JUDGMENT : BIPIN CHANDER NEGI, J. 1. Since common questions arise for consideration in the afore-stated cases therefore with the consent of the parties/counsels, all the cases are being taken up together for consideration and disposal. However, for deciding the common issues, which have arisen for consideration only facts of CMPMO No.325 of 2025 i.e. Tohnu Ram (Deceased) through LRs and Anr. (Lead case) are being taken into account, as arguments of counsels revolved around the same. Tohnu Ram’s case (supra) has been filed seeking the following relief:- “1. That order dated 14.02.2022, passed by the learned Executing Court, i.e. learned Additional District Judge-II, Solan, HP in Execution Petition No.75-ADJ-II/2019, titled as “Tohnu Ram (deceased) through LRs Vs. UltraTech Cement Ltd. and another”, may kindly be modified to the extent that the liability of payment of enhanced amount of compensation of the petitioners along with other land owners may very kindly be ordered to be fastened upon respondent No.1-UltraTech Cement Ltd., instead of respondent No.2, Jai Prakash Associates as ordered by the learned Executing Court, in the interest of law and justice.” 2. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and documents appended with the present petition. 3. The award, in the case at hand, was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector on 10.01.2008 (Award No.1 of 2008). By virtue of the said Award, the Land Acquisition Collector had awarded Rs.2.31 lacs per bigha for cultivated land and Rs.44,406/- per bigha for uncultivated land to the petitioners in and around Village Samtyari, where J.P Himachal Cement had taken land for mining purpose. On an appeal against the Award, passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, the reference Court vide a common Award dated 29.06.2017, had enhanced the compensation amount and had awarded Rs.5 lacs per bigha, irrespective of classification of land. 4. Since the passing of the Award by the Reference Court on 29.06.2017, till November 2019 on account of enhanced compensation, no amount had been deposited by respondent No.2-Jai Prakash Associates, therefore, the present petitioners were constrained to file an execution petition, the same was instituted on 13.12.2019. Therein, it was submitted that respondent No.2 through the State of Himachal Pradesh, had got lands acquired for setting up of a cement plant and for conducting mining operations. Therein, it was submitted that respondent No.2 through the State of Himachal Pradesh, had got lands acquired for setting up of a cement plant and for conducting mining operations. For the same, lands of the petitioners had been acquired, wherein compensation had been awarded by the aforementioned awards, passed by the Collector and the Reference Court. It is further submitted in the Execution Petition that the cement plant had been run by respondent No.2 till June 2017. Thereafter, the same stood transferred to respondent No.1-UltraTech. Respondent No.2-JP Associates, was stated to have been embroiled in insolvency proceedings and hence, was not in a position to deposit the enhanced compensation for the lands acquired, Government of Himachal Pradesh had allowed the transfer from respondent No.2-Jai Prakash Associates to respondent No.1-UltraTech Cement Ltd., subject to liability being taken over by Respondent No.1-M/s. UltraTech. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that for certain acquisitions made, Ultra-Tech had paid liability and hence UltraTech was responsible. 5. In response to the execution petition filed, learned counsel for respondent No.1, had categorically stated that there is no award of acquisition, which had been passed against it. The Reference Award dated 29.06.2017, has been challenged by respondent No.2, by filing an appropriate appeal before the Hon’ble High Court, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, which is pending adjudication. Attention was drawn to orders dated 22.08.2019, passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CMP No. 3476 of 2019 in RFA No. 120 of 2018, titled Jai Prakash Industries Limited Vs. Tohnu Ram and others and order dated 17.10.2019, passed in Review Petition No. 111/2019, titled as M/s. Ultra Tech Cement Limited Vs. Tohnu Ram (Deceased) through LRs. and others, whereby respondent No.1 had been impleaded as a party and the same had been assailed before the Apex Court. The Apex Court, vide its order dated 16.12.2019 (page 143 of the paper book) had categorically observed that impleadment of respondent No.1, only decided the question of respondent No.1, being a proper party, no more and no less. The same cannot be construed as permitting a 3rd party to pursue a claim against respondent No.1. The Apex Court, vide its order dated 16.12.2019 (page 143 of the paper book) had categorically observed that impleadment of respondent No.1, only decided the question of respondent No.1, being a proper party, no more and no less. The same cannot be construed as permitting a 3rd party to pursue a claim against respondent No.1. Besides the aforesaid, vide order dated 16.12.2019, the Hon’ble Apex Court had made it absolutely clear that no claim of recovery against respondent No.1, can be made in disregard of the Scheme of Arrangement inter-se respondents No.1 and 2, propounded by the National Company Law Tribunal (hereinafter referred NCLT) and the Executing Court is duty bound to pass orders strictly in consonance with the Scheme of Arrangement, approved by the NCLT, Mumbai and Ahmedabad Bench, respectively. In the reply, it was further contended that in terms of clause 7.1 of the Scheme of Arrangement, liability to pay lay squarely upon respondent No.2-Jai Prakash. 