SANJAY PANDURANG KALATE versus VISTRA ITCL (INDIA) LIMITED AND OTHERS
[2023] 15 S.C.R. 313, Supreme Court of India, 2023
Outcome: Disposed off
Segment: Issues
[2023] 15 S.C.R. 313 : 2023 INSC 1063
313
CASE DETAILS
SANJAY PANDURANG KALATE
v.
VISTRA ITCL (INDIA) LIMITED AND OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal Nos.7467-7468 of 2023)
DECEMBER 04, 2023
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI, 
J.B. PARDIWALA AND MANOJ MISRA, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Whether appeal instituted before the NCLAT 
was within limitation. In its impugned order, the NCLAT concluded that the 
appeal was barred by limitation on the ground that it was instituted beyond 
the outer limit of 45 days permissible under Section 61 of the Insolvency 
and Bankruptcy Code 2016. 
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 – s.61 – The appellant ﬁ led 
an interlocutory application before the NCLT alleging inter alia that 
the reply to the s.7 application on behalf of the Corporate Debtor was 
ﬁ led by respondent no.2 without authorization of the Board of Directors 
or intimation to the appellant – On 17.05.2023, the NCLT heard the 
application – The order of the NCLT was not pronounced – The order 
was uploaded by the Registry of the NCLT on 30.05.2023 though the 
order carries the date of 17.05.2023 – NCLT dismissed appellant’s 
application – Appeal against the order was e-ﬁ led before the NCLAT – 
NCLAT dismissed the application as barred by limitation – Propriety:
Held: In the instant case, the cause list for 17.05.2023 (NCLT) placed 
on record by the appellant indicates that the case was listed for admission 
and not for pronouncement – Further, on a speciﬁ c query of the Court,
it is 
not in dispute between counsel for the appellant and the respondent, that 
no substantive order was passed on 17.05.2023 by the NCLT – In these 
circumstances, limitation would not begin to run on 17.05.2023 which was 
the date on which hearings concluded – As no order was passed before 
30.05.2023, there was no occasion for the appellant to lodge an application
314 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 15 S.C.R.
for a certiﬁ ed copy on 17.05.2023 – Time for ﬁ ling an appeal would 
commence only when the order appealed from was uploaded since prior to 
that date no order was pronounced – The period of limitation began to run 
on 30.05.2023 – The 30 day limitation period provided in s.61(2) of the IBC 
concluded on 29.06.2023 – Though the appeal was ﬁ led beyond the period 
of thirty days, it was within the condonable period of ﬁ fteen days – This 
Court is of the considered view that the appeal should be restored to the 
NCLAT for reconsidering whether the appellant has shown suﬃ  cient cause 
for condoning the delay beyond thirty days – Therefore, the impugned order 
of the NCLAT declining to condone the delay is set aside and the proceedings 
are restored to the ﬁ le of the NCLAT. [Paras 19 and 21]
Limitation – What stops limitation from running, date of E-ﬁ ling 
of appeal or physical copy of appeal:
Held: It was settled in Sanket Agarwal case that the date of e-ﬁ ling 
of the appeal and not ﬁ ling of the physical copy of the appeal stops the 
limitation from running. [Para 22]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
V Nagarajan v. SKS Ispat (2022) 2 SCC 244 – held inapplicable.
Sanket Kumar Agarwal v. APG Logistics Private Limited 2023 SCC 
OnLine SC 976 – relied on.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.7467-7468 
of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.09.2023
of the National 
Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in Company 
Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1209 of 2023 and I.A. No.4246 of 2023.
Appearances:
Shyam Divan, Nakul Dewan, Sr. Advs., Sandeep S. Salunkhe, Satyajit 
A Desai, Amit K. Pathak, Kiran Shinde, Siddharth Gautam, Abhinav K. 
Mutyalwar, Gajanan N Tirthkar, Vijay Raj Singh Chouhan, Ms. Anagha S. 
Desai, Advs. for the Appellant.
315
Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv., Samir Malik, Varun Kalra, Mahip Singh, Farha 
Malik, M/s. D.S.K. Legal, Advs. for the Respondents. 
JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
JUDGMENT
DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI
1. Admit.
2. These appeals arise under Section 62 of the Insolvency and 
Bankruptcy Code 20161 from a judgement dated 14 September 2023 of the 
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal.2 The NCLAT dismissed the 
appeal against the order of the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai3 
on the ground of limitation. 
3. At the outset, it is clariﬁ ed that the ﬁ ndings in this judgement are 
limited to a determination of the question of limitation. The detailed facts 
and averments on the merits of the larger dispute between the parties are 
not analysed in the judgment.
4. Briefly, respondent 1, Vistra ITCL (India) Limited filed an 
application under Section 7 of the IBC seeking the initiation of the Corporate 
Insolvency Resolution Process4 against  Evirant Developers Private Limited, 
the Corporate Debtor. The appellant is a former director of the Corporate 
Debtor, who alleges that the Section 7 application ﬁ led by respondent 1 is 
based on collusion with the various respondents, including respondent 2 
and respondent 3, who are former directors of the Corporate Debtor. The 
appellant ﬁ led an interlocutory application before the NCLT alleging inter 
alia that the reply to the Section 7 application on behalf of the Corporate 
Debtor was ﬁ led by respondent 2 without
authorization of the Board of 
Directors or intimation to the appellant. 
1 
“IBC”
2 
“NCLAT”
3 
“NCLT”
4 
“CIRP”
SANJAY PANDURANG KALATE v. VISTRA ITCL (INDIA) 
LIMITED
316 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 15 S.C.R.
5. On 17 May 2023, the NCLT heard the application ﬁ led by the 
appellant. From the submissions and on a speciﬁ c query of the Court, 
it appears that it is not in dispute between the counsel for the appellant 
and the respondent that on 17 May 2023, the order of the NCLT was 
not pronounced and no substantive order was passed. The order was 
uploaded by the Registry of the NCLT on 30 May 2023 though the order 
carries the date of 17 May 2023. By the order, the NCLT dismissed the 
appellant’s application on the grounds that the application was ﬁ led without 
authorization from the Board of Directors of the Corporate Debtor and was 
prima facie frivolous, to delay the proceedings in the Section 7 application. 
The appellant applied for a certiﬁ ed copy on 30 May 2023, which was 
received on 1 June 2023. The appeal against the order was e-ﬁ led before 
the NCLAT on 10 July 2023.
6. The appellant ﬁ led an application for condonation of delay along 
with the appeal. The appellant contended that (i) the appellant became aware 
of the contents of the order only on 30 May 2023 and the limitation period 
should run from this date; (ii) the NCLAT was closed for summer vacations 
between 05 June 2023 and 02 July 2023 and this period should be excluded 
from the calculation of limitation. 
7. In the background of the above events, the issue before the NCLAT 
was whether the appeal was instituted within limitation. In its impugned 
order, the
NCLAT concluded that the appeal was barred by limitation on the 
ground that it was instituted beyond the outer limit of 45 days permissible 
under Section 61 of the IBC. The NCLAT relied on this Court’s decision 
in V Nagarajan v. SKS Ispat5 and rejected the appellant’s contention that 
the time should begin to run from 30 May 2023 – the date of upload. As 
the limitation period was found to have begun on 17 May 2023,the ﬁ ling of 
the appeal on 10 July 2023 was held to be beyond the outer limit of 45 days 
prescribed under the IBC. Further, the NCLAT rejected the contention that 
the annual summer vacations from 05 June 2023 to 02 July 2023 should be 
excluded as the NCLAT had issued a notiﬁ cation stating that the registry 
would remain open and ﬁ ling of appeals was permissible during the vacation. 
Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation. 
5 
(2022) 2 SCC 244
317
8. Separately, it may be noted that on 19 May 2023, the NCLT allowed 
respondent 1’s Section 7 application and initiated CIRP against the Corporate 
Debtor. The appellant’s appeal against the order has been dismissed by the 
NCLAT on 05 October 2023.
