HARNAM SINGH THAKUR

1. The present execution application has been filed by the decree holders/petitioners of M/s. Aar Kay Chemicals Private Limited and others (hereinafter referred to as the 'applicants') against M/s. A.P. Refinery Private Limited and Others, judgment debtors (hereinafter referred to as 'respondent Nos. 1 to 10') under Order XXI Rule 11(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short the 'CPC') along with Rule 56 and 57 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 (for short the 'NCLT Rules') for execution of judgment and order dated 16.04.2019 (Annexure A-1) passed by the Ld. National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short the 'NCLAT').

2. Brief facts leading to filing of the present execution application, as stated, are that in a petition filed by the applicants bearing Company Petition No. 145(ND) of 2012; M/s. Aar Kay Chemicals Private Limited and Others versus M/s. A.P. Refinery Private Limited and Others, before this Bench, they had, inter alia, challenged the reduction of majority shareholding of the applicants (56.97%) to a miniscule minority (9.25%) in respondent No. 1 company by:-

i) mala fide and illegal transfer of 14,96,000 shares held by applicant No. 1-Company (amounting upto 45.60% of the total shareholding of respondent No. 1-company) to respondent No. 2-company, purportedly on 24.05.2010;

ii) illegal allotment of 3,50,000 shares to respondent No. 7 on 29.06.2011 and illegal allotment of 4,00,000 shares on 10.10.2012 to respondent Nos. 2, 3, 8, 9, 10 without following proper procedure behind the back of the applicants by re-routing the funds already lying as 'deposits' with respondent No. 1 with the sole intent to further dilute the shareholding percentage of the applicants in respondent No. 1-company. Apart from this the applicants had also challenged the acts of mismanagement and falsification of records of respondent No. 1-company.

3. It is stated that the said petition was heard at length by this Bench and by a detailed judgment and order dated 15.11.2017 (Annexure A-4), the Bench observed that a case of oppression in the affairs of respondent No. 1-company has been made out by the applicants. Operative and relevant portion of judgment and order dated 15.11.2017 passed by this Bench is reproduced hereinunder:-

"Para 161- From the discussion made above, it is found that the facts of the case would attract the provision of Section 397 of the Companies Act, 1956, but winding up would unfairly prejudice the members. The instant petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

i) CA No. 255 of 2015 filed by the respondents is dismissed;

ii) 14,96,000 shares now existing in the name of R-2 company be transferred back in the name of P-1 and its name be entered in the register of members of R-1 company. At the same time, the amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- shown in the account of P-1 company towards loan to AP Oil Mills shall stand written off and the name of R-2 company be omitted from the register of members of R-1 company; and

iii) R-1 company shall hold fresh meeting of the Board of Directors offering the proportionate shares out of additional allotment of 3,50,000 shares in 2011 and 4,00,000 shares in 2012 respectively at the rates at which these were transferred to some of the respondents. The transfer shall be made in favour of the petitioners proportionately as per share held by P-2 to P-9, on these petitioners offering to subscribe to these shares at the rates allotted to some of the respondents within the time of be allotted by R-1 company in the said meeting and they shall deposit the required amount with R-1 company; and

iv) Failing the petitioners to send the offer for allotment of proportionate shares as were held by them on the date of allotment of additional shares or in making payment, the Board of Directors of R-1 company would be at liberty to decide against the said allotment of proportionate shares; and

v) Rest of the shares out of the additional allotment of 3,50,000 and 4,00,000 shares, will continue to be held by the respondents to whom the shares were allotted; and

vi) The petitioner No. 1 is not to be offered any share in these additional shares on the basis of this order as P-1 company became the shareholder only on 19.05.2010."

