Dismissed

Sri C Rudrappa v. Sri S R Lingareddy

Karnataka HC19 Jul 2024RFA/193/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Defendants appealed a decreed suit for specific performance of a 1995 sale agreement of agricultural land, disputing the second extension endorsement and readiness-willingness. The High Court upheld the trial court's decree after forensic authentication of the endorsement, dismissing the appeal but offering Rs.1 crore solatium to vendors.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed with costs easy; conditional offer: plaintiff deposits Rs.1 crore solatium with Registry if appellants file affidavit accepting it and ending litigation; otherwise decree executable a

Sri C Rudrappa Vs Sri S R Lingareddy — Specific Performance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:28032-DB RFA No. 193 of 2012

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 193 OF 2012 (SP)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. C RUDRAPPA, S/O LATE SRI. CHENNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

¶9

SRI. MAHESH, S/O SRI. C RUDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,

¶10

SRI. RAVI, S/O SRI. C RUDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,

¶11

Digitally signed by SHARADA VANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SMT. ASHWINI, D/O SRI C RUDRAPPA, W/O SRI SATHISH, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,

¶13

SRI. CHENNABASAVAIAH, S/O LATE SRI. CHENNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,

¶14

SRI. NEELAKANTARADHYA, S/O LATE SRI CHENNAPPA,

¶15

1 TO 6 ARE R/O ALASAHALLI, THIPPASANDRA VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:28032-DB RFA No. 193 of 2012

¶17

SMT. GOWRAMMA, W/O LATE SRI SADASHVIAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

¶18

SMT. HEMA, D/O LATE SRI SADASHVIAIAH, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,

¶19

SRI. PRASAD, S/O LATE SRI SADASHVIAIAH, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,

¶20

SRI. ARUN KUMAR, S/O LATE SRI SADASHVIAIAH, SINCE DECEASED, REP BY HIS LRS

¶21

10(A) PUTTAMMA, W/O LATE ARUN KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,

¶22

10(B) POOJITHA D/O LATE ARUN KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS,

¶23

10(C) SANJU

¶24

S/O LATE ARUN KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 7 YEARS,

¶25

SINCE 10(B) & (C) ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY 10(A) MOTHER NATURAL GUARDIAN

¶26

ALL ARE RESIDING AT BAGALUR VILLAGE, MALUR MAIN ROAD, BAGALUR HOBLI, HOSUR TALUK, DHARAMAPURI DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU. AMENDED V.C.O DATED 28.08.2023

¶27

SRI. MOHAN KUMAR, S/O LATE SRI SADASHVIAIAH, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:28032-DB RFA No. 193 of 2012

¶29

7 TO 11 ARE R/O BAGALUR VILLAGE, MALUR MAIN ROAD, BAGALUR HOBLI, HOSUR TALUK, DHARMAPURI DISTRICT (T N)

¶30

…APPELLANTS

¶31

(BY SRI.ASHOK HARANAHALLI., SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI. H C NATARAJ.,ADVOCATE)

¶32

AND:

¶33

SRI. S R LINGAREDDY, S/O LATE SRI S L RAMASWAMY REDDY, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/A NO.2983, 12^TH MAIN, HAL II STAGE, INDIRA NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 038.

¶34

…RESPONDENT

¶35

(BY SRI.UDAY HOLLA., SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI.K B NARAYANA SWAMY.,ADVOCATE)

¶36

THIS RFA FILED U/SEC.96, O-41, RULE-1 AND 2 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 09.12.2011 PASSED IN O.S.2127/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ANEKAL, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR THE SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE.

¶37

THIS RFA COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, KRISHNA S DIXIT.J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶38

JUDGEMENT

¶39

This Appeal by the Defendants calls in question a Judgement & Decree entered in a Specific Performance Suit of the Respondent-Plaintiff in O.S.No.2127/2006 decreed by the learned Sr. Civil Judge, Anekal. Its operative portion reads as under:

¶40

“ The suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs. Consequently the defendants are hereby

¶41

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:28032-DB RFA No. 193 of 2012

¶42

directed to execute the necessary sale deed and dated registered in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property and deliver possession thereon to the plaintiff.

¶43

In case the defendants failed to comply with the direction of this court to completely sale by Execute necessary sale deed and getting it registered in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the not schedule property and also deliver possession there of, the plaintiff is at liberty to get the registered sale deed through the court in accordance with law.”

