CRP(IO)/276/2026 Page 1 GAHC010129352026 2026:GAU-AS:10582 IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) CRP(IO)/276/2026 1. Lokesh Anand Singhal Son of Sri Ashok Anand Singhal and Smt. Shilpi Anand Singhal, Resident of Anand Lok, House No. 1A, Monalisa Path, Geetanagar, Zoo Road, Guwahati, In the District of Kamrup (M), Assam, Pin- 781024 2. Smt. Shilpi Anand Singhal Wife Of Sri Ashok Anand Singhal Resident of Anand Lok House No. 1A Monalisa Path Geetanagar Zoo Road Guwahati In The District Of Kamrup (M) Assam Pin 781024 …..Petitioners -Versus- 1. Pride Realty A Partnership Firm Registered under The Provisions of The Indian Partnership Act, 1932 Having Its Registered Office Situated At 604, Protech Centre, 6th Floor, CRP(IO)/276/2026 Page 2 Ganeshguri, G.S. Road, Guwahati, In The District Of Kamrup (M), Assam, Pin 781006, Represented by its partner Sri Manoj Kumar Jalan, S/O Late Mahabir Prasad Jalan, Aged About 58 Years, R/O Geeta Mansion, Christian Basti, G.S. Road, Guwahati, Assam, Pin- 781005 2. Manoj Kumar Jalan Son Of Late Mahabir Prasad Jalan Resident of Geeta Mansion Christian Basti G.S. Road Guwahati Assam Pin- 781005. 3. Smt. Lalita Devi Jalan Wife of Sri Manoj Kumar Jalan Resident Of Geeta Mansion Christian Basti G.S. Road Guwahati Assam Pin- 781005. 4. Vivek Anand Singhal Son of Sri Ashok Anand Singhal and Smt. Shilpi Anand Singhal Resident of Anand Lok House No. 1A Monalisa Geetanagar Path Zoo Road Guwahati In The District of Kamrup (M) Assam Pin- 781024 5. M/S Protech Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. A Private Limited Company Registered Under The Provisions Of The Companies Act 1956 And/Or 2013 Having its Registered Office Situated At 606 Protech Centre 6th Floor, Ganeshguri G.S. Road, Guwahati In The District Of Kamrup (M) Assam Pin- 781006 Being Represented by its Director Sri Manoj Kumar Jalan CRP(IO)/276/2026 Page 3 S/O Late Mahabir Prasad Jalan Aged About 58 Years R/O Geeta Mansion Christian Basti G.S. Road, Guwahati, Assam Pin- 781005 6. Indusind Bank Represented by its Branch Manager Ganeshguri Branch Ground Floor Protech Centre Ganeshguri Guwahati Assam Pin- 781006 Having its Guwahati Regional Office At Second Floor Holding No. 4 G.S. Road Bhangagarh Village- Ulubari Guwahati Assam Pin- 781005 and its Registered Office At 2401 Thimmayya Rd. (Cantonment) Pune Maharashtra Pin- 411001 7. Regional Head Indusind Bank Guwahati Regional Office At Second Floor Holding N G.S. Road Bhangagarh Village- Ulubari Guwahati- 781005 Assam ……Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. M. K. Choudhury, Sr. Advocate Mr. A. K. Sarma, Sr. Advocate Mr. M. Sarma, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. B. D. Deka, Advocate (R.1-6) Mr. A. K. Gogoi, Advocate (R.7) Date of Hearing : 29.07.2026 Date of Judgment : 31.07.2026 CRP(IO)/276/2026 Page 4 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA JUDGMENT AND ORDER 1. Heard Mr. M. K. Choudhury, learned senior counsel as well as Mr. A. K. Sarma, learned senior counsel, both assisted by Mr. M. Sarma, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B. D. Deka, the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 6 as well as Mr. A. K. Gogoi, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 7 and 8. 2. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners, namely, Shri Lokesh Anand Singhal and Smt. Shilpi Anand Singhal, impugning the order dated 20.05.2026, passed in the Misc. (J) Case No. 28/2026 arising out of the Misc (Arb.) Appeal No. 1/2026, whereby the Court of learned District Judge, Kamrup (M), Guwahati has rejected the prayer for stay of operation of order dated 17.02.2026, passed in Misc. (Arbitration) Case No. 205/2024 under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, by the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No.1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, during the pendency of the Misc (Arb.) Appeal No. 1/2026. 3. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant Civil Revision Petition (I/O), are that, the parties hereto are the stakeholders of the Protech Group comprising of multiple individual entities, namely, partnership firms, limited liability partnerships, private limited companies, including the respondent No. 1 partnership firm. It is a leading builder and real CRP(IO)/276/2026 Page 5 estate developer in Guwahati and undertakes projects to develop and construct the apartment buildings. 4. Owing to some dispute between the partners, the present petitioner No. 1 had approached the respondent No. 7 Bank, on 10.12.2024, alleging signature fraud, financial irregularities and misappropriation of funds by certain directors, partners of the partnership firms/companies of the Protech Group. In pursuant to the letter dated 10.12.2024 of the petitioner No. 1, the respondent No. 7 Bank, by its letter dated 13.12.2024, informed him regarding freezing of the Current Account No.201019835579 of the respondent No. 1 partnership firm, in the said bank. 5. The deed of partnership by which the respondent No.1 partnership firm was constituted provides for an arbitration clause for resolving the disputes by means of arbitration. The said clause provides as follows: “that all disputes concerning the partnership affairs, if cannot be settled mutually, shall be referred to the arbitrators to be appointed under the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996”. 