abhinavdread/msme-legal-dispute-classification-dataset huggingface dataset:
Madras High Court M/S.Savio Industrial And Structural vs Southern Railway Rep. By on 2 January, 2019 1 DATED: 02.01.2019 Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M.SUNDRESH and The Hon'ble Mr. Justice KRISHNAN RAMASAMY O.S.A.Nos.119 and 303 of 2018 M/s.SAVIO Industrial and Structural Corporation, 96/5, K.N.Colony Post, Salem Cuddalore Main Road, Salem 636 014. .. Appellant in O.S.A.No.119 of 2018 M/s.SAVIO Industrial and Structural Corporation rep. by its Proprietor VX Dominic Savio, 96/5, K.N.Colony Post, Salem Athur Main Road, Salem 636 014. .. Appellant in O.S.A.No.303 of 2018 Vs 1.Southern Railway rep. by General Manager, Egmore, Chennai 8. 2.The Chief Engineer, Gauge Conversion, Southern Railway, Egmore, Office of the Chief Administrative Officer, Chennai 8. http://www.judis.nic.in 2 3.The Deputy Chief Engineer Constructions, South Western Railway, No.18, Millers Road, Bangalore 560 046. 4.M.K.Kabir, Arbitral Tribunal, 80, Law Chamber, Chennai 104. .. Respondent in O.S.A.No.119 of 2018 1.The General Manager, Southern Railway, Park Town, Chennai 8. 2.The Chief Engineer, Office of the Chief Administrative Officer/CN/MAS, Gauge Conversion, Southern Railway, Egmore, Chennai. 3.The Deputy Chief Engineer/ Construction, South Western Railway, No.18, Millers Road, Bangalore 560 046. .. Respondent in O.S.A.No.303 of 2018 Appeals preferred under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of O.S. Rules r/w Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order and decretal order dated 19.10.2016 made in O.P.Nos.143 and 525 of 2016. http://www.judis.nic.in 3 For Appellant .. Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, Sr. Counsel for Ms.AL.Ganthimathi in both the appeals For Respondents .. Mr.P.T.Ram Kumar for R1 to R3 in both the appeals COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.) Since both the parties being the same and the same order is challenged in both the appeals, these appeals are taken up together and disposed of by way of a common order. 2.The only issue that arises for consideration in these appeals is with respect to the entitlement of the appellant for payment of interest on the security deposit. 3.This is the second round of litigation. On the earlier round of litigation, the matte
Gujarat High Court Prabhakant Ayodhyaprasad vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 16 August, 2001 JUDGMENT M.R. Calla, J. 1. O.A.No. 524 of 1998 with Miscellaneous Application Stamp No. 685 of 2000, M.A.No. 752 of 2000, M.A.No. 670 of 2000 and M.A.No. 59 of 2001 were decided by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, on 12.3.2001 as have been filed by the 4 petitioners i.e. Mr. Prabhakant Ayodhyaprasad, Mr. Amardeep Kapoorsingh, Mr. O.P.Sharma & Mr. Ranjitsingh Ratansingh. Out of these 4 applicants who were there before Central Administrative Tribunal, 2 petitioners i.e.Mr. Prabhakant Ayodhyaprasad and Mr. Amardeep Kapoorsingh have filed Special Civil Application No. 2600 of 2001 and the other 2 petitioners i.e. Mr. O.P.Sharma & Mr. Ranjitsingh Ratansingh have filed Special Civil Application No. 2601 of 2001 against the very same judgements. Both these petitioners were filed on 10.4.2001 and whereas both these petitions are directed against the same order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, it is proposed to decide both these petitions by a common judgement and order as under. 2. Both these matters came up before this Court on 11.4.2001. The Court ( 3. The affidavit in reply dated 13.4.2001 was filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1 & 2 and affidavit in reply dated 16.4.2001 has been filed by Shri K.P.Samuel and a further affidavit dated 31.7.2001 has also been filed by the respondent No. 4 i.e. Mr. K.P.Samuel in Special Civil Application No. 2600 of 2001. Similarly, in Special Civil Application No. 2601 of 2001, an affidavit in reply dated 13.4.2001 has been filed on behalf of respondent nos.1 & 2 and affidavit in reply dated 2.5.2001 has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 4, Shri K.P.Samuel and further affidavit in reply has been filed on 13.7.2001 by respondent No. 4 i.e. Mr. K.P.Samuel. On the basis of the pleadings as aforesaid, the parties have proceeded to argue the matter finally before us and the matter has been argued on several dates and arguments were concluded on 14.8.2001. 4. The present cases involve a dispute about the seniority between direct recruits and promotees as Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax under the Indian Revenue Service Rules, 1988 which provides for maintaining the ratio of 1:1 for fixing seniority of direct recruits visavis promotees. 5. The grievance of the petitioners is that they had appeared in the Combined Civil Service Examination of 1990 conducted by Union Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred as "UPSC" for short) and on clearing the same, they have been appointed as Asst. Commissioners of Income Tax (Junior Scale) in July, 1991. According to the respondents nos.1 & 2, the Indian Revenue Service has a sanctioned strength of 2800 duty posts and 460 posts of various kinds of reserves. The aforesaid duty posts inter alia include
