Application u/S. 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the “1996 Act”) for appointment of an independent arbitrator to adjudicate 1 the disputes that had arisen between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2. =The arbitration clause in the 2007 Scheme clearly states that : “All disputes arising out of this scheme or in relation thereto in any form whatsoever shall be dealt exclusively by way of arbitration in terms of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.” (emphasis supplied) Russell in his commentary on arbitration11 has interpreted these words as follows : “Disputes “in connection with”, “in relation to”, or “regarding” a contract. These words, which are frequently encountered and are to be given the same meaning, were at one time given a restricted interpretation, but are now well established as having a broad meaning…..They may also be sufficient to catch disputes arising under another contract related to the contract containing the arbitration clause.” this Court observed that expressions such as – “pertaining to”, “in relation to” and “arising out of”, are used in the expansive sense, and must be construed accordingly.The words “in relation thereto” used in Clause 11.12 of the 2007 Scheme indicate that the clause would apply to all transactions which took place under the 2007 Scheme. This would include the sale transactions in the present case. In view of the above discussion, the view taken by the learned Single Judge is erroneous, and is hereby set­aside. The appeal is allowed. At the conclusion of the hearing, the parties consensually agreed to appoint Mr. Justice Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay (Retired Judge of the Calcutta High Court; Address: P­29/3, Jotish Roy Road, Kolkata – 700053) as Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes which have arisen between the Appellant and Respondent No. 2, under the 2007 Scheme. The appointment of Mr. Justice Chattopadhyay will be subject to the disclosure and declaration made, as per the Sixth Schedule to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (as amended by the 2015 Amendment Act). The proceedings will be conducted in Kolkata. Ordered accordingly.


Hon’ble Ms. Justice Indu Malhotra 

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1695 OF 2019
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 28693 of 2018)
Giriraj Garg …Appellant
Versus
Coal India Ltd. & Ors. …Respondents
J U D G M E N T
INDU MALHOTRA, J.
Leave granted.

  1. The present Civil Appeal arises out of an Order dated
    21/18.05.2018 passed by a learned Single Judge of the
    Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi, in Arbitration
    Application No. 11 of 2016. The Appellant filed an
    Application u/S. 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation
    Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the “1996 Act”) for
    appointment of an independent arbitrator to adjudicate
    1
    the disputes that had arisen between the Petitioner and
    Respondent No. 2.
  2. The factual matrix of the present case, briefly stated, is
    as under:
    2.1. Respondent No. 1 issued the 2007 Scheme,
    whereby coal distribution would be conducted through
    e­Auction, with a view to provide access to coal for
    buyers, who were not able to source coal through the
    available institutional mechanism. This system would
    provide an equal opportunity to purchase coal through
    a single­window service to all intending buyers, and
    facilitate country wide access to booking coal online
    for all sections of coal buyers, through a simple,
    transparent system.
    Clause 11.12 of the 2007 Scheme contains an
    arbitration clause which reads as under ­
    “11.12 In the event of any dispute,
    Bidder/Buyer is necessarily required to
    represent in writing to the General Manager
    (Sales and Marketing) of the concerned Coal
    Company, who would deal with the same in a
    period of 1 month from such representation.
    Thereafter, if required the matter be
    determined by the Director­In Charge of
    Marketing of the concerned Coal Company.
    Any interpretation of this Clause will be
    subject to clarification by CIL, which will be
    deemed as firm and final. All disputes arising
    2
    out of this scheme or in relation thereto in any
    form whatsoever shall be dealt exclusively by
    way of arbitration in terms of the Arbitration
    and Conciliation Act, 1996. The arbitration
    shall be conducted at Kolkata at a place to be
    notified by CIL. The arbitrator shall be
    appointed by the Chairman and Managing
    Director, CIL upon written request in this
    behalf. The award rendered by the arbitrator
    shall be final and binding on the parties. (The
    place of arbitration and nomination of
    arbitrator be varied appropriately in view of
    the Coal Company involved).
    (emphasis supplied)
    2.2. From 2012 to 2015, the Appellant, being a
    registered buyer as per the Terms and Conditions of
    the 2007 Scheme, participated in the e­Auction for
    purchase of coal for several sale orders issued under
    the 2007 Scheme.
