Taparia Tools Ltd. vs Joint Commnr. Of Income Tax, Nasik

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6366-6368 OF 2003

TAPARIA TOOLS LIMITED .....APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SPECIAL RANGE – I, NASIK .....RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6946-6948 OF 2004

JUDGMENT

A.K. SIKRI, J.

The appellant – Taparia Tools Limited (hereinafter referred

to as the 'assessee') is before us, having lost in the courts below.

In these six appeals, the issue involved is identical, that too

between the same parties. Necessity of six appeals is because of

the reason that the same dispute pertains to three assessment

Signature Not Verified years, namely, assessment years 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99. Digitally signed by Suman Wadhwa Date: 2015.03.23

The assessee had claimed deduction of revenue expenditure on 17:07:50 IST Reason:

account of interest payment in the sum of ₹2,72,25,000 paid to Civil Appeal Nos. 6366-6368 of 2003 and Civil Appeal Nos. 6946-6948 of 2004 Page 1 of 21 one M/s. Maliram Makharia Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. and

₹55,00,000 on account of interest payment given to M/s. Sharp

Knife Company Pvt. Ltd. This was on account of upfront

payments of interest given to the aforesaid two debenture holders

in the assessment years 1996-97 and 1997-98 respectively. The

Assessing Officer (for short, the 'AO'), however, treated it as the

'deferred revenue expenditure', to be written off over a period of

five years and, therefore, in these assessment years he allowed

only 1/5th of the payment made, though the entire payment was

made in the assessment year 1996-97.

2) The question of law, in the given circumstances, which has arisen

for consideration is as to whether the liability of the assesee to

pay the interest upfront to the debenture holder is allowable as a

deduction in the first year itself or it is to be spread over a period

of five years, being the life of the debentures? This substantial

question of law has arisen in the following circumstances:

3) In the debenture issue of the assessee two options as regards

payment of interest thereupon were given to the subscribers/

debenture holders. They could either receive interest periodically,

that is every half yearly @ 18% per annum over a period of five

Civil Appeal Nos. 6366-6368 of 2003 and Civil Appeal Nos. 6946-6948 of 2004 Page 2 of 21 years, or else, the debenture holders could opt for one time

upfront payment of ₹55 per debenture. In the second alternative,

₹55 per debenture was to be immediately paid as upfront on

account of interest. At the end of five years period, the

debentures were to be redeemed at the face value of ₹100.

4) The debentures were allotted to the following parties as below:

S.No. Party Amount (in lacs) 1. Maliram Makharia Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd., 495.00 dt. 29.03.1996 2. Orient Corporation, dt. 19.06.1996 1.25 3. Shree Suyog Agencies, dt. 19.06.1996 1.25 4. Shree Kyamsap Enterprises, dt. 19.06.1996 1.25 5. Shree Suraj Agencies, dt. 19.06.1996 1.25 6. Sharp Knife Co. Pvt. Ltd, dt. 19.06.1996 100.00 TOTAL 600.00

On February 14, 1996, M/s. Maliram Makharia Stock Brokers Pvt.

Ltd. gave their letter of acceptance opting for upfront payment of

interest. Likewise, vide letter of acceptance dated May 24, 1996, M/s.

Sharp Knife Company Pvt. Ltd. exercised similar option.

As these parties, mentioned at S.Nos. 1 and 6, had opted for one

time upfront payment towards interest, they were paid interest in the

sum of ₹2,72,25,000 and ₹55,00,000 respectively.

Civil Appeal Nos. 6366-6368 of 2003 and Civil Appeal Nos. 6946-6948 of 2004 Page 3 of 21

5) The assessee follows mercantile system of accounting. Further,

one time upfront interest of an amount mentioned above was

actually paid as well in the Accounting Years 1995-96 and

1996-97 respectively. However, it so happened that the said

upfront payment of interest on debentures were shown by the

assessee as deferred revenue expenditure in the accounts to be

written off over a period of five years. Notwithstanding this

accounting treatment given to the payment qua interest, in the

returns filed by the assessee for the assessment years 1996-97

and 1997-98, it claimed the entire upfront interest payment in the

sum of ₹2,72,25,000 and ₹55,00,000 respectively as fully

deductible expenditure. It may be clarified that insofar as the

assessee's claim for deduction of premium payable on

redemption is concerned, the same was claimed in the return on a

spread over basis covering a period of five years.