6. Thereafter, the present respondents approached the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No.1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati by filing an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking interim relief for the de-freezing of the aforementioned current account and restraining the present Petitioner from interfering with the day-to-day affairs and management of the respondent No. 1 partnership firm and that of its sister companies/firms. CRP(IO)/276/2026 Page 6 7. The said case was registered as Misc. (Arbitration) Case No. 205/2024. The present petitioners had contested the said case, however, by order dated 17.02.2026, the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No.1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati had disposed of the Misc. Arbitration Case No.205/2024 by restraining the present petitioner No.1 from interfering with day-to-day affairs of the respondent No. 1 firm and its sister companies/firms concerned. 8. He was further restrained from taking any action from closing/freezing the transaction of the current bank account of the present respondent No.1 firm, bearing Current Account No.201019835579 and from taking any action from freezing the accounts of any of the sister companies, subsidiary or parent companies of the petitioners till the constitution of an arbitral tribunal. 9. Being aggrieved with the aforementioned order, the present petitioners approach the Court of learned District Judge, Kamrup (M), Guwahati by filing an appeal under Section 37 (1) (b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The said appeal has been registered as Arbitration Appeal No. 1/2026. In the said appeal, the present petitioners also filed an application under Order 41 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Section 151 of the said Code, praying for staying the operation of the impugned judgment and order dated 17.02.2026, passed by the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No.1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in Misc. Arbitration Case No.205/2024, during the pendency of the appeal. 10. The said case was registered as Misc. (J) Case No.28/2026. However, by the order dated 20.05.2026, passed in Misc. (J) Case No.28/2026, CRP(IO)/276/2026 Page 7 the prayer for staying the operation of order dated 17.02.2026, passed in Misc. Arbitration Case No.205/2024, was rejected by the Appellate Court of learned, District Judge, Kamrup (M), Guwahati. The aforesaid order has been impugned by the present petitioner by filing the instant application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 11. Mr. M. K. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioner No.1 with petitioner No.2 holds majority shares of the respondent No.1 partnership firm. He submits that as per Section 12 of the Partnership Act, 1932, he has right to participate in the affairs of the partnership firm. However, the Trial Court erred in completely restraining him from participating in day-to-day affairs of the respondent No.1 partnership firm and its sister firms, thereby totally ousting him from exercising his statutory rights in relation to the partnership firm. 12. He also submits that the petitioners are ready to give an undertaking that they shall abide by the first part of the restraint order, i.e., not to take any steps for freezing the current account of respondent No.1 firm prior to constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal. 13. He submits that the respondent No.2 is running a competing business in total conflict of interest with Protech Group by the name and style of Ambika Group and is siphoning of the funds of the respondent No.1 partnership firm and directing the same for the betterment of the Ambika group. He further submits that the respondent No.7 bank has also illegally allowed the respondent No.2 to operate the accounts of respondent No.1 firm without following and updating KYC in terms of the rules and regulations of the Bank. He submits that the Trial Court CRP(IO)/276/2026 Page 8 as well as the Appellate Court erred in not taking into consideration these aspects. 14. He also submits that the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court also erred in not taking into consideration the mediated settlement agreement reached between the parties on 23.09.2024, which has never been questioned by the respondents’ side. He submits that in this regard the petitioners have also filed a Title Suit i.e., Title Suit No. 266/2025 against the respondents praying for a decree of declaration that the respondents are bound by the terms and conditions of the Mediated Settlement Agreement (MSA) dated 29.09.2025. 15. The learned counsel senior counsel for the petitioners further submits that the Appellate Court erred in refusing to stay the operation of order dated 17.02.2026 passed in Misc. Arbitration Case No.205/2024, by the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No.1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati without taking into consideration that the respondent in spite of knowing the fact that when the notice issued to the present petitioners by the respondents on 31.01.2025 for invoking the arbitration clause was not responded by them, they ought to have approached the High Court within one month for appointment of Arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. He submits that even the Trial Court had acknowledged this aspect in the order dated 17.02.2026, whereby it observed that due to the failure on the part of the present respondent side to approach the High Court within one month of the date of notice dated 31.01.2025 for appointment of Arbitrator, the ex-parte order dated 19.12.2024 ought to have been vacated. However, in spite of the said observation the trial court by its order dated 17.02.2026 had completely ousted the CRP(IO)/276/2026 Page 9 petitioner No. 1 from engaging in the day-to-day affairs of the Respondent No. 1 contrary to the statutory provision. Hence, he submits that the Trial Court order is perverse and the order of the Appellate Court whereby it refused to grant the stay of the order dated 17.02.2026 passed in Misc. Arbitration Case No.205/2024 during the pendency of the Misc. (Arb.) Appeal No. 1/2026, is also hit by perversity and is bad in law. 16. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners also submits that in the instant case, there has been violation of the provisions contained in Section 9 (2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in as much as no steps for commencement of arbitrary proceeding was taken within a period of 90 days from the date of obtaining interim protection in Section 9 proceeding from the Trial Court. As such, he submits that the Trial Court's order of interim protection is liable to be vacated and therefore, the same ought to have been stayed in the pendency of the appeal filed by the present petitioners before the Court of learned District Judge, Kamrup (Metro). 17. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners further submits that an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against the order passed by the Appellate Court under Order 41 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 denying the stay of the impugned order passed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the Trial Court in an appeal preferred under Section 37 of the said Act. 18. He submits that Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 puts no embargo in exercise of the powers by this Court under constitutional provision of Article 227 of the Constitution of India as no CRP(IO)/276/2026 Page 10 statutory provision can put an embargo in exercise of powers under constitutional provision. 19. In support of his submissions, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners has cited following rulings: i. Sundaram Finance Ltd. Vs. NEPC India Ltd. reported in (1999) 2 SCC 479 ii. Regenta Hotels Private Limited Vs. M/S Hotel Grand Centre Point reported in (2026) 4 SCC 142 iii. Firm Ashok Traders Vs. Gurumukh Das Saluja and others reported in (2004) 3 SCC 155. iv. Dr. S.Vel Aravind Vs. Dr.Radhakrishnan reported in 2018 Supreme (MAD) 2588. v. Bhaven Construction Vs. Executive Engineer, Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd. & Anr. reported in (2022) 01 SCC 75 vi. Regenta Hotels Private Limited Vs. M/s Hotel Grand Centre Point and Others” reported in (2000) 26 SCC 34 vii. Manash Kamal Bezboruah Vs. Bokahola Tea Company Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. (SLP Civil No. 7233-7234 of 2026). viii. S.S.Gupta And Sons (Huf) Vs. Ramesh Kumar Gupta and Others reported in 2010 Supreme (PNH) 2700. ix. Prakash Boolu Kundar Vs. Shankar Aithu Poojari reported in 2006 Supreme Bombay 938. CRP(IO)/276/2026 Page 11 20. Mr. B. D. Deka, the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 6 has submitted that there is no apparent infirmity or manifest illegality or any perversity in the impugned order dated 20.05.2026 passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in Misc. (J) Case No.28/2026, whereby it denied to stay the operation of order dated 17.02.2026 passed by the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No.1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 21. He submits that in the instant case, there has been no violation of the provision contained in Section 9 (2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in as much as the arbitral proceeding has been commenced within the meaning of Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, on the day when the present petitioners received the notice dated 31.01.2025 issued by the present respondent for invoking arbitration clause for resolution of dispute between them. He submits that the present petitioners have admitted receipt of the said notice. 22. He submits that the statutory consequences tied to commencement of arbitral proceeding, including the mandate under Section 9 (2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, must be assessed solely with reference to the date of receipt of request invoking arbitration under Section 21 of the Act. 23. He submits that once the arbitral proceeding has commenced within the meaning of Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the provision of Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 comes to play, prohibiting any judicial intervention except as provided in the Act itself. As such, the High Court should be extremely circumspect in interfering with the impugned order of rejecting the CRP(IO)/276/2026 Page 12 prayer for stay of order dated 17.02.2026 passed by the Trial Court in Misc. (Arbitration) Case No. 205/2024. He submits that the Appellate Court of learned District Judge, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, while passing the impugned order has observed that the pleas taken by the petitioners in their application for stay of operation of the impugned order relates to merit of the case and same needs to be considered only during hearing of the appeal, and as such, those pleas on merits may not be gone into at this stage of deciding an application under Order 41 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and therefore, found that even if the order appealed is not stayed during the pendency of the Misc (Arb.) Appeal No. 1/2026, it will not have any serious civil consequences. 