9. The table below indicates the relevant dates:
Date
Event
17.05.2023
The appellant’s interlocutory application was heard by the 
NCLT. However, no order was pronounced.
30.05.2023
The orderdismissing the above interlocutory application was 
uploaded on the website of the NCLT. However, the order 
bears the date of 17.05.2023 (date of hearing)
30.05.2023
The appellant applied for a certiﬁ ed copy of the NCLT order.
01.06.2023
The appellant received a certiﬁ ed copy of the NCLT Order.
29.06.2023
30-days from the date of upload of the NCLT Order. 
10.07.2023
The appellant e-ﬁ led the appeal before the NCLAT. 
10. The right to ﬁ le an appeal against an order of the NCLT before the 
NCLAT arises from Section 61 of the IBC, which is in the following terms: 
“61. Appeals and appellate authority – (1) Notwithstanding anything 
to the contrary contained under the Companies Act 2013, any person 
aggrieved by the order of the Adjudicating Authority under this part 
may prefer an appeal to the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal. 
(2) Every appeal under sub-section (1) shall be ﬁ led within thirty days 
before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal: 
Provided that the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal may 
allow an
appeal to be ﬁ led after the expiry of the said period of thirty 
days if it is satisﬁ ed that there was suﬃ  cient cause for not ﬁ ling the 
appeal but such period shall not exceed ﬁ fteen days.”
Section 61(2) provides for a limitation period of thirty days. The 
proviso to the section provides that the NCLAT may allow the appeal to be 
ﬁ led after the expiry of the thirty-day period if it is satisﬁ ed that there was 
suﬃ  cient cause for not ﬁ ling the appeal, but such period shall not exceed 
ﬁ fteen days. Therefore, 45 days is the outer limit within which an appeal 
from an order of the NCLT may be ﬁ led before the NCLAT. 
SANJAY PANDURANG KALATE v. VISTRA ITCL (INDIA) 
LIMITED [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI]
318 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 15 S.C.R.
11. The table of dates in paragraph 9 above indicates that there are two 
possible scenarios. If this Court holds that limitation commences from 30 
May 2023, the date of e-ﬁ ling of the appeal will fall within the condonable 
period of 15 days. Alternatively, if limitation is held to commence from 17 
May 2023, the date of e-ﬁ ling of the appeal exceeds the outer limit of 45 
days and cannot be condoned. 
12. In its impugned order, the NCLT has relied on the decision in V 
Nagarajan (supra) to dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation. The 
appellant has sought to distinguish the present case from V Nagarajan 
(supra) on both facts and law and has relied on the decision in Sanket 
Kumar Agarwal v. APG Logistics Private Limited6.Therefore, it would 
be pertinent for us to clarify the law on the limitation period applicable for 
ﬁ ling an appeal against an order of the NCLT under the IBC. 
13. In V Nagarajan (supra), a three-judge Bench of this Court noted 
that the signiﬁ cant diﬀ erence between Section 421(3) of the Companies Act 
and Section 61(2) of the IBC is the absence of the words “from the date on 
which a copy of the order of the Tribunal is made available to the person 
aggrieved” in the latter. The Court held that limitation commences from the 
date of pronouncement and not the date of upload of the order or receipt of 
a certiﬁ ed copy. However, the Court expressly clariﬁ ed that the time taken 
to procure the
certiﬁ ed copy will be excluded from the calculation of the 
period of limitation, provided the appellant applies within the prescribed 
period of limitation under Section 61(2) of the IBC. 
14. On the facts of the case, the Court noted that the appeal was barred 
by limitation as the appellant did not even attempt to secure a certiﬁ ed 
copy and only relied on the date of uploading the order on the website. 