It is submitted on behalf of the applicants that since the issue of illegal allotment of shares was not adjudicated on merits by this Bench in its order dated 15.11.2017, the applicants filed an appeal, being Company Appeal (AT) No. 394 of 2017, under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013, before the Ld. NCLAT, challenging the issue of non-adjudication of illegal allotment of shares on merits. Further, it is submitted that respondent Nos. 1 to 10 also filed an appeal against the order dated 15.11.2017 passed by this Bench, by way of Company Appeal No. 55 of 2018 before the Ld. NCLAT, challenging the dismissal of CA No. 255 of 2015 and setting aside of transfer of 14,96,000 shares from petitioner No. 1 to respondent No. 2. It is further stated that before the Ld. NCLAT, the respondent Nos. 1 to 10 had submitted that pursuant to order dated 15.11.2017 passed by this Bench. 14,96,000 shares were transferred to petitioner No. 1-company, vide Board Resolution dated 24.11.2017 and thereafter, again transferred back to respondent No. 2-company, vide Board Resolution dated 28.11.2017.

4. The Ld. NCLAT, vide a common judgment and order dated 16.04.2019 allowed the appeal (Company Appeal No. 394 of 2017) filed by the applicants and dismissed the appeal (Company Appeal No. 55 of 2018) filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 10. The operative part of judgment and order dated 16.04.2019 is reproduced hereinunder:-

"40. We pass the following order:-

(A) We do not disturb directions in para marked- 163 of the impugned order. We agree that the learned NCLT as regards operative direction - 'i' in para 161 of the impugned order that CA 255 of 2015 filed by the Respondents deserved to be dismissed. However, for reasons discussed above, we set aside rest of the operative order as recorded in para 161 of the impugned order and reasons recorded by NCLT in support of the same. Any steps taken by the parties pursuant to such directions recorded in para - ii to vi, pending Appeals shall stand set aside.

(B) For the above reasons, we set aside the second transfer dated 24.05.2010 recorded in the register of members in the record of OR1 transferring the shares of OP1 in favour of OR2. The respondents will rectify the register of members so as to reflect 14,96,000 shares standing in the name of OP1 - Aar Kay Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. with effect from 19.05.2010, and the second transfer dated 24.05.2010 done shall stand ignored.

(C) We find that the first allotment made on 29.06.2011 as well as the second allotment made on 10th October, 2012 were both illegal and are hereby struck down.

(D) The Company Petitions shall stand disposed accordingly.

(E) Original Respondents 3 to 5, each will pay costs of Rs. 50,000/- to each of the Original Petitioners (Appellants of CA 394/2017), from their own funds."

5. It is averred that respondent Nos. 1 to 10 filed Civil Appeal No. 4774-4775 of 2019 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court challenging the judgment and order dated 16.04.2019 passed by the Ld. NCLAT. When the matter was listed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 10.05.2019, the applicants appeared on caveat and during the course of hearing, respondent Nos. 1 to 10 sought stay of operation of order dated 16.04.2019 passed by the Ld. NCLAT. However, the said interim relief was categorically declined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 10.05.2019 (Annexure A-3). It is reiterated on behalf of the applicants that there being no orders from the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4774-4775 of 2019 directing stay of operation of any of the directions of the Ld. NCLAT's order dated 16.04.2019, as on date, therefore, all the directions passed by the Ld. NCLAT in its judgment and order dated 16.04.2019 stand in their full vigour and it is imperative upon the respondents to implement all the directions passed at para 40 of the order dated 16.04.2019 passed by the Ld. NCLAT.

6. Accordingly, it submitted on behalf of the applicants that directions at para 40 of the order dated 16.04.2019 have to be executed against respondent Nos. 1 to 10 and respondent No. 1 (A.P. Refinery Private Limited) is the company, whose records have to be rectified in terms of directions at Para 40(B) read with (A) and Para 40(C). Respondent No. 2 (Dhuri Cold Storage Private Limited) is the company to whom 14,96,000 shares of petitioner No. 1-company were illegally transferred and in terms of direction of the Ld. NCLAT, respondent No. 2 has to return the issued share certificates regarding 14,96,000 shares to respondent No. 1-company and the said certificate regarding 14,96,000 shares have to be endorsed with the name of applicant No. 1-company by respondent No. 1-company. Respondent Nos. 3 to 6 i.e. Mr. Ravi Nandan Goyal, Mr. Shiv Kumar Goyal, Mr. Bhuwan Goyal and Mr. Arun Kumar Goyal are the Directors i.e. the Board of respondent No. 1-company. Respondent Nos. 7 to 10 along with respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are allottees of shares, whose allotments have been cancelled/set aside in terms of direction at Para 40(C) of the order dated 16.04.2019 passed by the Ld. NCLAT and who have to return the issued share certificates regarding allotted shares to respondent No. 1-company as the same are cancelled. Further, it is submitted that since respondent Nos. 1 to 10 have not given effect to the directions passed by the Ld. NCLAT, the applicants have, inter alia, sought for appointment of a representative of respondent No. 11 (Registrar of Companies) and have prayed that the said representative be directed to ensure execution of directions at Para 40 of order dated 16.04.2019 passed by the Ld. NCLAT.