¶44

2. Brief facts of the case:

¶45

A) The suit property is an agricultural land in all admeasuring 02 A – 25G in Sy.No.91 of Halasahalli, Thippasandra Village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluka, Bengaluru District. The Appellants being the co-owners of the said land entered into an Agreement to Sell dated 10.10.1995 (Ex.P1). The consideration amount was fixed at Rs.18,63,750/- of which, Rs.8,00,000/- was paid on the same day by way of advance. The time for execution of the Agreement was extended vide Endorsement dated 15.03.1996 by four months and on that day, another sum of Rs.3,00,000/- was handed to the Appellants (Ex.P2). Both these documents are specifically admitted in the

¶46

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:28032-DB RFA No. 193 of 2012

¶47

Pleadings of the Appellants and in their depositions as well. It is the case of Respondent – Plaintiff that a further extension was obtained on 02.07.2002 by four years vide (Ex.2E) and on that day, he had paid the entire balance amount. The execution of this Endorsement is disputed.

¶48

B) Since the Appellants did not come forward for the execution & registration of Sale Deed, the Respondent filed the subject suit seeking a Decree for Specific Performance specifically averring readiness & willingness and payment of entire sale consideration. The Appellants resisted the suit by filing the Written Statement. On the basis of the Pleadings, the following issues and Additional issues were framed:

¶49

“1. Whether the plaintiff proves that on receipt of additional sum of Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiff by the defendants No.1,5,6 and their brother Sadashivaiah, the time stipulation for completing the sale of the suit property in favour of plaintiff was further extended on 15.03.1996. In continuation of the agreement of sale dated:10.10.1995?

¶50

2. Whether the plaintiff proves that he paid balance sale consideration amount of Rs.7,63,750/- to the defendants No.1,5,6 and

¶51

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:28032-DB RFA No. 193 of 2012

¶52

their brother Sadashivaiah on 2.7.2002 and on receiving the said balance sale consideration amount, they (defendant No.1, 5, 6 and their brother Sadashivaiah) executed endorsement dated 2.7.2002 acknowledging the receipt of the said amount and agreed to complete the sale in terms of the agreement dated 10.10.1995?

¶53

3. Whether the plaintiff has always been ready and wiling to perform his part of contract in respect of agreement dated 10.10.1955?

¶54

4.Whether the defendants prove that the alleged endorsement (shara) dated 2.7.2002 is forged and fabricated in order to cover the period of limitation?

¶55

5. Whether the defendants prove that the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation?

¶56

6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of specific performance of agreement dated 10.10.1995?

¶57

Addl. Issues dated 27.05.2010:-

¶58

1. Whether the defendants prove that the time is essence of the contract?

¶59

2. Whether the defendants prove that the endorsement dated 2.7.2002 is only got up and cooked up document?

¶60

Addl. Issue dated 11.04.2011:-

¶61

1. Whether the suit is not maintainable in respect of joint family property as

¶62

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:28032-DB RFA No. 193 of 2012

¶63

contended by defendant No.10 and 11 at para 8 or written statement?

¶64

2. Whether the suit is barred by law?

¶65

Addl. Issue dated 17.8.2011:-

¶66

1. Whether the defendant No.1 proves that the alleged agreement of sale, alleged sale dated 15.3.1996 and 2.7.2002 are not binding on him and they are not executed for the benefit of defendant No.4?”

¶67

C) To prove his case, the Plaintiff entered the

¶68

Witness Box and deposed as PW1. He also got examine a witness namely Sri. S Ananda as PW2. In their deposition, as many as 9 documents came to be produced & got marked as Ex.P1 to P9 series. They essentially comprised of the original Agreement to Sell, the continuation Agreements, Property Records & Photographs. From the side of Defendants, Defendant No.5–Mr.Channabasavaiah entered the Witness Box and deposed as DW1. Another person by name Ashwini i.e., daughter of 1^st Defendant - Rudrappa was examined as DW2. In their deposition, as many as 11 documents came to be produced & marked as Ex.D1 to D11. They inter alia comprised of Genealogical

¶69

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:28032-DB RFA No. 193 of 2012

¶70

Tree, Property Records, Inam DC order & Encumbrance Certificate. Since the second extension Endorsement was disputed, the same was forensically examined by the official expert who vide Report dated 11.04.2008 opined about the authenticity of the signatures appearing thereon. The expert was cross-examined as CW1 and his opinion was marked as Ex.C4. Learned Trial Judge having adverted to the Pleadings and weighed the evidence placed on record, has rendered the impugned Judgement & Decree from which this Appeal has arisen.