6. Respondent No.2, in their reply submitted that an appeal filed by the said respondent against the award dated 29.06.2017 of the Reference Court, is pending consideration before a Coordinate Bench of this Court. It was further pleaded in the reply that on account of financial condition, the said respondent is not in a position to deposit the amount. Action for recovery of the enhanced amount is subject to the Scheme of Arrangement and approval granted by the State of Himachal Pradesh for transfer of assets to respondent No.1. 7. The Executing Court, post considering the aforesaid submissions, came to the conclusion that in terms of the Scheme of Arrangement, liability to pay compensation, in the case at hand, squarely rested on the shoulders of respondent No.2. Insofar as, payments alleged to have been made qua certain acquisitions by respondent No.1, the Executing Court was of the view that the same had no relevance to the present proceedings. On account of the aforesaid conclusions, the Executing Court fastened liability squarely upon respondent No.2. 8. The first and foremost contention raised before this Court by the petitioner is that the liability for the enhanced compensation, in the case at hand, needs to be fastened solely on respondent No.1-UltraTech. In order to buttress the aforesaid contention, attention of this Court has been drawn to letter dated 21.06.2017, placed at page 120 of the paper book. 8. The first and foremost contention raised before this Court by the petitioner is that the liability for the enhanced compensation, in the case at hand, needs to be fastened solely on respondent No.1-UltraTech. In order to buttress the aforesaid contention, attention of this Court has been drawn to letter dated 21.06.2017, placed at page 120 of the paper book. The same is a letter written by the Director Industries, Himachal Pradesh, to the two respondents herein. Attention is specifically invited to para 5 of the same, which has been reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:- “5. To transfer of all liabilities (declared or undeclared), property, rights and powers pertaining to cement and clinker manufacturing plants of M/s. Jai Prakash Associates Ltd. situated in Himachal Pradesh in favour of M/s. UltraTech Cement Ltd., subject to condition that all liabilities towards Govt. Department/Board corporations/Societies shall be cleared immediately after signing Tripartite Agreement and further that all FCA and EC clearances shall be transferred/obtained fresh as may be required as per applicable Rules by the M/s. UltraTech Cement Ltd.” 9. Other than the aforesaid, to support the contention of the petitioner, attention has been invited to the Tripartite Agreement dated 29.06.2017 entered into between the State of Himachal Pradesh, respondent No.1-UltraTech and respondent No.2-JP Associates. Respondent No.1 in the Tripartite Agreement has been referred to as the 3rd Party. The 1st Party therein is the State and the 2nd Party is respondent No.2-JP Associates. On the basis of the Tripartite Agreement, it is contended that the State of Himachal Pradesh had consented to transfer of assets to respondent No.1, in the case at hand, subject to the said respondent No.1, taking over all liabilities of respondent No.2. Besides the aforesaid, attention is drawn to Clause 7.2 of the Scheme of Arrangement, which deals with contingent liability. Attention is invited to the said clause to show that liability can be paid by respondent No.1, in the first instance and then the same can then be recovered from respondent No.2. 10. The next contention raised by the petitioner is qua the supplementary land acquisition Award passed in the case at hand at the behest of the present respondent No.1-M/s. UltraTech Cement Ltd. and the payment with respect to the same. 10. The next contention raised by the petitioner is qua the supplementary land acquisition Award passed in the case at hand at the behest of the present respondent No.1-M/s. UltraTech Cement Ltd. and the payment with respect to the same. In this respect, attention is invited to Annexure P-6 i.e. Supplementary Award dated 02.05.2022, regarding left out houses/structures and trees under the main Award No.1 of 2008, passed on 10.01.2008. From a perusal of the main award, it is evident that initially while passing the Award, an award qua structures/houses/trees etc. could not be passed in the Award No.1 of 