6) In the assessment orders passed by the AO, the assessee's claim

for deduction of upfront interest payment was denied. Instead,

the AO chose to spread it over a period of five years thereby

giving deduction only to the extent of 1/5th each in the respective

assessment years. The order of the AO was challenged by the

assessee in appeals preferred before the Commissioner of

Civil Appeal Nos. 6366-6368 of 2003 and Civil Appeal Nos. 6946-6948 of 2004 Page 4 of 21 Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner, however, dismissed

the appeals thereby sustaining the orders passed by the AO. The

assesee then approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and

thereafter the High Court of Bombay but was unsuccessful as the

appeals preferred by him before the two fora have been

dismissed maintaining the method of deduction adopted by the

AO. To put it otherwise, instead of entire amount paid by the

assessee in the particular assessment year, full deduction is not

given and this deduction is spread over a period of five years.

Thus, the question is as to whether deduction of the entire

amount of interest paid should be allowed or the stance of

Revenue needs to be affirmed.

7) As pointed out above, the assessee maintains its accounts on

mercantile basis. Further, the entire amount for which deduction

was claimed was, in fact, actually paid to the debenture holder as

upfront interest payment. It is also a matter of record that this

amount became payable to the debenture holder in accordance

with the terms and conditions of the non-convertible debenture

issue floated by the assessee, on the exercise of option by the

aforesaid debenture holders, which occurred in the respective

assessment years in which deduction of this expenditure was

Civil Appeal Nos. 6366-6368 of 2003 and Civil Appeal Nos. 6946-6948 of 2004 Page 5 of 21 claimed.

8) Section 36 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as

the 'Act') is a residual section in respect of certain deductions

which are to be made from the income of the assessee while

arriving at the taxable income. It is nomenclatured as 'other

deductions', as some of the preceding sections provide for certain

deductions of specific nature, with which we are not concerned in

the present case. One of the deductions, apart from many other

kinds of deductions stipulated in the section, relates to the amount

of interest paid in respect of capital borrowed for the purpose of

business or profession. This is provided in clause (iii) of

sub-section (1) of Section 36 and reads as under:

“S.36. (1) The deductions provided for in the following clauses shall be allowed in respect of the matters dealt with therein, in computing the income referred to in section 28 –

xx xx xx

(iii) the amount of the interest paid in respect of capital borrowed for the purposes of the business or profession:

[Provided that any amount of the interest paid, in respect of capital borrowed for acquisition of an asset for extension of existing business or profession (whether capitalised in the books of account or not); for any period beginning from the date on which the capital was borrowed for acquisition of the asset till the date on which such asset was first put to use, shall not be allowed as Civil Appeal Nos. 6366-6368 of 2003 and Civil Appeal Nos. 6946-6948 of 2004 Page 6 of 21 deduction.]

Explanation. - Recurring subscriptions paid periodically by shareholders or subscribers in Mutual Benefit Societies which fulfil such conditions as may be prescribed, shall be deemed to be capital borrowed within the meaning of this clause;

xx xx xx”

9) Ignoring the proviso and the explanation in clause (iii) above, with

which we are admittedly not concerned in this case, it is clear that

as per the aforesaid provision any amount on account of interest

paid becomes an admissible deduction under Section 36 if the

interest was paid on the capital borrowed by the assessee and

this borrowing was for the purpose of business or profession.