¶71

Learned Sr. Advocate Mr. Ashok Haranahalli appearing for the Appellants seeks to falter the impugned Judgement & Decree contending that: although the original Agreement to Sell and the Extension Agreement were admitted, the second extension vide Ex. P2E was disputed; there is no satisfactory evidentiary material to prove the same; averments & evidence as to readiness & willingness are missing; a Decree for Specific Performance cannot be granted without exploring the alternatives in

¶72

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:28032-DB RFA No. 193 of 2012

¶73

terms of Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963; equities have not been adjusted keeping in mind conduct of the parties; the second extension Endorsement itself was time barred; the Court below has not framed appropriate issues. Lastly, he argues that the impugned Judgement & Decree are unsustainable. Learned Sr. Advocate Mr. Uday Holla appearing for the Respondent– Plaintiff made submissions in justification of the impugned Judgement & Decree. He also draws attention of the court to the culpable conduct of the appellants in retaining the amount admittedly paid to them and enjoying the land all these years. He also points out the conscionable stand of the appellants in the pleadings and in the evidence. Both they press into service certain rulings of the Apex Court in support of their respective contentions.

¶74

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

¶75

and having perused the Appeal Papers along with the original Trial Court Records, we decline indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:

¶76

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:28032-DB RFA No. 193 of 2012

¶77

(a) The first contention of the appellants as to the

¶78

absence of readiness & willingness of the plaintiffs’ side in discharging his part of obligations under the contract least impresses us, and reasons for this are not far to seek: Firstly, the Agreement to Sell and Extension Agreement respectively at Exs.P-1 & P-2 are admitted by the appellants in their Written Statement itself. In terms of former, Rs.8,00,000/- and in terms of latter, a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- are admittedly received by them. Secondly, the subsequent Endorsement dated 2.7.2002 under which the remainder of the consideration has been proved by the deposition of PWs.1 & 2 coupled with Forensic Expert’s deposition and his Report dated 11.04.2008 vide Ex.C-4 which authenticated the signatures appearing on this instrument. If that be so, there was nothing more to be done by the Respondent-Plaintiff except asking the appellants to execute the sale deed, and such asking cannot be said to be an obligation resting on his shoulders. To prove readiness & willingness, it has been well settled by a catena of decisions, the vendee need not show the

¶79

11 - NC: 2024:KHC:28032-DB RFA No. 193 of 2012

¶80

amount. He has already made substantial payment coupled with the proven brick & other business leave no manner of doubt that he had the capacity to make the payment of the remainder of consideration. Therefore, the Apex Court decision in RITU SAXENA vs. J.S.GROVER, (2019) 9 SCC 132, para 15, would not come to the aid of appellants.

¶81

(b) The second contention of the appellants that there is absolutely no material to vouch the second extension in terms of endorsement dated 2.7.2002, is bit difficult to countenance. As already mentioned above, PWs.1 & 2 have spoken about this. There are multiple signatures appearing on this instrument and even script appears on the revenue stamps affixed to the same. The court below had directed forensic examination of this instrument and the official of the Forensic Laboratory Mr.Syed Asgar Imam who had thirty years of experience, has submitted the report as to these signatures being authentic. He also entered the box and was crossexamined by the appellants as CW.1. He has elaborately

¶82

12 - NC: 2024:KHC:28032-DB RFA No. 193 of 2012

¶83

mentioned as to how the comparative examination was undertaken and how the signatures on this instrument matched with the admitted ones. Nothing has been elicited in his cross-examination. Even a criminal case allegedly filed against him has not been shown to be one in which he has been the accused. The learned trial Judge also undertook his own comparative examination with the aid of the Forensic Report and concurred with the same. We too have examined the original documents available in the Trial Court Records. There is absolutely no reason for us to doubt the authenticity of the signatures affixed on the said instrument. Even the text & context of this instrument appears to be very probable. There is a clause whereunder the appellants have undertaken to pay a sum of Rs.90,00,000/- by way of liquidated damages if the Agreement to Sell did not materialize. This amount approximates to the market value of the subject land as on the date the instrument was drawn. Therefore, contention of the kind is liable to be rejected.