Signiﬁ cantly, in the case, there was a pronouncement on the date mentioned 
on the order and the appellant did not dispute his presence before the NCLT 
when the order was pronounced in open court. Speaking through one of us 
(D.Y. Chandrachud, J), the Court held as follows: 
“33. The answer to the two issues set out in Section C of the 
judgment—(i) when will the clock for calculating the limitation 
6 
2023 SCC OnLine SC 976
319
period run for proceedings under IBC; and (ii) is the annexation of a 
certiﬁ ed copy mandatory for an appeal to NCLAT against an order 
passed under IBC — must be based on a harmonious interpretation 
of the applicable legal regime, given that IBC is a Code in itself and 
has overriding eﬀ ect. Sections 61(1) and (2) IBC consciously omit 
the requirement of limitation being computed from when the “order 
is made available to the aggrieved party”, in contradistinction to 
Section 421(3) of the Companies Act. Owing to the special nature 
of IBC, the aggrieved party is expected to exercise due diligence 
and apply for a certiﬁ ed copy upon pronouncement of the order it 
seeks to assail, in consonance with the requirements of Rule 22(2) 
of the NCLAT Rules. Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act allows for 
an exclusion of the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the decree 
or order appealed against. It is not open to a person aggrieved by an 
order under IBC to await the receipt of a free certiﬁ ed copy under 
Section 420(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 read with Rule 50 of the 
NCLT Rules and prevent limitation from running. Accepting such 
a construction will upset the timely framework of IBC. The litigant 
has to ﬁ le its appeal within thirty days, which can be extended up to 
a period of ﬁ fteen days, and no more, upon showing suﬃ  cient cause. 
A sleight of interpretation of procedural rules cannot be used to defeat 
the substantive objective of a legislation that has
an impact on the 
economic health of a nation.
35. The appellant was present before NCLT on 31-12-2019 when 
interim relief was denied and the miscellaneous application was 
dismissed. The appellant has demonstrated no eﬀ ort on his part to 
secure a certiﬁ ed copy of the said order and has relied on the date of 
the uploading of the order (12-3-2020) on the website. The period of 
limitation for ﬁ ling an appeal under Section 61(1) against the order 
of NCLT dated 31-12-2019, expired on 30-1-2020 in view of the 
thirty-day period prescribed under Section 61(2). Any scope for a 
condonation of delay expired on 14-2-2020, in view of the outer limit 
of ﬁ fteen days prescribed under the proviso to Section 61(2). The 
lockdown from 23-3-2020 on account of the Covid-19 Pandemic and 
the suo motu order of this Court has had no impact on the rights of 
the appellant to institute an appeal in this proceeding and NCLAT has 
SANJAY PANDURANG KALATE v. VISTRA ITCL (INDIA) 
LIMITED [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI]
320 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 15 S.C.R.
correctly dismissed the appeal on limitation. Accordingly, the present 
appeal under Section 62 IBC stands dismissed.”
15. Subsequently, in Sanket Agarwal (supra), this Court clariﬁ ed the 
law laid down in V Nagarajan and held that (i) the limitation stops running 
on the e-ﬁ ling of an appeal before the NCLAT and not on presentation of 
a physical copy; (ii) the date on which the order is pronounced is to be 
excluded from the calculation of limitation, and (iii) the time taken by the 
NCLT to provide the appellant with the certiﬁ ed copy would be excluded 
from the calculation of limitation, provided the appellant applies within 
the prescribed period of limitation under Section 61(2) of the IBC. The 
Court held: 
 “28. In the present case, the application for a certiﬁ ed copy was sent 
from Delhi to Chennai on 2 September 2022, which was received on 5 
September 2022, within the period of limitation of 30 days speciﬁ ed in 
Section 61(2). This aspect lies in contrast to the facts as they obtained 
before this Court in the judgment in V Nagarajan (supra)where even 
the application for obtaining the certiﬁ ed copy was not ﬁ led. In the 
present case, the appellant exercised due diligence and applied for 
a certiﬁ ed copy upon pronouncement of the order in terms of Rule 
22(2) of the NLCAT Rules 2016. The certiﬁ ed copy was provided to 
the appellant on 15 September 2022. Hence, the period of 10 days 
between 5 September 2022 and
15 September 2022 taken by the court 
to provide a certiﬁ ed copy of the order ought to be excluded when 
determining the period of limitation under Section 61(2) of the IBC.
29. In view of the above discussion, we have come to the conclusion 
that the NCLAT was in error in dismissing the appeal on the ground 
of limitation.”