There is no quarrel, in the present case, that the money raised on

account of issuance of the debentures would be capital borrowed

and the debentures were issued for the purpose of the business

of the assessee. In such a scenario when the interest was

actually incurred by the assessee, which follows the mercantile

system of accounting, on the application of this statutory

provision, on incurring of such interest, the assessee would be

entitled to deduction of full amount in the assessment year in

which it is paid. While examining the allowability of deduction of

this nature, the AO is to consider the genuineness of business

borrowing and that the borrowing was for the purpose of business Civil Appeal Nos. 6366-6368 of 2003 and Civil Appeal Nos. 6946-6948 of 2004 Page 7 of 21 and not an illusionary and colourable transaction. Once the

genuineness is proved and the interest is paid on the borrowing, it

is not within the powers of the AO to disallow the deduction either

on the ground that rate of interest is unreasonably high or that the

assessee had himself charged a lower rate of interest on the

monies which he lent. In the instant case, the AO did not dispute

that the non-convertible debentures were issued and money

raised for business purposes. The AO did not even dispute the

genuineness of clause relating to upfront payment of interest in

the first year itself as per the option to be exercised by the

debenture holder. In nutshell, the AO did not dispute that the

expenditure on account of interest was genuinely incurred.

Therefore, there is no dispute that interest has, in fact, been 'paid'

during the year of accounting. Definition of 'paid' is contained in

Section 43(ii) of the Act to mean actually paid or incurred

according to the method of accounting. To be precise, this

definition is couched in the following language:

“S.43 In sections 28 to 41 and in this section, unless the context otherwise requires –

xx xx xx

(2) “paid” means actually paid or incurred according to the method of accounting upon the basis of which the profits or gains are computed under the head “Profits and gains of business or profession”;

Civil Appeal Nos. 6366-6368 of 2003 and Civil Appeal Nos. 6946-6948 of 2004 Page 8 of 21 xx xx xx”

As per the aforesaid definition, even if the amount is not

actually paid but 'incurred', according to the method of

accounting, the same would be treated as 'paid'. Since the

assessee was following mercantile system of accounting, the

amount of interest could be claimed as deduction even if it was

not actually paid but simply 'incurred'. However, in the instant

case, it is not in dispute that the amount of interest was actually

paid as well in the assessment year in which it was claimed.

10) The only reason which persuaded the AO to stagger and spread

the interest over a period of five years was that the term of

debentures was five years and that the assessee had itself given

this very treatment in the books of accounts, viz, spreading it over

a period of five years in its final accounts by not debiting the entire

amount in the first year to the Profit and Loss account and it has,

in fact, debited 1/5th of the interest paid to the Profit and Loss

account from the second year onwards. The High Court, in its

impugned judgment, has based its reasoning on the second

aspect and applied the principle of 'Matching Concept' to support

this conclusion.

Civil Appeal Nos. 6366-6368 of 2003 and Civil Appeal Nos. 6946-6948 of 2004 Page 9 of 21

11) Insofar as the first reason, namely, non-convertible debentures

were issued for a period of five years is concerned, that is clearly

not tenable. While taking this view, the AO clearly erred as he

ignored by ignoring the terms on which debentures were issued.

As noted above, there were two methods of payment of interest

stipulated in the debenture issued. Debenture holder was entitled

to receive periodical interest after every half year @ 18% per

annum for five years, or else, the debenture holder could opt for

upfront payment of ₹55 per debenture towards interest as one

time payment. By allowing only 1/5th of the upfront payment

actually incurred, though the entire amount of interest is actually

incurred in the very first year, the AO, in fact, treated both the

methods of payment at par, which was clearly unsustainable. By

doing so, the AO, in fact, tampered with the terms of issue, which

was beyond his domain. It is obvious that on exercise of the

option of upfront payment of interest by the subscriber in the very

first year, the assessee paid that amount in terms of the

debenture issue and by doing so he was simply discharging the

interest liability in that year thereby saving the recurring liability of

interest for the remaining life of the debentures because for the

remaining period the assessee was not required to pay interest on

Civil Appeal Nos. 6366-6368 of 2003 and Civil Appeal Nos. 6946-6948 of 2004 Page 10 of 21 the borrowed amount.