    2.3. The Appellant was declared successful with
    respect to various coal orders. Sale orders were issued
    in favour of the Appellant, pursuant to which he
    deposited the Earnest Money Deposit (hereinafter
    referred to as “EDM”) and the coal value as per Clause
    2.5 and 5.2 of the 2007 Scheme respectively.
    2.4. As per Clause 7.2 of the 2007 Scheme, a period of
    45 days was allowed to the Appellant from the date of
    issue of the delivery order, to lift the coal. The
    3
    Appellant for certain reasons was unable to lift the
    booked quantity of coal.
    2.5. Respondent No. 1 considered this to be a breach
    of the Terms and Conditions of the 2007 Scheme, and
    forfeited the EMD deposited by the Appellant under
    Clause 9.2 of the 2007 Scheme.
    2.6. As a consequence, disputes arose between the
    parties. The Appellant served a Notice dated
    21.03.2016 invoking the arbitration Clause 11.12
    under the 2007 Scheme.
    The Respondents failed to appoint an arbitrator
    as per Clause 11.12 of the 2007 Scheme.
    2.7. The Appellant was therefore constrained to file
    an Application u/S. 11 before the Jharkhand High
    Court at Ranchi, for appointment of an independent
    arbitrator.
    2.8. The learned Single Judge vide impugned Order
    dated 21/18.05.2018 rejected the Application on the
    ground that the disputes relate to different
    transactions entered into between the parties, under
    the 2007 Scheme. The sale orders did not contain an
    arbitration clause. It was held that even though the
    2007 Scheme contains an arbitration clause, none of
    4
    the individual sale orders make reference to the
    applicability of terms and conditions of the 2007
    Scheme to the sale orders. Hence, the arbitration
    clause could not be incorporated by reference.
  3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid Order, the Appellant has filed
    the present Appeal.
    We have heard learned Counsels Dr. Kedar Nath
    Tripathy, Mr. B. B. Pradhan, Mr. Susanta Kr. Muduti,
    and Mr. M. A. Aleem Majid for the Appellants and Mr.
    Anupam Lal Das, Mr. Anirudh Singh and Mr. Krishanu
    Barua for the Respondents and perused the documents
    on record.
    3.1. A copy of a Sale Order issued by Respondent No.
    2 was brought to our notice, which contains Standard
    Terms and Conditions at the end. Clause 7 of the
    Terms and Conditions state that the sale orders would
    be governed by the Guidelines, Circulars, Notices, and
    Instructions issued by Coal India Ltd., Bharat Coking
    Coal Ltd. etc.
    Clause 7 is set out hereinbelow for ready reference ­
    “7. The sale order will be governed by
    guidelines – circulars – office orders –
    notices – instructions, relevant law etc.
    issued from time to time by Coal India
    Ltd., Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., State
    Govts., Central Govt. and other statutory
    5
    bodies. This is also subject to any future
    escalation in prices and or levies/or
    duties­taxes etc. which may be imposed
    from time to time.”
    (emphasis supplied)
  4. The short question before this Court is whether the
    arbitration clause contained in the 2007 Scheme, would
    stand incorporated by reference in each of the sale
    orders.
    4.1. The principle of incorporation by reference of an
    arbitration clause, from another document or contract
    is a well­established principle in arbitration
    jurisprudence.1
    This principle has been followed by
    the courts in India, and has been given statutory
    recognition in sub­section (5) of Section 7 of the 1996
    Act.
    4.2. Section 7(5) states that the reference in a contract
    to a document containing an arbitration clause,
    constitutes a valid arbitration agreement, if the
    contract is in writing, and the reference is specifically
    made to incorporate the arbitration clause as a part of
    the contract.
    1 Clements v. Devon Country Insurance Committee, [1918] 1 KB 94;
    Macleod Ross and Co. Ltd. v. Compagnie d’ Assurances Generales
    L’Helvetia of St Gall, [1952] 1 All ER 331, 334 : [1952] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 12
    (CA).
    6
    4.3. The arbitration agreement need not necessarily
    be in the form of a clause in the substantive contract
    itself. It could be an independent agreement; or it
    could be incorporated by reference either from a
    parent agreement, or by reference to a standard form
    contract.