1. Fundtonic Service Pvt. Ltd. 2nd Floor, Shoppers Plaza 3, Opp. Municipal Market, C.G. Road, Ahmedabad 380009 Gujarat State ...Respondent Present: For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Busar, Advocate. For Respondents: Mr. Shivam C.S. Ganeshan, Advocate. JUDGMENT [Per: Ms. Shreesha Merla, Member (T)] This Appeal challenges the order dated 29.09.2020, passed by Learned Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad) Court2 in C.P. (I.B) No. 824/NCLT/AHM/2019, whereby the Application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 968 of 2020 2 2016(herein after referred to 'the Code') was rejected. By the impugned order, Ld. Adjudicating Authority has observed as follows: "9. On perusal of the records it is found that the Respondent has issued two demand notices (page 2855), the first one dated 24.06.2019 and second one dated 20.07.2019. Demand notice which is a pre requisite under Section 8 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for filing the petition under Section 9, is signed and issued by an advocate on behalf of M/s. Nehru & Co. (Advocates and Legal Consultants), whereas, the petition is signed by Mr. Rohit Agarwal, Partner of the applicant frim on the basis of authority letter dated 20.08.2019 issued by the other partner of the partnership firm. On perusal of the records it is found that no authority is given to the advocate to issue demand notice or for filing an application u/s 9 of the IB Code. Similarly, no document is produced by the applicant showing that the advocate who has signed the application is associated with the company for a long period and can take such steps on behalf of the company. Therefore, the demand notice which is a prerequisite for filing an application under Section 9 of the itself is bad in the eye of law. 10. On perusal of the records it is found that the Respondent Company is a going concern and at present giving employment to 20 employees. Hence, it would defeat the very purpose of the Code, if a going concern generating revenue, the employees and stakeholders are subject to the rigors of the CIRP. It appears that the operational creditor has filed the instant petition as a tool of recovery mechanism which is not the objective of the IBC. It is a settled law that the Code is not intended to be a substitute to a recovery forum. More so, when the corporate debtor company falls within the category of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise (MSME), CIRP proceedings against a going concern Jeopardising livelihood of several families is against the objectives of IB Code and cannot be used to jeopardise the financial health of a solvent company by pushing it into insolvency Initiating. Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 968 of 2020 3 11. Notwithstanding above, it is found that the petitioner has not produced on record documents like copy of the purchase order and delivery challan to substantiate its claim. Moreover, the applicant has not produced on record a copy of bank statement showing that no payment is received from the corporate debtor towards the invoices against which
Madras High Court Srinidhi Karti Chidambaram vs The Principal Chief Commissioner Of on 2 November, 2018 1 DATED: 02.11.2018 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIAM PRASAD W.A.Nos.1125 to 1128, 1130 & 1131 of 2018, W.P.Nos.13005 to 13007, 13008 to 13010, 13070 to 13072, 13041 to 13043, 11714, 11715 & 22329 to 22331 & 22333 of 2018 and Rev.Appl.Nos.79 to 82 of 2018 and Connected WMPs, CMPs and MPs. W.A.No.1125 of 2018 Srinidhi Karti Chidambaram .. Appellant vs 1.The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (Tamil Nadu and Puducherry), Main Building, No.121, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai 600 034. 2.The Director General of Income Tax (Investigation), New Building, 2nd Floor, Investigation Wing, New No.45, Old No.108, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai 600 034. 