16. From the above discussion of law, It is clear that the date on 
which the limitation begins to run is intrinsically linked to the date of 
pronouncement. The question that arises in the facts of the present case, 
therefore, is when is an order deemed to be pronounced. The National 
Company Law Tribunal Rules, 20167provide guidance in this regard. Rule 
7 
“NCLT Rules”
321
89(1) of the NCLT Rules indicates that when NCLAT registry publishes its 
cause list, a distinction is drawn between cases listed for pronouncement 
of orders and other cases. It states as follows: 
 “89. Preparation and publication of daily cause list.— (1) The 
Registry shall prepare and publish on the notice board of the Registry 
before the closing of working hours on each working day the cause list 
for the next working day and subject to the directions of the President, 
listing of cases in the daily cause list shall be in the following order of 
priority, unless otherwise ordered by the concerned Bench; namely;-
(a) cases for pronouncement of orders;
(b) cases for clariﬁ cation;
(c) cases for admission;
(d) cases for orders or directions;
(e) part-heard cases, latest part-heard having precedence; and
(f) cases posted as per numerical order or as directed by the Bench;”
(emphasis supplied) 
17. Further, Part XIX of the NCLAT Rules governs the ‘disposal of 
cases and pronouncement of orders’. The following rules are relevant: 
“146. Disposal of Cases.- On receipt of an application, petition, appeal 
etc, the Tribunal, after giving the parties a reasonable opportunity of 
being heard, pass such orders thereon as it thinks ﬁ t:
Provided that the Tribunal, after considering an appeal, may summarily 
dismiss the same, for reasons to be recorded, if the Tribunal is of 
opinion that there are no suﬃ  cient grounds for proceedings therewith.
 150. Pronouncement of Order.-
(1) The Tribunal, after hearing the 
applicant and respondent, shall make and pronounce an order either 
at once or, as soon as thereafter as may be practicable but not later 
than thirty days from the ﬁ nal hearing.
(2) Every order of the Tribunal shall be in writing and shall be signed 
and dated by the President or Member or Members constituting the 
Bench which heard the case and pronounced the order.
SANJAY PANDURANG KALATE v. VISTRA ITCL (INDIA) 
LIMITED [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI]
322 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 15 S.C.R.
(3) A certiﬁ ed copy of every order passed by the Tribunal shall be 
given to the parties.
(4) The Tribunal, may transmit order made by it to any court for 
enforcement, on application made by either of the parties to the order 
or suo motu.
(5) Every order or judgment or notice shall bear the seal of the Tribunal.
 151. Pronouncement of order by any one member of the Bench.-(1) 
Any Member of the Bench may pronounce the order for and on behalf 
of the Bench. 
(2) When an order is pronounced under this rule, the Court Master shall 
make a note in the order sheet, that the order of the Bench consisting 
of President and Members was pronounced in open court on behalf 
of the Bench.”
(emphasis supplied) 
18. The above provisions of the NCLT Rules, 2016 make a clear 
distinction between the ‘hearing’ of an appeal and the ‘pronouncement’ 
of the order. Rule 150(1) provides that after hearing the parties, the order 
may be pronounced either at once or soon thereafter, as may be practicable, 
but not later than thirty days from the ﬁ nal hearing. Further, Rule 151 
indicates that a member of the bench may pronounce the order for and 
on behalf of the Bench. When the order is pronounced, the court master 
shall make a note in the order sheet to that eﬀ ect. The language of the 
above rules indicates that the pronouncement of the order is necessary 
and cannot be dispensed with.
19. In the present case, the cause list for 17 May 2023
placed on record 
by the appellant indicates that the case was listed for admission and not for 
pronouncement. Further, on a speciﬁ c query of the Court, it is not in dispute 
between counsel for the appellant and the respondent, that no substantive 
order was passed on 17 May 2023 by the NCLT. In these circumstances, 
limitation would not begin to run on 17 May 2023 which was the date on 
which hearings concluded. As no order was passed before 30 May 2023, 
there was no occasion for the appellant to lodge an application for a certiﬁ ed 
copy on 17 May 2023. Time for ﬁ ling an appeal would commence only
323
when the order appealed from was uploaded since prior to that date no 
order was pronounced.