2008, dated 10.01.2008, as assessment/evaluation of the aforesaid, could not be done on account of resistance put-forth by the landowners. The Supplementary Award is dated 02.05.2022. Qua the same, it is contended that the said supplementary award was passed at the instance of respondent No.1, who had filed a Writ Petition bearing No. 3073 of 2021, titled M/s. Ultra Tech Cement Works Vs. State of H.P. and Others being aggrieved of executive inaction on the part of the State in not passing a Supplementary Award qua houses, structures and tress not evaluated at the time of passing the main Award No.1 of 2008, dated 10.01.2008. In the same, the following relief was claimed; “(a) That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus directing respondents No.1 to 3 to immediately to take all effective steps to get the houses, structures and tress evaluated which stand acquired by the petitioner company in terms of Award No.1/2008 dated 10.1.2008 which otherwise were not allowed to be evaluated, from the appropriate authorities/departments so that the amount of compensation assessed is deposited and the vacant and peaceful physical possession of the area could be handed over to the petitioner company in terms of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by the respondent State.” 11. The aforesaid petition, was disposed of vide judgment dated 24.11.2021, whereby a Division Bench of this Court had directed the Land Acquisition Collector to immediately take consequential action. In pursuance whereof, supplementary award dated 02.05.2022, had been passed. In the Supplementary Award, under the head mode of payment, respondent No.1 is stated to have deposited the amount of compensation. The aforesaid petition, was disposed of vide judgment dated 24.11.2021, whereby a Division Bench of this Court had directed the Land Acquisition Collector to immediately take consequential action. In pursuance whereof, supplementary award dated 02.05.2022, had been passed. In the Supplementary Award, under the head mode of payment, respondent No.1 is stated to have deposited the amount of compensation. In this regard attention is invited to para 12 of the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.2 (page 1484 of the paper book), wherein respondent No.2 has pointed out that approximately a sum of Rs.4.75 crores was deposited by respondent No.1, in pursuance to the Supplementary Award passed on 02.05.2022. Attention is also invited to the list of properties i.e. Schedule 1A appended along with Scheme of Arrangement, the contention raised in this regard is that the property qua which enhanced compensation had been awarded, does not form a part of the same. 12. Last but not the least, attention is invited to the contents of CMP No.5816 of 2025 (page 1666 of the paper book), whereby it is pointed that post June 2017, payments on account of compensation in pursuance to the Award, in the case at hand, have been made by respondent No.1 to certain land-owners, detailed therein. Payment details are mentioned at page 1681 and 1685 of the paper book. 13. The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence the parameters for interference by this court are circumscribed by the said provision. Article 227 of the Constitution reads as under: “227. Power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court. (1) Every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories interrelation to which it exercises jurisdiction. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions, the High Court may— (a) call for returns from such courts; (b) make and issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the practice and proceedings of such courts; and (c) prescribe forms in which books, entries and accounts shall be kept by the officers of any such courts. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions, the High Court may— (a) call for returns from such courts; (b) make and issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the practice and proceedings of such courts; and (c) prescribe forms in which books, entries and accounts shall be kept by the officers of any such courts. (3) The High Court may also settle tables of fees to be allowed to the sheriff and all clerks and officers of such courts and to attorneys, advocates and pleaders practicing therein: Provided that any rules made, forms prescribed or tables settled under clause (2) or clause (3) shall not be inconsistent with the provision or any law for the time being in force, and shall require the previous approval of the Governor. (4) Nothing in this article shall be deemed to confer on a High Court powers of superintendence over any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.” 