statutory dues owed to the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority, if not part of the resolution plan, shall stand extinguished and no proceedings in respect of such dues for the period prior to the date on which Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) Nos. 68, 69, 70 & 71 of 2022 12

the Adjudicating Authority grants its approval under Section 31 could be continued."

18. The next judgment on which much reliance was placed is the judgment

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 17.02.2020 in "Ruchi Soya Industries

Ltd. vs. Union of India- Civil Appeal No. 447-448 of 2013". The said case

was a case of Corporate Debtor itself where Corporate Debtor has challenged

the demand in a Writ Petition filed in the year 2002. Against dismissal of Writ

Petition, the Appeals were filed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court noticed in the

judgment the subsequent events, including CIRP and approval of the

Resolution Plan, were brought on the record by IA 85939 of 2021. It is useful

to notice the facts as noted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court:-

"The appellant has filed the I.A. No. 85939 of 2021 for pointing out the subsequent developments and the disposal of the appeal in terms thereof.

It is not in dispute that during the pendency of the present proceedings, the Standard Chartered Bank had filed proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the "NCLT") in respect of the present appellant under the provisions of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the "IBC").

The application of the Standard Chartered Bank under Section 7 of the IBC for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) Nos. 68, 69, 70 & 71 of 2022 13

(hereinafter referred to as the "CIRP") came to be admitted by the learned Adjudicating Authority on 15th December, 2017.

After the procedure, as required under the various provisions of the IBC was completed, an application under Section 30 (6) of the IBC came to be filed by the Resolution Professional for the grant of approval of the Resolution Plan of the successful Resolution Applicant.

Vide order dated 24th July, 2019 read with order dated 04th September, 2019, the application of the Resolution Professional for the grant of approval of the Resolution Plan of the successful Resolution Applicant came to be allowed. As such, the management of the appellant came to be vested in the successful Resolution Applicant.

The short point that is involved is as to whether the claim of the present respondent which was admittedly not lodged before the Resolution Professional after public notices were issued under Sections 13 and 15 of the IBC could be considered at this stage."

19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court after noticing the facts laid down following

in "Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd." (supra):-

"We find that the present appeals are squarely covered by the law laid down by this Court in the case of Ghanashyam Mishra (supra). It will be

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) Nos. 68, 69, 70 & 71 of 2022 14

relevant to refer to Paragraph 102 of the said judgment which reads as under:

"102. In the result, we answer the questions framed by us as under:

102.1. That once a resolution plan is duly approved by the adjudicating authority under sub-section (1) of Section 31, the claims as provided in the resolution plan shall stand frozen and will be binding on the corporate debtor and its employees, members, creditors, including the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority, guarantors and other stakeholders. On the date of approval of resolution plan by the adjudicating authority, all such claims, which are not a part of resolution plan, shall stand extinguished and no person will be entitled to initiate or continue any proceedings in respect to a claim, which is not part of the resolution plan. 102.2. The 2019 Amendment to Section 31 of the I&B Code is clarificatory and declaratory in nature and therefore will be effective from the date on which the 181B Code has come into effect.

102.3. Consequently all the dues including the statutory dues owed to the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority, if not part of the resolution plan, shall stand extinguished and no proceedings in respect of such dues for the period prior to the date on which the adjudicating authority grants its approval under Section 31 could be continued."

Admittedly, the claim in respect of the demand which is the subject matter of the present proceedings was not lodged by the respondent no. 2 after public announcements were issued under Sections 13 and 15 of the IBC. As such, on the date on which the Resolution Plan was approved by the learned NCLT, all claims stood frozen, and

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) Nos. 68, 69, 70 & 71 of 2022 15

no claim, which is not a part of the Resolution Plan, would survive.

In that view of the matter, the appeals deserve to be allowed only on this ground. It is held that the claim of the respondent, which is not part of the Resolution Plan, does not survive. The amount deposited by the appellant at the time of admission of the appeals along with interest accrued thereon is directed to be refunded to the appellant.

The appeals are allowed, accordingly.

Pending I.A.(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."