20. In V Nagarajan (supra), there was an unequivocal pronouncement 
of the order before the upload of the order and thus, the decision is not 
applicable to the facts of the case. In the facts of the present case, the date 
of upload of the order is the same as the date of pronouncement. To avoid 
situations such as these, in cases where the matter has been heard on a 
particular day but the order is pronounced on a later date, the NCLT must 
refrain from aﬃ  xing the date of hearing on the order. Such an approach 
would be a violation of the NCLT Rules, which create a distinction between 
hearing and pronouncement and do not allow the NCLT to dispense with 
the requirement of pronouncement. 
21. In view of the above, the period of limitation began to run on 30 
May 2023. The 30-daylimitation period provided in Section 61(2) of the 
IBC concluded on 29 June 2023. Though the appeal was ﬁ led beyond the 
period of thirty days, it was within the condonable period of ﬁ fteen days. 
We are of the considered view that the appeal should be restored to the 
NCLAT for reconsidering whether the appellant has shown suﬃ  cient cause 
for condoning the delay beyond thirty days. To facilitate this, the impugned 
order of the NCLAT declining to condone the delay is set aside and the 
proceedings are restored to the ﬁ le of the NCLAT. We are not inclined to 
stay the CIRP at this stage. However,
the NCLAT is directed to dispose of 
the appeal at the earliest. 
22. Before concluding, we must note that it was settled in Sanket 
Agarwal (supra) that the date of e-ﬁ ling of the appeal and not ﬁ ling of the 
physical copy of the appeal stops the limitation from running. One of us 
(D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) had occasion to observe that the requirement of 
e-ﬁ ling followed by physical ﬁ ling results in duplication of eﬀ ort and is a 
disincentive for e-ﬁ ling. The Court held that: 
“30. […] Moreover, it is utterly incomprehensible why NCLAT should 
insist on physical ﬁ ling in addition to e-ﬁ ling. This unnecessarily 
burdens litigants and the Bar and is a disincentive for e-ﬁ ling. A 
lawyer or litigant who is compelled to ﬁ le physical copies in addition 
to e-ﬁ led documents will have no cogent reason to resort to e-ﬁ ling. 
This duplication of eﬀ ort is time consuming. It adds to expense. It 
SANJAY PANDURANG KALATE v. VISTRA ITCL (INDIA) 
LIMITED [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI]
324 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 15 S.C.R.
leaves behind a carbon footprint which is diﬃ  cult to eﬀ ace. The 
judicial process has traditionally been guzzling paper. This model is 
not environmentally sustainable. If some judges are uncomfortable 
with e-ﬁ les, the answer is to provide training to them and not to 
continue with old and outmoded ways of working. The judiciary 
has to modernize and adapt to technology. The tribunals can be no 
exception. This can no longer be a matter of choice. The IBC is a 
signiﬁ cant prong in economic reforms. It has radically reshaped the 
law relating to insolvency and bankruptcy. The manner in which the 
law is administered will have to keep pace with technology. Both the 
Union government in its rule making capacity and the administrative 
heads of tribunals must ensure a seamless transition to working in the 
electronic mode.”
23. We must appreciate the swift action taken by the NCLAT in view 
of the above observations. On 15 May 2023, soon after the decision in 
Sanket Agarwal (supra), an order was issued by the Registrar, NCLAT 
noting that “ﬁ ling of hard copies of Appeals/ Interlocutory Applications/ 
Reply / Rejoinder etc. shall not be mandatory with immediate eﬀ ect.” Such 
proactive action by tribunals is essential to ensure that the move towards a 
modernized and technology-friendly judiciary trickles down to every judicial 
forum across the country. We record our appreciation of the proactive steps 
taken by the
Chairperson, Members and the Registry of the NCLAT.
24. The appeals are accordingly disposed of.
25. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
Headnotes prepared by:  
Appeals disposed of.
Ankit Gyan