14. The scope of jurisdiction of High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution has been expounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under: (i) In Sadhana Lodh vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & another, (2003) 3 SCC 524 , it has been held as under:- “7. The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is confined only to see whether an inferior court or Tribunal has proceeded within its parameters and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less of an error of law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court does not act as an Appellate Court or the Tribunal. It is also not permissible to a High Court on a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution to review or re-weigh the evidence upon which the inferior court or Tribunal purports to have passed the order or to correct errors of law in the decision.” (iii) In Garment Craft vs. Prakash Chand Goel, (2022)4 SCC 181 , it has been held as under:- “15. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the view that the impugned order is contrary to law and cannot be sustained for several reasons, but primarily for deviation from the limited jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute conclusion, for its own that of decision the on facts inferior court and or tribunal. The jurisdiction exercised is in the nature of correctional jurisdiction to set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse, Celina Coelho Pereira (Ms) and Others v. Ulhas Mahabaleshwar Kholkar and Others, (2010) 1 SCC violation of fundamental principles of law or justice. The power under Article 227 is exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like when there is no evidence at all to justify, or the finding is so perverse that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion that the court or tribunal has come to. It is axiomatic that such discretionary relief must be exercised to ensure there is no miscarriage of justice.” 15. Thus, from the above stated exposition of law, it is clear that this Court has a restricted and limited jurisdiction to interfere under the correctional jurisdiction vested in it in terms of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, except to set right a grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse or violation of fundamental principle of law or justice. 16. Respondent No.2-JP Associates, is stated to be embroiled in insolvency proceedings. The said proceedings were initiated at the behest of operational creditors of Respondent No.2-JP Associates. The same is evident from order dated 03.06.2024 ,passed by the NCLT Allahabad Bench, on an application filed under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (hereinafter referred as IBC) seeking initiation of the corporate insolvency resolution process against respondent No.2-Jai Prakash Associates, whereby the same was allowed, as a sequel whereto the corporate insolvency resolution process was initiated against respondent No.2 and a moratorium in terms of Section 14 of the IBC was imposed. 17. 17. Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, which deals with the issue of Moratorium is being reproduced herein below for a ready reference. “14. Moratorium.— (1) Subject to provisions of sub- sections (2) and (3), on the insolvency commencement date, the Adjudicating Authority shall by order declare moratorium for prohibiting all of the following, namely— (a) the institution of suits or continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor including execution of any judgment, decree or order in any court of law, tribunal, arbitration panel or other authority; (b) transferring, encumbering, alienating or disposing of by the corporate debtor any of its assets or any legal right or beneficial interest therein; (c) any action to foreclose, recover or enforce any security interest created by the corporate debtor in respect of its property including any action under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (54 of 2002); (d) the recovery of any property by an owner or lessor where such property is occupied by or in the possession of the corporate debtor. [Explanation.— For the purposes of this sub-section, it is hereby clarified that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, a license, permit, registration, quota, concession, clearances or a similar grant or right given by the Central Government, State Government, local authority, sectoral regulator or any other authority constituted under any other law for the time being in force, shall not be suspended or terminated on the grounds of insolvency, subject to the condition that there is no default in payment of current dues arising for the use or continuation of the license, permit, registration, quota, concession, clearances or a similar grant or right during the moratorium period;] (2) The supply of essential goods or services to the corporate debtor as may be specified shall not be terminated or suspended or interrupted during moratorium period. [(2-A) Where the interim resolution professional or resolution professional, as the case may be, considers the supply of goods or services critical to protect and preserve the value of the corporate debtor and manage the operations of such corporate debtor as a going concern, then the supply of such goods or services shall not be terminated, suspended or interrupted