12) The next question which arises for consideration is as to whether

the assessee was estopped from claiming deduction for the entire

interest paid in the year in which it was paid merely because it

had spread over this interest in its books of account over a period

of five years. Here, the submission of learned counsel for the

assessee was that there is no such estoppel, inasmuch as, the

treatment of a particular entry (or for that matter interest entered

in the instant case) in the books of accounts is entirely different

from the treatment which is to be given to such entry/expenditure

under the Act. His contention was that assessment was to be

made in accordance with the provisions of the Act and not on the

basis of entries in the books of accounts. His further argument

was that had the assessee not claimed the payment of entire

interest amount as tax in the income tax returns and had claimed

deduction over a period of five years treating it as deferred

interest payment, perhaps the AO would have been right in

accepting the same in consonance with the accounting treatment

which was given. However, learned counsel pointed out that in

the instant case the assessee had filed the income tax return

claiming the entire deduction which was allowable to it under the

Civil Appeal Nos. 6366-6368 of 2003 and Civil Appeal Nos. 6946-6948 of 2004 Page 11 of 21 provisions of Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act as all the conditions

thereof were fulfiled and, thus, it was exercising the statutory right

which could not be denied.

13) We find that the High Court has taken into consideration the

provisions of Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act and the conditions which

are to be fulfiled for allowing the deduction on this account in the

following words:

“...The term “interest” has been defined under Section 2(28A) of the Act. Briefly, interest payment is an expense under Section 36(1)(iii). Interest on monies borrowed for business purposes is an expenditure in a business [see 35 ITR 339 – Madras]. For claiming deduction under Section 36(1)(iii), the following conditions are required to be satisfied viz. the capital must have been borrowed; it must have been borrowed for business purpose and the interest must be paid. The word “Paid” is defined in Section 43(2). It means payment in accordance with the method followed by the assessee. In the present case, therefore, the word “Paid” in Section 36(1)(iii) should be construed to mean paid in accordance with the method of accounting followed by the assessee i.e. Mercantile System of accounting...”

Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the High Court chose to

decline the whole deduction in the year of payment, thereby

affirming the orders of the authorities below, by invoking the

'Matching Concept'. It is observed by the High Court that under

the mercantile system of accounting, book profits are liable to be

Civil Appeal Nos. 6366-6368 of 2003 and Civil Appeal Nos. 6946-6948 of 2004 Page 12 of 21 taxed and in order to determine the net income of an Accounting

Year, the revenue and other incomes are to be matched with the

cost of resources consumed (expenses). For this reason, in the

opinion of the High Court, this matching concept is required to be

done on accrual basis. As per the High Court, in this case,

payment of ₹55 per debenture towards interest was made, which

pertained to five years, and, thus, this interest of five years was

paid in the first year. We are of the opinion that it is here the High

Court has gone wrong and this approach resulted in wrong

application of Matching Concept. It is emphasized once again

that as per the terms of issue, the interest could be paid in two

modes. As per one mode, interest was payable every year and in

that case it was to be paid on six monthly basis @ 18% per

annum. In such cases, the interest as paid was claimed on yearly

basis over a period of five years and allowed as well and there is

no dispute about the same. However, in the second mode of

payment of interest, which was at the option of the debenture

holder, interest was payable upfront, which means insofar as

interest liability is concerned, that was discharged in the first year

of the issue itself. By this, the assessee had benefited by making

payment of lesser amount of interest in comparison with the

interest which was payable under the first mode over a period of

Civil Appeal Nos. 6366-6368 of 2003 and Civil Appeal Nos. 6946-6948 of 2004 Page 13 of 21 five years. We are, therefore, of the opinion that in order to be

entitled to have deduction of this amount, the only aspect which

needed examination was as to whether provisions of Section

36(1)(iii) read with Section 43(ii) of the Act were satisfied or not.

Once these are satisfied, there is no question of denying the

benefit of entire deduction in the year in which such an amount

was actually paid or incurred.

14) The High Court has also observed that it was a case of deferred

interest option. Here again, we do not agree with the High Court.

It has been explained in various judgments that there is no

concept of deferred revenue expenditure in the Act except under

specified sections, i.e. where amortization is specifically provided,

such as Section 35-D of the Act.

15) What is to be borne in mind is that the moment second option

was exercised by the debenture holder to receive the payment

upfront, liability of the assessee to make the payment in that very

year, on exercising of this option, has arisen and this liability was

to pay the interest @ ₹55 per debenture. In Bharat Earth

Movers v. Commissioner of Income Tax1, this Court had

categorically held that if a business liability has arisen in the 1 (2000) 6 SCC 645 Civil Appeal Nos. 6366-6368 of 2003 and Civil Appeal Nos. 6946-6948 of 2004 Page 14 of 21 accounting year, the deduction should be allowed even if such a

liability may have to be quantified and discharged at a future date.