7. Thus, it is, inter alia, prayed by the applicants that directions be given to the representative/office of the Registrar of Companies (Respondent No. 11) or any officer of the Court, as appointed, to ensure rectification of the register of members and other relevant records of respondent No. 1-company to reflect cancellation/setting aside of allotment of 3,50,000 shares to respondent No. 7 on 29.06.2011 and allotment of 4,00,000 shares on 10.10.2012 to respondent Nos. 2, 3, 8, 9, 10 in terms of directions recorded at Para 40(C) of order dated 16.04.2019 passed by the Ld. NCLAT and to further ensure that the relevant share certificates are returned back to respondent No. 1-company and the same are duly cancelled.

8. Notice of the present execution application was issued to respondent Nos. 1 to 10, who have filed their reply contesting the execution application, vide Diary No. 345 dated 15.01.2020, whereas respondent Nos. 11 and 12 are Registrar of Companies and Regional Director, respectively (Proforma Respondents).

9. In the reply filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 10, it is stated that the present execution application is not maintainable as order dated 16.04.2019 has been challenged by the respondent Nos. 1 to 10 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4774-4775 of 2019 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court after hearing the parties found merit in the appeal and vide order dated 10.05.2019 issued notice in the said appeal. It is further stated that the judicial propriety demands that present execution application ought not to be heard till the time the said Civil Appeals are finally adjudicated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

10. It is averred by respondent Nos. 1 to 10 that on 10.08.2019, the applicants sent a letter to them seeking compliance of order dated 16.04.2019. On 19.08.2019, respondent No. 1, vide its letter replied to the aforesaid letter informing the applicants about the civil appeal and the steps that have been taken by the respondents pursuant to the order dated 16.04.2019 in compliance thereof, without prejudice to the civil appeal filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Further, it is submitted on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 10 that they have already complied with substantial part of order dated 16.04.2019 passed by the Ld. NCLAT, New Delhi, in Company Appeal No. 394 of 2017 and Company Appeal No. 55 of 2018 and the same was intimated to the applicants, as is evident from letter dated 19.08.2019.

11. Further, it is also averred that order dated 16.04.2019 passed by the Ld. NCLAT essentially required the company to make rectification in its list of shareholders according to Para 40(A) to 40(C) of the said order. Respondent No. 1 without prejudice to its rights and contentions before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 4774-4775 of 2019 and subject to its final outcome, vide board resolution dated 10.05.2019 (Annexure B to the reply) rectified its register of member in accordance with the directions passed by the Ld. NCLAT at Para 40 of the order.

12. It is submitted that the Ld. NCLAT vide its order dated 15.11.2017 declared the transfer of 14,96,000 shares from P1 to R2 on 24.05.2010 to be illegal and directed respondent No. 2 to transfer back 14,96,000 shares to P1 company, prospectively, meaning thereby that this Bench directed R1 company to register the name of P1 company as owner of 14,96,000 shares w.e.f. the date of judgment i.e. 15.11.2017. Accordingly, the company vide Board Resolution dated 24.11.2017 had transferred back 14,96,000 shares from M/s. Dhuri Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. to M/s. Aar Kay Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. w.e.f. 15.11.2017. This was recorded as Transfer No. 24 in the records of the company and as a consequence of order of this Bench, the Register of Member of R1 company was rectified to reflect the ownership of 14,96,000 shares as follows:-

13. It is further submitted on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 10 that the Ld. NCLAT at Para 40(A) and Para 40(B) of order dated 16.04.2019 set aside the direction to transfer back 14,96,000 shares prospectively and directed the company to rectify the Register of Members in such a manner so as to reflect 14,96,000 shares standing in the name of Aar Kay Chemical Pvt. Ltd. with effect from 19.05.2010. Accordingly, in compliance with the directions passed by the Ld. NCLAT, respondent No. 1-company vide its Board Resolution dated 10.05.2019 resolved that the entry at Transfer No. 21 and Transfer No. 24 shall be ignored by the company so as to reflect the ownership of Aar Kay Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. over 14,96,000 shares w.e.f. 19.05.2010 (including the period from 24.05.2010 to 15.11.2017) and the Register of Members has been rectified accordingly.