during the period of moratorium, except where such corporate debtor has not paid dues arising from such supply during the moratorium period or in such circumstances as may be specified.] [(3) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply to— [(a) such transactions, agreements or other arrangements as may be notified by the Central Government in consultation with any financial sector regulator or any other authority;] (b) a surety in a contract of guarantee to a corporate debtor.] (4) The order of moratorium shall have effect from the date of such order till the completion of the corporate insolvency resolution process: Provided that where at any time during the corporate insolvency resolution process period, if the Adjudicating Authority approves the resolution plan under sub-section (1) of Section 31 or passes an order for liquidation of corporate debtor under Section 33, the moratorium shall cease to have effect from the date of such approval or liquidation order, as the case may be. 18. Section 12 of the the IBC provides for the period within which the corporate insolvency resolution process is to be completed. Section 23 thereof provides that the resolution professional shall continue to manage the operations of the corporate debtor after the expiry of the corporate insolvency resolution process period. This court has been informed that the corporate insolvency resolution process qua Respondent No.2-JP Associates, is still pending. 19. The corporate insolvency resolution process initiated at the behest of operational creditors of Respondent No.2-JP Associates, passing of the moratorium order therein resulted in a legal embargo upon the petitioners from proceeding against the Respondent No.2-JP Associates, therefore, the present insistence on their part for shifting the liability in the case at hand on respondent No.1-M/s Ultra Tech. 20. Section 4 Notification under the Land Acquisition Act, in the case at hand, had been issued on 12.08.2005. The execution proceedings wherefrom the present petition arises pertains to an Award bearing No.1/2008, was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector on 10.01.2008. The Reference Award therefrom is dated 29.06.2017. 20. Section 4 Notification under the Land Acquisition Act, in the case at hand, had been issued on 12.08.2005. The execution proceedings wherefrom the present petition arises pertains to an Award bearing No.1/2008, was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector on 10.01.2008. The Reference Award therefrom is dated 29.06.2017. Against the same, an appeal under Section 54 is pending consideration before a Coordinate Bench of this Court. In the aforesaid proceedings i.e. before the Land Acquisition Collector, Reference Court, only JAL was a party. Liability to pay was fastened on JAL, as it was the beneficiary of the acquisition. In the case at hand acquisition was complete on payment of compensation and taking of possession of lands in the case at hand after passing of Award bearing No.1/2008 by the land Acquisition Collector on 10.01.2008 (Reference in this respect can be made to 2024 (10) SCC, Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Bimal Kumar Shah and Ors., specifically para 33.7.1 thereof). 21. The first and foremost contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the State of Himachal Pradesh had consented to the transfer of the assets of Jaiprakash Associates Ltd to M/s Ultra Tech subject to M/s Ultra Tech taking over all the liabilities of Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. 22. In the case at hand a scheme of arrangement was entered into between M/s Ultra Tech Cement Limited, JAL and Jaiprakash Cement Corporation Limited (A unit of JAL Operating the Cement Project) under the relevant provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The same was approved by the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, on 15.02.2017 and the National Company Law Tribunal Allahabad Bench, on 02.03.2017. In terms of the scheme, the date on which the scheme was to become effective was 29.06.2017. 23. Besides the aforesaid, in the case at hand a tripartite agreement was entered into between the State of Himachal Pradesh, Jaiprakash Associates Ltd and M/s Ultra Tech Cement Limited, on 29.06.2017. From a perusal of the same, it is evident that the tripartite agreement was to be read along with the scheme of arrangement dated 02.03.2017 and 15.02.2017, as approved by the National Company Law Tribunal, Allahabad Bench and Mumbai Bench, respectively. In terms of the tripartite agreement, transfer of ownership, transfer of liability to M/s Ultra Tech Cement Limited by Jaiprakash Associates Ltd was to be strictly done, as per the Scheme of Arrangement. 24. In terms of the tripartite agreement, transfer of ownership, transfer of liability to M/s Ultra Tech Cement Limited by Jaiprakash Associates Ltd was to be strictly done, as per the Scheme of Arrangement. 