¶84

13 - NC: 2024:KHC:28032-DB RFA No. 193 of 2012

¶85

¶86

appearing for the appellants is that the court in terms of Section 20 of the 1963 Act ought to have explored the grant of alternate relief, regard being had to the shooting up of real estate prices to the sky. We agree with the reply of Mr.Uday Holla, learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the Respondent-Plaintiff that when the entire consideration amount is already proved to have been paid, the other amount admittedly having been received by the appellants. Secondly, grant of decree for Specific Performance is a matter of discretion, which has to be exercised in accordance with rules of reason & justice. The appellants have not even whispered one single word about their intention to refund the amount received & retained by them. A sum of Rs.11,00,000/- admittedly has been lying with them since about three decades, whereas the remaining amount is shown to be lying with them since last twenty two years. Possession of the land also has been with them. In such circumstances, equities do not avail to the unscrupulous litigants like the appellants

¶87

14 - NC: 2024:KHC:28032-DB RFA No. 193 of 2012

¶88

herein. Mr.Haranahalli’s reliance on PARAKUNNA VEETIL

¶89

JOSEPH’s SON MATHEW vs. NEDUMBARA KURUVILA’S SON 1987 (Supp) SCC 340, para 14, instead of supporting the case of appellants adumbrates that of the respondent. The observations in PRAKASH CHANDRA vs. ANGADLAL (1979) 4 SCC 393, para 9 and in K.PRAKASH vs. B.R.SAMPATH KUMAR (2015) 1 SCC 597, paras 13 to 16, which Mr.Holla heavily pressed into service comes to the rescue of respondents. It hardly needs to be stated the exercise of discretion in terms of section 20 of the 1963 Act involves a host of factors, one of them being the conduct of parties vide MAJOR GEN. DARSHAN SINGH vs. BRIJ BHUSHAN CHAUDHARY (2024) 3 SCC 489, para 12. The court below has rightly exercised the discretion in granting decree for Specific Performance in favour of the Respondent-Plaintiff. Despite vociferous submissions of Mr.Haranahalli, no error is shown in this. The impugned judgement & decree could have been more articulately framed, is true. There is scope for improvement even in heaven said Mr.Oscar Wilde (1854-1900) an Irish thinker.

¶90

15 - NC: 2024:KHC:28032-DB RFA No. 193 of 2012

¶91

(d) Mr.Ashok Haranahalli then contended that the court below having framed the issues and additional issues has left one of them unanswered and therefore, the impugned judgement & decree is unsustainable. The Agreement is of the year 1995; a huge sum of money has changed hands; suit is of the year 2006 and it was decreed on 19.12.2011; appeal is of the year 2011. There is every material on record to plug whatever lacuna is apparent on the face of the impugned judgement & decree. There is no reason or rhyme to remand the matter for consideration afresh. Therefore, we have undertaken the examination of issue of readiness, willingness & capacity of the respondent-vendee and have entered a finding, as discussed above.

¶92

(e) Mr.Haranahalli submits that even when limitation period is longer, the vendee has to approach the court at the earliest point of time and that delay & latches if committed, is a ground for denying the decree for Specific Performance of the Agreement to Sell. Broadly,

¶93

16 - NC: 2024:KHC:28032-DB RFA No. 193 of 2012

¶94

this is true. However, such a proposition does not become

¶95

readily invokable where entire consideration amount is proven to have been paid and that the possession of the land lies with the vendor himself, nothing left to be done by the vendee, as submitted by Mr.Holla appearing for the Respondent-Plaintiff. For the said reason Mr. Haranahalli’s reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in K.S.VIDYANADAM vs. VAIRAVAN, (1997)3 SCC 1 cannot come to his aid.

¶96

(f) Mr.Holla appearing for the Respondent-Plaintiff is right in contending that the prices have gone atop, per se is no ground for denying a decree for Specific Performance when entire amount is paid under the agreement in question, decades ago and nothing is left to be performed by the vendee. The reply of Mr.Haranahalli that the very Endorsement at Ex.P-2E provides for the payment of liquidated damages in a sum of Rs.90 lakh and therefore the decree could not have been granted for Specific Performance, is difficult to agree with. An agreement is entered into for bringing the intended

¶97

17 - NC: 2024:KHC:28032-DB RFA No. 193 of 2012

¶98

transaction into reality. People live in an organized way

¶99

because of social contract. Pacta sunt servanda i.e., do what you have agreed to is the basis of social organization. Therefore a person who has undertaken to do a particular thing cannot, in defense of not doing it, propose to do the alternative. Contracts are entered into for the purpose of accomplishment and not for committing breach. Now a days courts are seeing breach of contracts more than their performance especially in the realm of real estate. This is not a happy development.