Therefore, it is submitted that in compliance of the directions passed by the Ld. NCLAT at Para 40(C) of order dated 16.04.2019, the company vide its Board Resolution dated 10.05.2019 rectified/amended the Register of Members of R1 company so as to ignore the effects of these allotments on the list of shareholders of the company. The list of shareholders of R1 company as on 15.11.2017, as per the Register of Member maintained by R1 company, has been annexed as Annexure C and copy of balance sheet of R1 company for the financial year 2018-19 has been annexed as Annexure D. Thus, application is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.

14. The applicants filed their rejoinder, vide Diary No. 859 dated 31.01.2020, reiterating their averments made in the execution application.

15. During the course of arguments, it is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that even if the appeal is filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 10 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, then also execution application is maintainable. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on Order 41 Rule 5 of the CPC and the same is reproduced hereinbelow:-

"Order XLI: Appeals from Original Decrees.

........

5. Stay by Appellate Court

(1) An appeal shall not operate as a stay of proceedings under a decree or order appealed from except so far as the Appellate Court may order, nor shall execution of a decree be stayed by reason only of an appeal having been preferred from the decree; but the Appellate Court may for sufficient cause order stay of execution of such decree"

16. It is argued on behalf of the applicants that respondent Nos. 1 to 10 had filed an application before the Hon'ble Supreme Court praying for stay of operation of order passed by the Ld. NCLAT and when the matter was listed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 10.05.2019, the applicants appeared and Caveat and during the course of hearing, respondent Nos. 1 to 10 vehemently pressed for allowing the application for stay of operation of order dated 16.04.2019 passed by the Ld. NCLAT. However, the Hon'ble Court did not allow the prayer of the respondent Nos. 1 to 10 for stay of operation of the order passed by the Ld. NCLAT and it has been wrongly averred by respondent Nos. 1 to 10 that they intentionally did not press for stay of operation of order passed by the Ld. NCLAT. It is difficult to believe that having filed an application for stay, respondent Nos. 1 to 10 did not intentionally press for interim orders staying operation of judgment and order dated 16.04.2019 passed by the Ld. NCLAT.

17. Learned counsel for the applicants further contended that respondent Nos. 1 to 10 have not complied with all the directions contained in Para 40 of order dated 16.04.2019 and applicant No. 1-company never received the relevant share certificates relating to 14,96,000 shares duly endorsed in its name, consequent, to rectification of the register of members as required to be made vide directions contained in Para 40(B) read with Para 40(A) of the order dated 16.04.2019 passed by the Ld. NCLAT. Further, respondent Nos. 1 to 10 have not paid the costs to the applicants as per the directions contained in Para 40(E) of the order dated 16.04.2019 passed by Ld. NCLAT.

18. Therefore, respondent Nos. 1 to 10 have wrongly claimed that they have rectified the Register of Members of Respondent No. 1-company in accordance with the directions passed by the Ld. NCLAT at Para 40 of its order, because applicant No. 1-company never received back the relevant share certificates relating to 14,96,000 shares duly endorsed in its name consequent to any such rectification of the register of members claimed to have been made pursuant to directions contained in Para 40(B) read with Para 40(A) of the order dated 16.04.2019 passed by the Ld. NCLAT.

19. Further, as per the directions contained at Para 40(A) and Para 40(B), any steps taken by the parties pursuant to directions recorded in para 161(ii) to (vi) of order dated 15.11.2017 passed by this Bench stood set aside and respondent Nos. 1 to 10 were required to rectify the register of members of respondent No. 1-company so as to reflect 14,96,000 shares standing in the name of applicant No. 1-company with effect from 19.05.2010.