24. Other than the afore-stated, in terms of the tripartite agreement, previous agreements (MoUs) entered into between the State of Himachal Pradesh and the Jaiprakash Associates Ltd dated 09.07.2004 and 18.08.2010 were to be read in consonance with the provisions of tripartite agreement. All terms and conditions of the aforesaid MoUs were to remain unchanged, unless affected by the provisions of the tripartite agreement. 25. In view of the same, I see no force in the contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner qua the State of Himachal Pradesh having consented to the transfer of the assets of M/s Ultra Tech from Jaiprakash Associates Ltd subject to M/s Ultra Tech taking over all the liabilities of Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. Reference in this respect by the petitioner to letter dated 21.06.2017, placed at page 120 of the paper book relevant extract whereof has been reproduced supra is of no avail, as the tripartite agreement entered into between the State of Himachal Pradesh, JAL and M/s Ultra Tech Cement Limited on 29.06.2017 is subsequent to the letter dated 21.06.2017 and the latter (letter dated 21.06.2017) is superseded by the former (tripartite agreement). 26. The Scheme of Arrangement, in the case at hand, was a subject matter of Civil Appeal No. 10662 of 2024 titled M/s Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd. vs. Mast Ram and Others, decided on 20.09.2024. On scrutiny of the relevant provisions of Scheme of Arrangement, in the case at hand, the Apex Court authoritatively pronounced that all litigation pertaining to the business and assets of Jaiprakash Associates Ltd being transferred to M/s Ultra Tech, that arose before the closing date/effective date, i.e., 29.06.2017, would not be transferred to M/s Ultra Tech and the same would remain with Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. Relevant extract of the judgment is being reproduced here-in-below:- “22. Clause 1.1 (o) defines the “Effective Date” as the date on which the Scheme becomes effective in accordance with its terms, which shall be the Closing Date [defined in Clause 1.1(k) and Clause 10.1]. The said date was decided to be 29.06.2017 among the parties. 23. Clause 1.1(w) defines the business and assets transferred by JAL to the Appellant. Clause 1.1 (o) defines the “Effective Date” as the date on which the Scheme becomes effective in accordance with its terms, which shall be the Closing Date [defined in Clause 1.1(k) and Clause 10.1]. The said date was decided to be 29.06.2017 among the parties. 23. Clause 1.1(w) defines the business and assets transferred by JAL to the Appellant. The definition of the same is reproduced below: “…(w) "JAL Business" means the business of manufacturing, sale and distribution of cement and clinker manufactured at the JAL Cement Plants, including all rights to operate such business, its movable or immovable assets, captive power plants, DG sets, coal linkages, rights, privileges, liabilities, guarantees, land, leases, licenses, permits, mining leases, prospecting licenses for mining of limestone, letters of intent for mining of limestone, tangible or intangible assets, goodwill, all statutory or regulatory approvals, logistics, marketing, warehousing, selling and distribution networks {marketing employees, offices, depots, guest houses and ether related facilities for the JAL Business), employees, existing contracts including fly-ash contracts, railway sidings, fiscal incentives in relation to the JAL Business, more particularly described in Schedule I hereto, but does not include (i) construction equipment an.d such assets to be listed in Schedule II. (ii) any liability including contingent liability disclosed in the balance sheet of JAL Business on the Closing Date provided to the Transferee, other than those included in the JAL Financial Indebtedness and JAL Net Working Capital; (iii) any guarantee or deposits for any disputes; (iv) the JAL Excluded Employees; (v) JAL Non-Moving Stores, Doubtful Receivables of the JAL Business, non- recoverable debtors, loans or advances in the books of the Transferor1. For this purpose, non- recoverable debtors; loans or advances shall refer to such debtors; loans or advances for which Transferor1 has not received any confirmation for the receivables as mentioned in Clause 9.1 (i); (vi) coal mitting block - Mandla (North) and the related guarantees, deposits etc; (vii) fiscal incentives in relation to the JAL Business that accrue up to the Closing Date; (viii) any intellectual property of Transferor1; (ix) litigations pertaining to the JAL Business as of the Closing Date; (x) freehold plot of land admeasuring about 1087 square metres at Varanasi and land admeasuring 24.7 acres outside the Balaji plant in Krishna, Andhra Pradesh; (xi) 180 megawatt power plant at Churk, Uttar Pradesh; (xii) railway siding in Turki, Rewa, Madhya Pradesh; (xiii) Related Party payables or receivables; and (xiv) Ghurma limestone mine, Padrach limestone mine and Bari dolomite mine. It is clarified that the guarantee listed in Schedule III B, which shall be updated as of the Closing Date, shall be the only guarantees which shall be taken over by the Transferee on the Closing Date…” [Emphasis Supplied] 24. The parties by way of Clause 1.1(w)(ix) agreed that all litigations pertaining to the business and assets being transferred to the Appellant that arose before or on the Closing Date would not be transferred to the Appellant and will remain with JAL. 25. The aforesaid aspect has been further elaborated under Clause 7 of the Scheme which is reproduced below: “7. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS 7.1 All legal or other proceedings (whether civil or criminal, including before any statutory or judicial or quasi-judicial authority or tribunal) by or against the Transferor1 and /or the Transferor2, initiated on or arising and pending before the Effective Date, and relating to the JAL Business and the JCCL Business shall remain with the Transferor1 and/or the Transferor2, as the case may be. 7.2 In the event any case or matter pertaining to contingent liabilities being in the nature of disputed claims, not crystallized on the Closing Date or guarantees listed in Schedule III A and Schedule XI A or any similar instrument by whatsoever name called which have been advance against disputes related to the JAL Business or the JCCL Business existing on the Closing Date, or pertaining to NPV of afforestation charges in respect of mining land being Block 1, 2, 3, 4 and Ningha of Dalla Plant and Jaypee Super Plant, by force of law are transferred to the Transferee, then the Transferor1 and the Transferor 2, shall have full control in respect of the defence of such proceedings including filing the necessary appeals, revisions, etc.. provided that the Transferor1 and the Transferor2, as the case may be, shall not, take any action that is detrimental to the operation of the JAL Business and the JCCL Business. Provided that in respect of such cases pertaining to immovable properties which are part of the JAL Business or the JCCL Business, as the case may be the Transferee shall have a right to participate in such proceedings to ensure that no action detrimental to the operation of JAL Business and the JCCL Business is taken. It is clarified that: (a) any liabilities in respect of cases or matter referred to in this Clause 7.2 shall be paid by the Tranferor1 or the Transferor2 and if paid by the Transferee, the same shall be reimbursed by the Transferor1 or the Transferor2 within 7 (seven) days of such payment; and (b) the aforesaid bank guarantees provided by the Transferor1 and the Transferor2 in respect of the contingent liabilities being in the nature of disputed claims related to the JAL Business or the JCCL Business shall continue wherever required and the Transferee shall have no obligation to replace such bank guarantees on the Closing Date and in the event the period of any such bank guarantee expires after the Closing Date, the Transferor1 and/or the Transferor2, as the case may be, shall renew or replace such guarantees wherever required. 7.3 The Transferor1, the Transferor2 and the Transferee shall give full and timely cooperation to each other for the pursuit of such case or matter. The Transferee shall promptly give necessary authorization, power of attorney, board resolution, etc. 7.3 The Transferor1, the Transferor2 and the Transferee shall give full and timely cooperation to each other for the pursuit of such case or matter. The Transferee shall promptly give necessary authorization, power of attorney, board resolution, etc. for pursuit of such case or matter to the Transferor1 and the Transferor2. ” [Emphasis Supplied] 26. Clause 7.1 of the Scheme states without any ambiguity that any legal or other proceeding by or against JAL or its unit operating the cement project relating to the JAL Business as defined in Clause 1.1(w), initiated on or arising and pending before the Effective Date shall remain with JAL.” 27. Other than the aforesaid, the Apex Court was of the view that any land acquisition proceedings which, had commenced before the effective date of the scheme, i.e., 29.06.2017, wherein compensation remained undetermined in terms of Clause 7.1 of the Scheme of Arrangement, would fall within the meaning of expression “other proceedings”, as used in Clause 7.1 therein. In view thereof, liability qua the same would remain with Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. Relevant extract in this regard is being reproduced here-in-below:- “27.… …. …. The facts indicate that the land acquisition proceedings had commenced before the Effective Date of the Scheme (i.e. 29.06.2017) and the compensation remained undetermined as on the Effective Date. To our understanding, these facts attract the application of Clause 7.1 of the Scheme as the acquisition proceedings and the liability to pay compensation associated with it squarely falls within the meaning of ‘other proceedings’ as intended by the parties under the said Clause…. …. ...” 