    4.4. Section 7(5) of the 1996 Act, closely replicates
    Article 7(2)2
    of the UNCITRAL Model Law as it stood
    prior to the 2006 amendment. Dr Peter Binder in his
    Commentary titled “International Commercial
    Arbitration and Conciliation in UCITRAL Model Law
    2 Art. 7. Definition and form of arbitration agreement.—
    (1) ‘Arbitration agreement’ is an agreement by the parties to
    submit to arbitration all or certain disputes which have arisen or
    which may arise between them in respect of a defined legal
    relationship, whether contractual or not. An arbitration agreement
    may be in the form of an arbitration clause in a contract or in the
    form of a separate agreement.
    (2) The arbitration agreement shall be in writing. An agreement
    is in writing if it is contained in a document signed by the parties or
    in an exchange of letters, telex, telegrams or other means of
    telecommunication which provide a record of the agreement, or in an
    exchange of statements of claim and defence in which the existence
    of an agreement is alleged by one party and not denied by another.
    The reference in a contract to a document containing an arbitration
    clause constitutes an arbitration agreement provided that the
    contract is in writing and the reference is such as to make that
    clause part of the contract.
    7
    Jurisdictions” 3 has interpreted Article 7(2) to include
    incorporation by reference in the following words:
    “(d) Reference to a document containing an
    arbitration clause
    The third sentence of art. 7(2) is concerned
    with a contract containing a reference to a
    document that contains an arbitration clause.
    Provided that the main contract is in “writing”
    and that the reference “is such as to make
    that clause part of the contract”, the
    arbitration agreement is valid. The necessity
    of including this provision arose from problems
    and divergent court decisions on this issue in
    the context of the New York Convention. The
    travaux explain that it is sufficient if the
    reference only refers to the document; specific
    mention of the arbitration clause therein is not
    necessary.”
    (emphasis supplied)
    4.5. Section 6(2) of the English Arbitration Act, 1996
    is pari materia to Section 7(5) of the 1996 Act, and
    reads as under:
    “6. Definition of arbitration agreement.
    (1)…..
    (2) The reference in an agreement to a written
    form of arbitration Clause or to a document
    containing an arbitration Clause constitutes
    an arbitration agreement if the reference is
    such as to make that Clause part of the
    agreement.”
    3 Dr. Peter Binder, International Commercial Arbitration and
    Conciliation in UNCITRAL Model Law Jurisdictions, (3rd Edn., 2010,
    Sweet & Maxwell) pg. 86, para 2­022
    8
    The Queen’s Bench Division, Commercial Court
    in Sea Trade Maritime Corporation v. Hellenic Mutual
    War Risks Association (Bermuda) Limited, The Athena4
    held that the general words of incorporation of a
    standard form contract were enough to incorporate an
    arbitration clause.
    4.6. The question of incorporation of an arbitration
    Clause from an earlier contract by general reference
    into a later contract, came up for consideration before
    the Queen’s Bench Division in Habas Sinai Ve Tibbi
    Gazlar Isthisal Endustri AS v. Sometal SAL5
    . In this
    case, the Court followed the judgment in the case of
    Sea Trade Maritime Corporation (supra), and held that
    a general reference to a contract containing an
    arbitration clause is sufficient for incorporation from a
    standard form of contract. The Court recognized the
    following broad categories in which the parties
    attempt to incorporate an arbitration clause:
    “ (1) A and B make a contract in which they
    incorporate standard terms. These may be the
    standard terms of one party set out on the
    back of an offer letter or an order, or contained
    4 [2006] EWHC 2530 (Comm)
    5 [2010] EWHC 29 (Comm)
    9
    in another document to which reference is
    made; or terms embodied in the Rules of an
    organization of which A or B or both are
    members; or they may be terms standard in a
    particular trade or industry.
    (2) A and B make a contract incorporating
    terms previously agreed between A and B in
    another contract or contracts to which they
    were both parties
    (3) A and B make a contract incorporating
    terms agreed between A (or B) and C.