3.The Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Unit – 3 (3), Room No.120, First Floor, Investigation Wing Building, No.45, Uthamar Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai 600 034. .. Respondents Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 12.04.2018 passed in W.P.No.8832 of 2018 on the file of this Court. http://www.judis.nic.in 2 For Appellant in all ... Mr.Gopal Subramanium, W.As., for Petitioners Sr. Counsel in all WPs. And for for M/s.C.Uma and Respondent in Rev.Applns. Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, Sr. Counsel For respondents in all ... Mr.G.Rajagopalan, WAs. and WPs. and Addl. Solicitor General for Applicant in Rev.Applns. Assisted by Mr.A.P.Srinivas COMMON JUDGEMENT (Judgement of the Court was made by S.MANIKUMAR, J.) Since, the issues involved in these Batch of cases, comprising of Writ Appeals, Writ Petitions and Review Applications are interconnected and interrelated, they were heard together and are being disposed of, by means of this Common Judgement. 2. Challenge in these batch of cases are as follows: (A) WRIT APPEALS: (i) W.A.Nos.1125 to 1128, 1130 and 1131 of 2018, have been filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patents, against the common order dated 12.04.2018, made in W.P.Nos.8832 to 8835, 8840 and 8841 of 2018. (B) WRIT PETITIONS, QUESTIONING THE COMPETENCE OF THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TAMIL NADU AND PUDUCHERRY) TO SANCTION PROSECUTION TO FILE THE COMPLAINT AGAINST THE WRIT PETITIONERS: http://www.judis.nic.in 3 (ii) W.P.Nos.13005 and 13071 of 2018 are for issuance of declaration, declaring that the Principal Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Chennai, 2nd respondent is not an authority having jurisdiction/competence under section 55 Block Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015, to sanction prosecution
1.Union of India, rep. By its Secretary, Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises, Udyog Bhavan, New Delhi110 011. 2.State of Tamil Nadu, rep. By its Secretary, Department of Industries and Commerce, Chepauk, Chennai600 005. .. Respondents 1 to 2 in W.P.Nos.25406 of 2009, 1202, 13308, 13613, 14431 and 14432 of 2010 3.Director, Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises, Room 254, Udyog Bhawan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi110 011. .. Respondent No.3 in W.P.Nos.25406 of 2009, 1202, 13308 and 13613 of 2010 4.Regional Joint Director of Industries and Commercial (i/c)/Zonal Officer MSE Facilitation council, Thiru Vi Ka. Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai600 032. .. Respondent No. 4 in W.P.Nos.25406 of 2009, 1202, 13308 and 13613 of 2010 and 3rd respondent in W.P.Nos.14889, 14431 and 14432 of 2010 5.M/s.Falcon Prints Pvt. Ltd. No.69 (Old No.268) Royapettah High Road, Chennai600 014. .. 5th Respondent in W.P.No.25406/2009 Diamond Packaging No.31, Begam Sahib II Lane, Anna Salai, Chennai600 002. .. 5th respondent in W.P.No.1202/2010 1.The Union of India, represented by its Secretary, Department of Small Industries, New Delhi. 2.National Board for Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises, New Delhi. 3.The Secretary, Ministry of Small and Micro Enterprises, New Delhi. .. Respondents in W.P.No.16909 of 2009 1.The Union of India, represented by the Secretary to Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Industries, Udyog Bhavan, New Delhi110 011. 2.The Government of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Director of Industries and Commerce, Department of Industries and Commerce, Chepauk, Chennai600 005. 3.The Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council, represented by its Chairman, O/o the Regional Joint Director of Industries and Commerce, ThiruViKa Industrial estate, Guindy, Chennai600 032. 4.Micro Small Enterprises Facilitation Council Chennai Region, represented by Zonal Officer/Regional Joint Director of Industries and Commerce, ThiruViKa Industrial Estate, Guindy Chennai600 032. 5.M/s.Expanda Stand (P) Ltd. Represented by M.Mahadeva Reddy Managing Director, SP 86, TAN SIDCO Ambattur Industrial Estate
Madras High Court Avl India Private Limited vs Micro And Small Enterprises ... on 30 October, 2023 W.P. No. 13451 of 2020 DATED : 30.10.2023 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.D. AUDIKESAVALU W.P. No. 13451 of 2020 and W.M.P. No. 16620 and 16621 of 2020 AVL India Private Limited Represented by Mr. Mukul Ghanekar, having office at 37677, PhaseIV, Gurgaon, Haryana – 122015. … Petitioner vs 1. Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council Chennai Region, Having its Office at: Regional Joint Director of Industries and Commerce Thiruvika Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600032. 2. Metec Design and Construction Engineers India Private Limited, Having its Office at: No. 1/460, Multi Industrial Estate Gerugambakkam, Porur, Chennai – 600128. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, praying to issue a Writ of certiorari, quashing the impugned order dated 25.02.2020 passed by the First Respondent in Case No. MSEFC/CR/319/2018 and received by the Petitioner on 09.06.2020. For Petitioner : Mr. P.Vinod Kumar https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/12 W.P. No. 13451 of 2020 For Respondents : Mr. S.Yashwanth, Additional Government Pleader (for R1) Dr. P.Vasudevan (for R2) ORDER Heard Mr. P.Vinod Kumar, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. S.Yashwanth, Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the First Respondent and Dr. P.Vasudevan, Learned Counsel for the Second Respondent and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties. 2. The Second Respondent had made a claim in Case No. MSEFC/CR/319/2018 before the First Respondent under Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'the MSMED Act' for short), claiming payment of Rs. 5,81,54,393/ from the Petitioner towards remaining amount due for goods supplied with interest calculated in terms of that Act, in which an order dated 25.02.2020 was passed holding that the Petitioner was liable to pay the principal sum of Rs. 4,62,27,836/ together with compounded interest with monthly rests at three times of the Bank rate notified by the Reserve Bank of India as stipulated in the MSMED Act from the appointed due dates respectively till https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/12 W.P. No. 13451 of 2020 payment, which is assailed in this Writ Petition. 3. In response to the contentions raised by the Second Respondent that if the Petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order, he has to only resort to filing of an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the A & C Act' for short) to have it set aside as an arbitral award, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in M/s. Vijeta Construction vs M/s. Indus Smelters Ltd. (Order dated 23.09.2021 in Civil Appeal No. 5934 of 2021), where after referring to the relevant provisions of the MSMED Act and A & C Act, it has been hel
Delhi High Court Vineet Malu vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr. on 16 February, 2024 $~ * % Reserved on: January 24, 2024 Decided on: February 16, 2024 + CRL.M.C. 6099/2023 & CRL.M.A. 22926/2023 (stay) DR HARSHITA MALU & ANOTHER ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Tanveer Ahmed Mir, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vaibhav Suri, Mr. Saud Khan, Mr. Tushan Rawal, Mr. Shivaz Berry and Mr. R. Jude Rohit, Advocates. V STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANOTHER ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, ASC (Criminal) with Mr. Kunal Mittal, Mr. Arjit Sharma and Ms. Rishika, Advocates for State along with Insp. Manjusha, P.S. R.K. Puram. Mr. Kumud Shekhar and Mr. Murari Singh, Advocates for R2. + CRL.M.C. 6100/2023 & CRL.M.A. 22928/2023 (stay) VINEET MALU ..... Petitioner Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:19.02.2024 CRL.M.C. 6099/2023 & connected matters Page 1 11:45:33 Through: Mr. Tanveer Ahmed Mir, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vaibhav Suri, Mr. Saud Khan, Mr. Tushan Rawal, Mr. Shivaz Berry and Mr. R. Jude Rohit, Advocates. V STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANOTHER ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, ASC (Criminal) with Mr. Kunal Mittal, Mr. Arjit Sharma and Ms. Rishika, Advocates for State. Mr. Kumud Shekhar and Mr. Murari Singh, Advocates for R2. + CRL.M.C. 6101/2023 & CRL.M.A. 22930/2023 (stay) VIKAS MALU ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. N. Hariharan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vaibhav Suri, Mr. SaudKhan, Mr. Tushan Rawal, Mr. Shivaz Berry and Mr. R. Jude Rohit, Advocates. V STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANOTHER
Delhi High Court Stci Finance Ltd vs Ms Aviom India Housing Finance Private ... on 12 February, 2025 * Date of decision: 12th FEBRUARY, 2025 IN THE MATTER OF: + CS(COMM) 1206/2024 STCI FINANCE LTD .....Plaintiff Through: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Advocate & Mr. Asim Vachhar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Atul Sharma Mr. Abhishek Aggarwal, Mr.Abhinav Mukhi, Mr. Abhishek Srivastav, Mr. Shantanu Tomar, Advs. versus MS AVIOM INDIA HOUSING FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS ......Defendants Through: Mr. Amarjit Singh Chandhiok, Senior Advocate with Ms. Pooja Mahajan, Mr. Karan Singh Chandhiok, Mr. Rahul Narayan, Mr. Mehul Parti, Ms. Harshita Malik, Mr. Gyanendra Singh, Ms. Nancy Patel, Advocates for D1 & D2 Mr. Chandrashekhar Chakalabbi and Mr. Varnik Kundaliya, Advs for Defendant No. 5/ICICI. Ms. Neelam Rathore, Advocate for D7 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD JUDGMENT I.A. 274/2025 1. The present Application has been filed by the Defendants No.1 & 2 seeking vacation of interim relief granted to the Plaintiff by this Court vide Order dated 24.12.2024. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA CS(COMM) 1206/2024 Page 1 of 9 Signing Date:18.02.2025 20:06:28 2. The present Suit is one for a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against Defendants No. 1 & 2 restraining the Defendants No.1 & 2, their respective representatives, attorneys, assignees, servants or anybody else acting for and on their behalf from selling, transferring, conveying, creating any third party interest of any nature or otherwise dealing with the whole or part of receivables hypothecated/charge by the Defendant No 1 in favour of the Plaintiff till the recovery and realization by the Plaintiff of entire amount outstanding under the loan facility agreements. The Plaintiff has also sought for a decree of permanent injunction in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant Nos. 3 to 12 thereby restraining the Defendants Nos. 3 to 12 from appropriating or permitting appropriation of any amount pertaining to or in respect of any of the receivables hypothecated I charged by the Defendant No. l in favour of the Plaintiff and transfer all such amounts in favour of the Plaintiff till the recovery and realization by the Plaintiff of entire amount outstanding under the Facility Agreements. 3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts, in brief, leading to the present application are that the Plaintiff, is a NonBanking Financial Company (NBFC) sanctioned three term loan facilities for Rs.10 crore each in favour of t
K.P.Traders, ) 8B, Sai Suman Complex, Beside Saibaba Temple) Water Tank Road, Harni Road, Vadodara 390 006 ig ) ) ..... Respondent Mr.R.V.Desai, Senior Advocate, a/w. Mr.Suresh Kumar, Ms.Sangeeta Yadav, i/b. Sureshkumar for the Petitioner. Mr.S.U.Kamdar, Senior Advocate, i/b. Mr.Rahul Oak for the Respondent. CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA, J. RESERVED ON : 19th MARCH, 2015 PRONOUNCED ON : 20th APRIL, 2015 JUDGMENT : 1. By this petition filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (for short the said Arbitration Act), the petitioner has impugned the arbtiral award dated 8th October, 2010 rendered by the learned arbitrator allowing some of the claims made by the respondent. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under : 2. The petitioner herein was the original respondent in the arbitral proceedings whereas the respondent was the original claimant. ::: Downloaded on 21/04/2015 00:00:43 ::: Kvm 2/36 ARBP1447.10 3. On 19th August, 1998 the petitioner had invited the tenders for Handling and Transhipment of Goods and Luggage at Sabarmati TP vide Tender Notice No.357. The petitioner awarded the said work to the respondent for the period from 11 th August, 1998 to 10th August, 2001 which was further extended upto 15th January, 2002. The petitioner issued a letter of award of contract on 19 th August, 1998. The parties executed an agreement on 20th April, 1999. 4. The dispute arose between the parties. By letter dated 17 th February, 2003 the respondent invoked the arbitration clause and requested the General Manager of the petitioner to appoint an arbitrator. The respondent submitted their detailed claim on 26th November, 2003. On 8th/9th June, 2006, the General Manager of the petitioner appointed Mr.G.P.Srivastav as a sole arbitrator to arbitrate the claims setout in the letter dated 8th/9th June, 2006. Pursuant to the liberty granted by the learned arbitrator, the respondent submitted their statement of claim before the learned arbitrator on 24th August, 2006. On 29th September, 2006 the petitioner filed their reply before the learned arbitrator opposing the claims made by the respondent. The petitioner denied the contentions raised by the respondent in the affidavit in reply by filing rejoinder. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that on 11 th January, 2007 there was no hearing held by the learned arbitrator. The respondent had filed number of replies even thereafter before the learned arbitrator. On 17th April, 2010 and 18th May, 2010, the petitioner filed further reply before the learned arbitrator. The petitioner also filed reply on 18th May, 2010. On 8th October, 2010, the learned arbitrator made a final award allowing some of the claims made by the respondent. By the said arbitral award, the learned arbitrator allowed ten claims out of twenty claims made by the respondent. The respondent had originally claimed sum of Rs.6,26,12,622/. The