24. The learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the validity or otherwise of the order dated 17.02.2026 passed in Misc. (Arbitration) Case No. 205/2024 may only be considered in the pending appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, referred by the present petitioners before the Court of learned District Judge, Kamrup (M), Guwahati and no interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is warranted by this Court. Otherwise, it would amount to this Court usurping the powers of Appellate Court under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Ac, 1996. 25. He submits that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is a complete code in itself and any remedy has to be sought within the four corners of the statute itself and invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has to be only in CRP(IO)/276/2026 Page 13 exceptional circumstances, and in this case, no such exceptional circumstances would be justified by the petitioners. 26. The learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court took into consideration the conduct of the petitioner No.1 in creating hindrance in day-to-day business of the respondent No. 1 firm by repeatedly approaching the bank for freezing its current account and such conduct may be regarded as wanton misconduct, which adversely affects the business of the partnership firm. The said aspect has been taken into consideration by the Trial Court as impliedly taken notice by the Appellate Court. 27. He further submits that the purported family settlement dated 23.09.2024 cannot be regarded as Mediated Settlement Agreement within the meaning of the term as defined by the Mediation Act as for having a Mediated Settlement Agreement, it has to be preceded by mediation, which has to be further preceded by a mediation agreement in writing and no such mediation agreement in writing is there in the instant case. 28. He further submits that otherwise also the said matter is the subject matter of a different title suit, which has been instituted by the present petitioners. He submits that if this Court while considering the instant application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India makes any observation regarding the merit of the case of the respective parties at this stage, it would have a bearing in the appeal pending before the Court of learned District Judge, Kamrup (M), Guwahati and may cause prejudice to one of the parties before the Appellate Court. CRP(IO)/276/2026 Page 14 29. As such, he submits that this is not a fit case to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the respondent has cited following rulings. i. “Bhaven Construction Vs. Executive Engineer, Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd. & Anr.” reported in (2022) 01 SCC 75 ii. “Regenta Hotels Private Limited Vs. M/s Hotel Grand Centre Point and Others” reported in (2000) 26 SCC 34 30. On the other hand, Mr. A. K. Gogoi, the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 7 and 8, has submitted that the respondent No. 7 bank does not have any private interest in the dispute between the petitioner and the other respondents. He submits that initially the bank account of the respondent No. 1 firm was freezed at the request of petitioner No. 1. However, later on, due to an amicable settlement arrived at between the parties, same was defreezed. He submits that the petitioner again approached the bank for freezing the account. However, in the meanwhile, due to the order passed by the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No.1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, in Misc. (Arbitration) Case No. 205/2024, on 17.02.2026, the account has been defreezed again. He submits that the bank is ready to comply with any direction issued by the Court. He further submits that the bank is also in the process of completing the KYC formalities. However, due to non-cooperation of the parties, same could not be completed till date. CRP(IO)/276/2026 Page 15 31. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials available on record. I have also considered the rulings cited by learned counsel for both sides in support of their respective submissions. 32. On perusal of the records, it appears that the present petitioners, in the application filed by them before the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No.1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, on 21.02.2025, praying for modification of the ex-parte ad-interim injunction order dated 19.12.2024 passed by the said Court in Misc. (Arbitration) Case No. 205/2024, in paragraph No. 5 (xxvi) of the said application has admitted the receipt of notice under Clause 21 of the Partnership Deed dated 22.11.2021 for invoking the arbitration clause. As such, the arbitral proceeding shall be deemed to be commenced on the date of receipt of the said notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Under the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that prima facie, there appears to be no violation of the mandate of the