Following passage from the aforesaid judgment is worth a quote:

“The law is settled: if a business liability has definitely arisen in the accounting year, the deduction should be allowed although the liability may have to be quantified and discharged at a future date. What should be crtain is the incurring of the liability. It should also be capable of being estimated with reasonable certainty though the actual quantification may not be possible. If these requirements are satisfied the liability is not a contingent one. The liability is in praesenti though it will be discharged at a future date. It does not make any difference if the future date on which the liability shall have to be disharged is not certain.”

The present case is even on a stronger footing inasmuch as

not only the liability had arisen in the assessment year in

question, it was even quantified and discharged as well in that

very accounting year.

16) Judgment in Madras Industrial Investment Corporation

Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax2 was cited by the

learned counsel for the Revenue to justify the decision taken by

the courts below. We find that the Court categorically held even

in that case that the general principle is that ordinarily revenue

expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of

2 (1997) 4 SCC 666 Civil Appeal Nos. 6366-6368 of 2003 and Civil Appeal Nos. 6946-6948 of 2004 Page 15 of 21 business is to be allowed in the year in which it is incurred.

However, some exceptional cases can justify spreading the

expenditure and claiming it over a period of ensuing years. It is

important to note that in that judgment, it was the assessee who

wanted spreading the expenditure over a period of time and had

justified the same. It was a case of issuing debentures at

discount; whereas the assessee had actually incurred the liability

to pay the discount in the year of issue of debentures itself. The

Court found that the assessee could stil be allowed to spread the

said expenditure over the entire period of five years, at the end of

which the debentures were to be redeemed. By raising the

money collected under the said debentures, the assessee could

utilise the said amount and secure the benefit over number of

years. This is discernible from the following passage in that

judgment on which reliance was placed by the learned counsel for

the Revenue herself:

“15.. The Tribunal, however, held that since the entire liability to pay the discount had been incurred in the accounting year in question, the assessee was entitled to deduct the entire amount of Rs.3,00,000 in that accounting year. This conclusion does not appear to be justified looking to the nature of the liability. It is true that the liability has been incurred in the accounting year. But the liability is a continuing liability which stretches over a period of 12 years. It is, therefore, a liability spread over a period of 12 years. Ordinarily, revenue expenditure which is incurred

Civil Appeal Nos. 6366-6368 of 2003 and Civil Appeal Nos. 6946-6948 of 2004 Page 16 of 21 wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business must be allowed in its entirety in the year in which it is incurred. It cannot be spread over a number of years even if the assessee has written it off in his books over a period of years. However, the facts may justify an assessee who has incurred expenditure in a particular year to spread and claim it over a period of ensuing years. In fact, allowing the entire expenditure in one year might give a very distorted picture of the profits of a particular year. Thus in the case of Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT, (1982) 30 CTR (Cal) 363:

(1983) 144 ITR 474 (Cal) the Calcutta High Court upheld the claim of the assessee to spread out a lump sum payment to secure technical assistance and training over a number of years and allowed a proportionate deduction in the accounting year in question.

16. Issuing debentures at a discount is another such instance where, although the assessee has incurred the liability to pay the discount in the year of issue of debentures, the payment is to secure a benefit over a number of years. There is a continuing benefit to the business of the company over the entire period. The liability should, therefore, be spread over the period of the debentures.”

17) Thus, the first thing which is to be noticed is that though the entire

expenditure was incurred in that year, it was the assessee who

wanted the spread over. The Court was conscious of the principle

that normally revenue expenditure is to be allowed in the same

year in which it is incurred, but at the instance of the assessee,

who wanted spreading over, the Court agreed to allow the

assessee that benefit when it was found that there was a

continuing benefit to the business of the company over the entire

Civil Appeal Nos. 6366-6368 of 2003 and Civil Appeal Nos. 6946-6948 of 2004 Page 17 of 21 period.