28. Admittedly litigation in the case at hand pertains to the business and assets of Jaiprakash Associates Ltd, which have been transferred to M/s Ultra Tech. Section 4 Notification under the Land Acquisition Act, in the case at hand, had been issued on 12.08.2005. As a sequel thereto, an Award bearing No.1/2008, was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector on 10.01.2008. Payment on account of acquisition as compensation stands paid and possession of the property acquired stands taken. In view thereof, acquisition is complete. (See Kolkata Municipal Corporation referred supra in para20). The reference Award therefrom is dated 29.06.2017. Against the same, an appeal under Section 54 is pending consideration before a Coordinate Bench of this Court. Payment on account of acquisition as compensation stands paid and possession of the property acquired stands taken. In view thereof, acquisition is complete. (See Kolkata Municipal Corporation referred supra in para20). The reference Award therefrom is dated 29.06.2017. Against the same, an appeal under Section 54 is pending consideration before a Coordinate Bench of this Court. Meaning thereby that the claim of the present petitioners for enhanced compensation, as awarded by the reference court is being disputed by respondent No.2 herein. The same according to the petitioner has not crystallized on the closing date and hence is a contingent liability, as contemplated under Clause 7.2 of Scheme of Arrangement. 29. Clause 7.2 of Scheme of Arrangement besides pertaining to contingent liabilities being in the nature of disputed claims, not crystallized on the closing date refers to certain other liabilities which by force of law are transferred to M/s Ultra Tech Cement Limited. In respect of such cases in terms of Clause 7.2 of Scheme of Arrangement pertaining to immovable properties, which are part of the Jaiprakash Associates Ltd Business or the JCCL Business, as the case may be M/s Ultra Tech Cement Limited shall have a right to participate in such proceedings to ensure that no action detrimental to the operation of Jaiprakash Associates Ltd Business and the JCCL Business is taken. It has further been clarified in Clause 7.2 of Scheme of Arrangement that any liabilities in respect of cases or matter referred to in this Clause 7.2 shall be paid by Jaiprakash Associates Ltd and if paid by the M/s Ultra Tech Cement Limited, the same shall be reimbursed by Jaiprakash Associates Ltd within 7 (seven) days of such payment. Hence even on this account liability cannot be fastened on M/s Ultra Tech Cement Limited as there is no liability which is being transferred to M/s Ultra Tech Cement Limited by force of law. 30. The contention raised by the petitioner qua the payment of awarded amount by M/s Ultra Tech, in pursuance to the supplementary award dated 02.05.2022 and thereby making M/s Ultra Tech liable for payment, in the case at hand, is devoid of any merit. In this respect, suffice it to state that the main award bearing No.1 of 2008 was passed on 10.01.2008. At the time of passing of the initial award, the award qua structures, houses, trees etc. In this respect, suffice it to state that the main award bearing No.1 of 2008 was passed on 10.01.2008. At the time of passing of the initial award, the award qua structures, houses, trees etc. existing on the acquired land, could not be passed. The supplementary award was the next step in the proceedings, which resulted in award dated 02.05.2022 being passed. Admittedly, the acquisition proceedings had commenced before the effective date of the scheme, i.e., 29.06.2017 and the compensation had remained undetermined as on the effective date. Hence, in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in M/s Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd. vs. Mast Ram and others (supra), there is no force in the said contention. 31. Yet, another contention raised by the petitioner is that the lands in question are not covered in the list of assets transferred to the M/s Ultra Tech under the Scheme of Arrangement. The argument is without any force in view of the pronouncement made by the Apex Court in M/s Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd. vs. Mast Ram and others (supra). Relevant extract is being reproduced here-in-below:- “31. However, we take notice of the fact that the subject land was not covered under the list of assets transferred to the Appellant under the Scheme and remains in the ownership of the JAL till date. While we agree that the acquisition of the subject land was done for the purposes of the cement project, we cannot accept the contention of JAL that the liabilities arising out of the said land should be fastened upon the Appellant without any such liabilities being covered by the Scheme, not even on the strength of the argument that the subject land was integral to the cement project.” 32. In the case at hand, I am of the considered view that no ground is made out in the present petition to invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 33. In view of the aforementioned facts and attending circumstances, the present petitions are dismissed being devoid of merits, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.