¶100

(g) The last contention of Mr. Haranahalli that the suit was barred by limitation and that in any event without any notice in writing it could not have been framed in its form & substance, is very difficult to sustain. Reckoned from the date on which the Endorsement at Ex.P2E was drawn ie., 02.07.2002, the suit that was filed on 30.06.2006 was within the period of limitation. The plea as to limitation, we need to tell, is a mixed question of law & facts, as rightly contended by Mr. Holla. He is also

¶101

18 - NC: 2024:KHC:28032-DB RFA No. 193 of 2012

¶102

justified in telling us that a notice in writing is not a sine

¶103

qua non for the choation of the cause of action for suit of the kind. A demand for the execution of sale deed is required, is true. However, it need not be in writing. PW1 in his cross examination dated 06.01.2011 has specifically stated that although no legal notice was issued to the appellants, orally he had requested them to execute a sale deed. In his cross examination nothing worthwhile is extracted to discredit the said assertion. The version of PW-1 gains credence from the stand taken by the appellants in their Written Statement, in their deposition, in their arguments in the court below, in their appeal memo here and during the hearing of the appeal too. The consistent stand of the appellants gives an impression that they are determined to not part with the land, come what may. Courts cannot turn a Nelson’s Eye to the realities. Much is not necessary to specify.

¶104

(h) All the above being said, court has to work out a balance between the competing equities. That cannot be done with Portia’s knife. In Merchant of Venice,

¶105

19 - NC: 2024:KHC:28032-DB RFA No. 193 of 2012

¶106

Shakespeare wrote: ‘ Prepare thee to cut off the flesh.

¶107

Shed thou no blood, nor cut thou less nor more but just a pound of flesh…’ needs to be reminded to the litigants who want to adhere to the black letter of law more than to its spirit & soul. The agreement to sell as already mentioned is of the year 1995; a sum of Rs.8 lakh was paid at that time; another sum of Rs.3 lakh was paid in the following year; remainder of Rs.7 lakh plus was paid in 2002; time was extended by four years; why four years, is not forthcoming. True it is, that it was a long drawn and step by step transaction, whichever side lies the arguable fault. The prices of lands have gone atop and vendors being men are not willing to part away with the same even for the agreed price, of course long ago. Arguably there is some laches attributable to the vendee and it cannot go with impugnity. All this gives scope for awarding solatium. In our considered view which we have formed after hearing both the sides in this regard, a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees one crore) only needs to be paid by way of solatium to the appellant-vendors in a

¶108

20 - NC: 2024:KHC:28032-DB RFA No. 193 of 2012

¶109

time bound way and subject to the condition that they

¶110

shall not continue the legal battle. However if they continue, this amount need not be paid to them.

¶111

In the above circumstances, we make the following:

¶112

ORDER

¶113

(i) This appeal being devoid of merits, is liable to be and accordingly dismissed, costs having been made easy.

¶114

(ii) The Respondent-Plaintiff shall deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees one crore) only with the Registry of this Court within four months, if the appellants file an affidavit within two months to the effect that they would accept this offer and put a decent burial to the lis . If deposit is made, the same shall be invested by the Registry in interest earning Fixed Deposit of any Nationalized Bank subject to disposal of Partition Suit in O.S.No.804/2020 pending on the file of Sr. Civil Judge, Anekal. (iii) Should the appellants fail to file the affidavit as indicated in the preceding paragraph, the RespondentPlaintiff shall be relieved of the obligation to pay & deposit any money by way of solatium as indicated above and that our Decree in terms of this Judgement becomes executable at once.

¶115

21 - NC: 2024:KHC:28032-DB RFA No. 193 of 2012

¶116

(iv) Despite appellants filing the affidavit as indicated above, if the Respondent-Plaintiff fails to pay & deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees one crore) only, the appellants shall pay a sum of Rs.90,00,000/(Rupees Ninety Lakh) only to the Respondent-Plaintiff by way of liquidated damages in terms of Endorsement dated 02.07.2002 Ex.P2E with Simple Interest at the rate of 6% per annum reckoned from the same date within a period of three months, and if delay is brooked that interest rate would 12% per annum instead of 6%; if payment is so made, the impugned Judgement & Decree would stand accordingly modified and the requirement of Specific Performance would stand dissolved.

¶117

Registry to draw Decree accordingly.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

Cbc, snb, Bsv List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8

Sri C Rudrappa v. Sri S R Lingareddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri C Rudrappa v. Sri S R Lingareddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Vs M/S Waters (India) Pvt. Ltd.

The Pr Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S.Acuity Knowledge

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Bellandur Chikkagurappa Jayaramareddy

M/S Big Bags Bangalore Pvt. Ltd., Vs State Representative by S R

Mr Shivananda Shenoy Vs Mr Nithyananda Shenoy

The Government of Karnataka Vs M/S Vneer Mills