    Common examples are a bill of lading
    incorporating the terms of a charter to which A
    is a party; reinsurance contracts incorporating
    the terms of an underlying insurance; excess
    insurance contracts incorporating the terms of
    the primary layer of insurance; and building or
    engineering sub contracts incorporating the
    terms of a main contract or sub­sub contracts
    incorporating the terms of a sub contract.
    (4) A and B make a contract incorporating
    terms agreed between C and D. Bills of lading,
    reinsurance and insurance contracts and
    building contracts may fall into this category. ”
    In Habas (supra) a distinction was made between
    a ‘single contract case’ and a ‘two­contract case’. A
    ‘single contract case’ is one where the arbitration
    clause is contained in a standard form contract to
    which there is a general reference in the contract
    between the parties. On the other hand, where the
    arbitration clause is contained in an earlier contract/
    some other contract, and a reference is made to
    10
    incorporate it in the contract between the parties, it is
    a ‘two­contract case’. The Court held that
    incorporation by general reference in a single contract
    case is valid. However, in a ‘two­contract case’, where
    reference is made to an arbitration clause in a
    separate contract, the reference must be specific to
    the arbitration clause. The judgment in Habas (supra)
    has recently been affirmed by the Queen’s Bench
    Division in SEA2011 Inc. v. ICT Ltd.6
    4.7. Russell in his commentary on arbitration7
    has
    commented on the single and two contract cases, and
    reference to standard form terms, in the following
    passage, which is instructive :
    “ Reference to standard form terms,
    single and two­contract cases. If the
    document sought to be incorporated is a
    standard form set of terms and conditions the
    courts are more likely to accept that general
    words of incorporation will suffice. This is
    because the parties can be expected to be
    more familiar with those standard terms,
    including the arbitration clause. In Sea Trade
    Maritime Corporation v. Hellenic Mutual War
    Risks Association (Bermuda) Ltd., (The
    “Athena”) No. 2 the Court drew a distinction
    between what is described as a “two contract
    case”, that is where the arbitration Clause is
    contained in a secondary document which is a
    contract to which at least one party is different
    6 [2018] EWHC 520 (Comm)
    7 Russell on Arbitration (24th Edn. ,2015, Sweet & Maxwell) pp. 52 –
    54, para 2­049
    11
    from the parties to the contract in question,
    and “a single contract case” where the
    arbitration Clause is in standard terms to be
    found in another document. Relying on dictum
    of Bingham LJ in Federal Bulk Carries Inc v.
    C. Itoh & Co. Ltd. (The “Federal Bulker”),
    Langley J stated that:
    “In principle, English law accepts incorporation
    of standard terms by the use of general words
    and, I would add, particularly so when the
    terms are readily available and the question
    arises in the context of dealings between
    established players in a well­known market.
    The principle, as the dictum makes clear, does
    not distinguish between a term which is an
    arbitration Clause and one which addresses
    other issues. In contrast, and for the very
    reason that it concerns other parties, a
    “stricter rule” is applied in charterparty/bills of
    lading cases. The reason given is that the
    other party may have no knowledge nor ready
    means of knowledge of the relevant terms.
    Further, as the authorities illustrate, the terms
    of an arbitration Clause may require
    adjustment if they are to be made to apply to
    the parties to a different contract.”
    The Court therefore reinforced the distinction
    between incorporation by reference of
    standard form terms and of the terms of a
    different contract, and concluded that in a
    single contract case general words of
    incorporation are sufficient, whereas by its
    nature a two contract case may require
    specific reference to the other contract, unless
    the secondary document is stated to be based
    on standard form terms containing an
    arbitration agreement. In that case,
    presumably specific reference to the
    arbitration Clause would not be needed. As
    discussed below, this approach has been
    endorsed in subsequent cases, albeit drawing
    a slightly different but “material” distinction
    between incorporation of the terms of a
    separate contract ­ standard or otherwise ­
    12
    made between the same parties which are
    treated as “single contract” cases, even where
    there is in fact more than one contract; and
    those where the terms to be incorporated are
    contained in a contract between one or more
    different parties which are treated as the “two
    contract” cases.
    Extension of the single contract cases.