20. The Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Ruchi Soya

Industries Ltd." and "Ghanshyam Mishra & Ors." (supra) fully covers the

issues which have been raised in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) Nos. 68, 69 and

71 of 2022. We are of the view that the Applications filed by the Appellant

before the Adjudicating Authority being IA Nos.1418 of 2021, 2562 of 2021

and 2577 of 2021 deserves to be allowed and the Adjudicating Authority had

not adverted to the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as noted

above, that after approval of the Resolution Plan, all claims which have not

been filed in the CIRP and are not part of the Resolution Plan stand

extinguished.

21. From the facts brought on the record, it is clear that the Respondents

in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) Nos. 68, 69 and 71 of 2022 have not filed any

claim in the CIRP. Thus, after approval of the Resolution Plan, they can Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) Nos. 68, 69, 70 & 71 of 2022 16

neither press any claim nor issue any demand notice. We, thus, allow

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) Nos. 68, 69 and 71 by allowing I.A Nos.

1418/2021, 2562/2021 and 2577/2021.

22. In Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 70 of 2022, we have noticed that the

prayers raised in the IA related to allege violation by Appellant of provisions

of Section 63 (1-A) of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act,

1948. It is relevant to notice one of the show-cause notices issued by the

Commissioner dated 08.05.2019 which is to the following effect:-

"Government of Maharashtra Revenue and Forest Department Collector and District Magistrate's Office, Raigad - Alibag Telephone No: 02141-222118 / 222097/222322 • Fax No: 02141- 2274510 • E-mail: raigadtenancy15@gmail.com ........................................................................................... No. Tenancy/T-2/M/s. Ruchi Soya Inds./12858/2019 Date: 08/05/2019

To, M/s. Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd.

Alibaug

Sub: Breach of Terms in respect of the lands purchased under Section 63-1A of Mumbai Tenancy and Agriculture Lands Act, 1948 for not using the Innds for actual purpose of Industrial use.

Ref: Letter of Tahasildar Alibaug bearing No. RTS/KT- 7/63(1-A)/Breach of Terms/2019 dated 28/02/2019

Lands in Tal Alibaug Village Chikhali total Gat No.28 total area 9-56- 9 (H.R) and Village Jalashi total Gat No.8 total area 1-65-4 (H.R) have been purchased by you in the year 2001-2002 for bonafide Industrial use under Section 63-1A of Mumbai Tenancy and Agriculture Lands Act, 1948. The said lands have not been used for industrial purpose since 15 years of purchase. According to the report submitted by the Tahsildar Alibaug, the land is not in utilisation. Prima facie it appears that you have breached the conditions in respect of the lands purchased under Section 63-1A of Mumbai Tenancy and Agriculture Lands Act 1948.

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) Nos. 68, 69, 70 & 71 of 2022 17

To explain why action should not be taken in the above case as per Section 63-1A of Mumbai Tenancy and Agriculture Land Act 1948 a hearing is fixed on 21/05/2019 at 3 P.M. You are to be present with all necessary documents. If you fail to remain present on the appointed day and time given to you or fail to produce satisfactory explanation, then it will be considered as you have nothing to say in the said matter and further proper action will be taken. which please note clearly.

(With approval of Hon'ble Addl. Collector)

Sd/-

For Addl. Collector, Raigad Alibaug Copy to: Tahasildar Alibaug

Two copies of Notice send along with this delivered one copy to party and acknowledgement copy send to this office urgently

Sd/-

For Addl. Collector, Raigad Alibaug"

23. The last notice was issued on 11.12.2019 by the Additional Collector

i.e. subsequent to closure of the CIRP. The proceedings initiated under

Section 63 (1-A) of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948

could very well be proceeded with and cannot be subject matter of the

insolvency process. The facts of the Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 70 of 2022

are fully covered by the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

"Embassy Property Developments Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Karnataka and

Ors. (03.12.2019 - SC) : MANU/SC/1661/2019". We, thus, are of the view

that IA 111/2021 filed by the Appellant against the Additional Collector and

Tehsildar deserves to be rejected. Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 70 of 2022

is disposed of while rejecting IA No. 111/2021.

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) Nos. 68, 69, 70 & 71 of 2022 18

24. In result, Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) Nos. 68, 69 & 71 of 2022 are

allowed and Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 71 of 2022 is disposed of as above.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Naresh Salecha] Member (Technical)

New Delhi Anjali

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) Nos. 68, 69, 70 & 71 of 2022