provisions contained in Section 9 (2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in this case. 33. Further, since arbitral proceedings have deemed to be commenced under the aforesaid provision, the provisions contained in Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 also comes into play, whereby the judicial intervention in the said proceeding has to be only in terms of the statutory provisions contained in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 34. Though, this Court does not have any second opinion on the legal proposition that any statutory provision cannot curtail a constitutional right guaranteed by any of the provisions of the Constitution of India. CRP(IO)/276/2026 Page 16 Though, the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not barred, however, there are a catena of judgments wherein the Apex Court has observed that the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India shall have to be exercised cautiously and with circumspection. In this regard, the observation of the Apex Court regarding the interplay of Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, made in the case of “Bhaven Construction Vs. Executive Engineer, Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd. & Anr.” (Supra) is quoted herein below. “19. In this context we may observe Deep Industries Ltd. v. ONGC [Deep Industries Ltd. v. ONGC, (2020) 15 SCC 706] , wherein interplay of Section 5 of the Arbitration Act and Article 227 of the Constitution was analysed as under : (SCC p. 714, paras 16-17) “16. Most significant of all is the non obstante clause contained in Section 5 which states that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, in matters that arise under Part I of the Arbitration Act, no judicial authority shall intervene except where so provided in this Part. Section 37 grants a constricted right of first appeal against certain judgments and orders and no others. Further, the statutory mandate also provides for one bite at the cherry, and interdicts a second appeal being filed [see Section 37(2) of the Act]. CRP(IO)/276/2026 Page 17 17. This being the case, there is no doubt whatsoever that if petitions were to be filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution against orders passed in appeals under Section 37, the entire arbitral process would be derailed and would not come to fruition for many years. At the same time, we cannot forget that Article 227 is a constitutional provision which remains untouched by the non obstante clause of Section 5 of the Act. In these circumstances, what is important to note is that though petitions can be filed under Article 227 against judgments allowing or dismissing first appeals under Section 37 of the Act, yet the High Court would be extremely circumspect in interfering with the same, taking into account the statutory policy as adumbrated by us hereinabove so that interference is restricted to orders that are passed which are patently lacking in inherent jurisdiction.” 35. Thus, in view of the above observation, it is clear that the High Court would be extremely circumspect in interfering with any order passed by a court entertaining an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 36. On Perusal of the impugned Order dated 20.05.2026 passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Kamrup (M), Guwahati refusing to grant stay of the order Appeal against, it appears that the main reason for such a refusal was that the Appellate Court was of the considered opinion that the plea taken by the present petitioners in their application for stay of impugned order relates to merit of the case and, CRP(IO)/276/2026 Page 18 as such, same has to be considered during hearing of the appeal and decided therein only. 37. The said observation of the Appellate Court under no circumstances can be regarded as a perverse observation. Rather, this Court is in agreement with the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondents that if this Court goes into the contention raised by the respective parties in the instant application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court shall also have to go into merit of the case and, in such a case, any observation made by this Court on the merit of the case would have bearing on the outcome of the appeal and same may be prejudicial to one of the parties to this case. 38. As such, this Court is of considered opinion that since no apparent perversity is there in the order dated 20.05.2026 passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, denying stay of operation of order dated 17.02.2026 passed by the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No.1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, in Misc. (Arbitration) Case No. 205/2024, this is not a fit case to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the impugned order. More so, in view of the provisions contained in Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as well as the fact that the Misc (Arb.) Appeal No. 1/2026 is fixed for final hearing before the Appellate Court of the learned District Judge, Kamrup (Metro), today only, i.e., on 31.07.2026. The said appeal is required to be considered and disposed of as expeditiously as possible. CRP(IO)/276/2026 Page 19 39. This CRP (IO) is, accordingly, dismissed. 40. The parties are left to bear their own cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant Amita Sharma 2026.07.31 17:18:24 +05'30'