    Recently, the courts appear to have extended
    the “single contract” principle applicable to
    standard form contracts, where general words
    of incorporation will suffice, to other types of
    contract where the same rationale can be said
    to apply. Thus, if the document sought to be
    incorporated is a bespoke contract between
    the same parties, the courts have accepted
    this as a “single contract” case where general
    words of incorporation will suffice, even
    though the other contract is not on standard
    terms and constitutes an entirely separate
    agreement. The rationale for this approach is
    that the parties have already contracted on
    the terms said to be incorporated and are
    therefore even more likely to be familiar with
    the term relied on than a party resisting
    incorporation of a standard term. Put another
    way, if general words of incorporation are
    sufficient for the latter, they should be even
    more so for the former. The courts also appear
    to have accepted as a “single contract” case a
    situation where the contract referred to is
    between one of the parties to the original
    contract and a third party, where the contracts
    as a whole “were entered into in the context of
    a single commercial relationship.”
    (emphasis supplied)
    4.8. An early case in Indian arbitration on the
    doctrine of incorporation by reference under the
    Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the
    “1940 Act”), was Alimenta SA v. National Agriculture
    13
    Co­op Marketing Federation of India Ltd.8 Though there
    was no specific provision on an arbitration agreement
    being based on the doctrine of incorporation by
    reference in the 1940 Act, this Court recognized it to
    be applicable in Indian law. In this case, this Court
    held that the arbitration clause of an earlier contract
    could be incorporated by reference into a later
    contract, provided it is not repugnant to, or
    inconsistent with the terms of the contract in which it
    is incorporated.
    4.9. In the 1996 Act, the doctrine of incorporation by
    reference is provided in the statue itself under Section
    7(5) of the Act. In M.R. Engineers & Contractors Pvt.
    Ltd. v. Som Datt Builders Ltd.,
    9
    this Court held that
    even though a contract between the parties did not
    contain a provision for arbitration, an arbitration
    clause contained in an independent document would
    be incorporated into the contract by reference, if the
    reference is such as to make the arbitration clause a
    8 (1987) 1 SCC 615 : AIR 1987 SC 643 : 84 (2000) DLT 494.
    9 (2009) 7 SCC 696 : 2009 (3) Arb LR 1 (SC) : 2009 (9) SCALE 298.
    14
    part of the contract. The court explained the doctrine
    of incorporation in the following words –
    “24. The scope and intent of Section 7(5) may
    therefore be summarised thus:
    (i) An arbitration clause in another document,
    would get incorporated into a contract by
    reference, if the following conditions are
    fulfilled :
    (1) The contract should contain a clear
    reference to the documents containing
    arbitration clause,
    (2) the reference to the other document should
    clearly indicate an intention to incorporate the
    arbitration clause into the contract,
    (3) The arbitration clause should be
    appropriate, that is capable of application in
    respect of disputes under the contract and
    should not be repugnant to any term of the
    contract.
    (ii) When the parties enter into a contract,
    making a general reference to another
    contract, such general reference would not
    have the effect of incorporating the arbitration
    clause from the referred document into the
    contract between the parties. The arbitration
    clause from another contract can be
    incorporated into the contract (where such
    reference is made), only by a specific reference
    to arbitration clause.
    (iii) Where a contract between the parties
    provides that the execution or performance of
    that contract shall be in terms of another
    contract (which contains the terms and
    conditions relating to performance and a
    provision for settlement of disputes by
    arbitration), then, the terms of the referred
    contract in regard to execution/performance
    alone will apply, and not the arbitration
    agreement in the referred contract, unless
    there is special reference to the arbitration
    clause also.
    15
    (iv) Where the contract provides that the
    standard form of terms and conditions of an
    independent Trade or Professional Institution
    (as for example the Standard Terms &
    Conditions of a Trade Association or Architects
    Association) will bind them or apply to the
    contract, such standard form of terms and
    conditions including any provision for
    arbitration in such standard terms and
    conditions, shall be deemed to be incorporated
    by reference. Sometimes the contract may also
    say that the parties are familiar with those
    terms and conditions or that the parties have
    read and understood the said terms and
    conditions.
    (v) Where the contract between the parties
    stipulates that the Conditions of Contract of
    one of the parties to the contract shall form a
    part of their contract (as for example the
    General Conditions of Contract of the
    Government where Government is a party), the
    arbitration clause forming part of such General
    Conditions of contract will apply to the
    contract between the parties.”