18) What follows from the above is that normally the ordinary rule is to

be applied, namely, revenue expenditure incurred in a particular

year is to be allowed in that year. Thus, if the assessee claims

that expenditure in that year, the IT Department cannot deny the

same. However, in those cases where the assessee himself

wants to spread the expenditure over a period of ensuing years, it

can be allowed only if the principle of 'Matching Concept' is

satisfied, which upto now has been restricted to the cases of

debentures.

19) In the instant case, as noticed above, the assessee did not want

spread over of this expenditure over a period of five years as in

the return filed by it, it had claimed the entire interest paid upfront

as deductible expenditure in the same year. In such a situation,

when this course of action was permissible in law to the assessee

as it was in consonance with the provisions of the Act which

permit the assessee to claim the expenditure in the year in which

it was incurred, merely because a different treatment was given in

the books of accounts cannot be a factor which would deprive the

assessee from claiming the entire expenditure as a deduction. It

Civil Appeal Nos. 6366-6368 of 2003 and Civil Appeal Nos. 6946-6948 of 2004 Page 18 of 21 has been held repeatedly by this Court that entries in the books of

accounts are not determinative or conclusive and the matter is to

be examined on the touchstone of provisions contained in the Act

[See – Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v.

Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Calcutta 3; Tuticorin

Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd., Madras v. Commissioner

of Income Tax, Madras4; Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. v.

Commissioner of Income Tax, Calcutta 5; and United

Commercial Bank, Calcutta v. Commissioner of Income Tax,

WB-III, Calcutta6].

20) At the most, an inference can be drawn that by showing this

expenditure in a spread over manner in the books of accounts,

the assessee had initially intended to make such an option.

However, it abandoned the same before reaching the crucial

stage, inasmuch as, in the income tax return filed by the

assessee, it chose to claim the entire expenditure in the year in

which it was spent/paid by invoking the provisions of Section

36(1)(iii) of the Act. Once a return in that manner was filed, the

AO was bound to carry out the assessment by applying the

3 (1972) 3 SCC 252 4 (1997) 6 SCC 117 5 (1978) 4 SCC 358 6 (1999) 8 SCC 338 Civil Appeal Nos. 6366-6368 of 2003 and Civil Appeal Nos. 6946-6948 of 2004 Page 19 of 21 provisions of that Act and not to go beyond the said return. There

is no estoppel against the Statute and the Act enables and entitles

the assessee to claim the entire expenditure in the manner it is

claimed.

21) In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the opinion that the

judgment and the orders of the High Court and the authorities

below do not lay down correct position in law. The assessee

would be entitled to deduction of the entire expenditure of

₹2,72,25,000 and ₹55,00,000 respectively in the year in which

the amount was actually paid. The appeals are allowed in the

aforesaid terms with no orders as to costs.

.............................................J. (A.K. SIKRI)

.............................................J. (ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN) NEW DELHI;

MARCH 23, 2015.

Civil Appeal Nos. 6366-6368 of 2003 and Civil Appeal Nos. 6946-6948 of 2004 Page 20 of 21 ITEM NO.1A COURT NO.13 SECTION IIIA (For Jt.)

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

Civil Appeal No(s). 6366-6368/2003

TAPARIA TOOLS LTD. Appellant(s)

VERSUS

JOINT COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, NASIK Respondent(s)

WITH C.A. No. 6946-6948/2004

Date : 23/03/2015 These appeals were called on for judgment today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

For Appellant(s) Mr. Rustom B. Hathikhanawala,Adv.

Mr. B. V. Balaram Das,Adv.

For Respondent(s) Rr-ex-parte,Adv.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K.Sikri pronounced the judgment of the Court comprising of His Lordship and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman.

The appeals are allowed in terms of the signed Reportable judgment with no orders as to costs.

(SUMAN WADHWA) (SUMAN JAIN) AR-cum-PS COURT MASTER

(SIGNED REPORTABLE JUDGMENT IS PLACED ON THE FILE)

Civil Appeal Nos. 6366-6368 of 2003 and Civil Appeal Nos. 6946-6948 of 2004 Page 21 of 21