    (emphasis supplied)
    4.10. This Court in Inox Wind Ltd. v. Thermocables
    Ltd.10 while adopting the ‘single contract case’ and
    ‘two­contract case’ principle laid down by Habas
    (supra), held that a general reference to a consensual
    standard form is sufficient for incorporation of an
    arbitration clause. In other words, general reference to
    a standard form contract of one party, would be
    sufficient for incorporation of the arbitration clause. In
    10 (2018) 2 SCC 519
    16
    this case, the Court expanded the application of this
    doctrine by holding that even a general reference to a
    standard form contract of one party, along with those
    of trade associations, and professional bodies would
    be sufficient to incorporate the arbitration clause.
  5. In the instant case, the learned Single Judge in the
    impugned Order has erroneously taken the view that an
    arbitration clause would not stand incorporated in the
    individual sale orders entered into by the Respondent No.
    2 – Coal Company and the Appellant. The individual sale
    orders emanate out of the 2007 Scheme. The sale orders
    specifically state that they would be governed by the
    guidelines, circulars, office orders, notices, instructions,
    relevant law etc. issued from time to time by Coal India
    Limited or Bharat Coking Coal Limited etc. As a
    consequence, the arbitration clause (i.e. Clause 11.12) in
    the 2007 Scheme would stand incorporated in the sale
    orders issued thereunder.
    Clause 7 in the sale orders falls under the ‘single
    contract case’ where the arbitration clause is contained
    in a standard form document i.e. the 2007 Scheme, to
    17
    which there is a reference in the individual sale orders
    issued by Respondent No. 2 – the Coal Company.
    5.1. The arbitration clause in the 2007 Scheme clearly
    states that :
    “All disputes arising out of this scheme or in
    relation thereto in any form whatsoever shall
    be dealt exclusively by way of arbitration in
    terms of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
    1996.”
    (emphasis supplied)
    Russell in his commentary on arbitration11 has
    interpreted these words as follows :
    “Disputes “in connection with”, “in
    relation to”, or “regarding” a contract.
    These words, which are frequently
    encountered and are to be given the same
    meaning, were at one time given a restricted
    interpretation, but are now well established as
    having a broad meaning…..They may also be
    sufficient to catch disputes arising under
    another contract related to the contract
    containing the arbitration clause.”
    (emphasis supplied)
    In Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. v. General Electric
    Company and Anr.,12 this Court observed that
    expressions such as “arising out of”, or “in respect of”, or
    “in connection with”, or “in relation to”, the contract are
    of the widest amplitude, and content.
    11 Russell on Arbitration (24th Edn. ,2015, Sweet & Maxwell) pg. 82,
    para 2­103
    12 [1985]1SCR432
    18
    In Doypack Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and
    Ors.,
    13 this Court observed that expressions such as –
    “pertaining to”, “in relation to” and “arising out of”, are
    used in the expansive sense, and must be construed
    accordingly.
    The words “in relation thereto” used in Clause 11.12 of
    the 2007 Scheme indicate that the clause would apply to
    all transactions which took place under the 2007
    Scheme. This would include the sale transactions in the
    present case.
    5.2. In view of the above discussion, the view taken by
    the learned Single Judge is erroneous, and is hereby
    set­aside. The appeal is allowed.
  6. At the conclusion of the hearing, the parties consensually
    agreed to appoint Mr. Justice Pranab Kumar
    Chattopadhyay (Retired Judge of the Calcutta High
    Court; Address: P­29/3, Jotish Roy Road, Kolkata –
    700053) as Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes
    which have arisen between the Appellant and Respondent
    No. 2, under the 2007 Scheme.
    13 1988 (36) ELT 201 (SC)
    19
    The appointment of Mr. Justice Chattopadhyay will be
    subject to the disclosure and declaration made, as per the
    Sixth Schedule to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
    (as amended by the 2015 Amendment Act).
    The proceedings will be conducted in Kolkata.
    Ordered accordingly.
    .………………………..J.
    (UDAY UMESH LALIT)
    …………………………J.
    (INDU MALHOTRA)
    New Delhi,
    February 15, 2019.
    20