Hence, it is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the directions given by the Ld. NCLAT vide its order dated 16.09.2019, be implemented.

20. On the other hand, learned senior counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 10 while repelling the contentions raised by learned counsel for the applicants alleged that the present execution petition is not maintainable in view of the pendency of appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the steps taken by Respondent Nos. 1 to 10 in pursuance of order dated 16.04.2019. It is further alleged that the present application has not been filed with a bona fide motive as the applicants were aware of the steps taken by respondent No. 1 for implementation of order passed by the Hon'ble NCLAT and deliberately did not disclose them so as to mislead this Tribunal. Further, it is submitted that applicants are seeking to deliberately misinterpret order dated 16.04.2019 to suggest that said order renders null and void the transfer of 14,96,000 shares by P1 company to R2 company on 28.11.2017. It is argued on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 10 that the transfer of 14,96,000 shares by P1 company to R2 company on 28.11.2017 is not a step taken pursuant to order dated 15.11.2017 passed by this Bench and the said transfer is a completely separate transaction which has been challenged by the applicants in CP No. 24/2018 on completely separate grounds. Thus, order dated 16.04.2019 passed by the Ld. NCLAT has already been acted upon and the present application deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs as the same is an abuse of the process of Court.

21. After hearing both the parties and careful perusal of order dated 16.04.2019, we are of the considered view that there are three cardinal points for determination before this Bench are as under:-

i.) Whether the present execution application is not maintainable in view of pendency of appeal against order dated 16.04.2019 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court

ii.) Whether applicant No. 1 has itself transferred 14,96,000 shares to Dhuri Cold Storage Private Limited, respondent No. 2 If so its effects

iii.) Whether respondents have already acted upon for implementation of order dated 16.04.2019

22. At the outset, it may be noted that while preferring an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, respondent Nos. 1 to 10 also moved an application for stay of operation of order dated 16.04.2019, but without passing any order on interim stay, the Hon'ble Supreme Court simply issued notice to the opposite side. If at all the Hon'ble Supreme Court was of a prima facie view that interim stay is necessary before dealing with the issues raised in appeal on merits, then certainly interim relief could have been granted to the respondent Nos. 1 to 10, but simple issuance of notice to the opposite side speaks volumes of non-urgency of the interim stay of the impugned order dated 16.04.2019 under execution. Therefore, in view of provisions under Order 41 Rule 5 of the CPC, it can be simply deduced that pendency of appeal is no hindrance in implementation of order dated 16.04.2019, passed by the Ld. NCLAT.

23. Now adverting to the second point of determination, although it is half-heartedly argued by learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 10 that on 28.11.2017, applicant had itself transferred 14,96,000 shares to respondent No. 1-company independently non-pursuant to order dated 15.11.2017 passed by this Bench, yet this contention of learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 10 is bereft of legal force because firstly the Ld. NCLAT has, as per Para 40 A of order dated 16.04.2019 set-aside any steps taken by any of the parties pursuant to directions recorded in Para 16 (ii) to (vi) of order dated 15.11.2017 by this Bench. Secondly, it is further contended by learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 10 that transfer of shares on 28.11.2017 is not pursuant to order dated 15.11.2017, but this contention is also not much convincing because before 28.11.2017, respondent No. 1 on 24.11.2017 itself transferred shares to applicant No. 1 in pursuance of order dated 15.11.2017. Similarly, it It is also argued that the said transfer dated 28.11.2017 has been separately challenged in CP No. 24/2018 on separate grounds but this plank of argument raised by learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 10 is non-consequent, as no interim direction has been passed in CP No. 24/2018. Be that as it may, even if the shares are transferred by applicant No. 1 itself to respondent No. 2, then also these are to be transferred back in the name of the applicant in pursuance of order dated 16.04.2019, as there is no impediment in implementation of the same.

24. Now, delving upon point No. 3, there is no gain saying that according to the respondent Nos. 1 to 10, they have already taken steps in pursuant to order dated 16.04.2019 in compliance thereof without prejudice to their rights in Civil Appeal pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. According to respondent Nos. 1 to 10, vide Board Resolution dated 10.05.2019 (Annexure -B in the reply) received its Register of Members in accordance with the direction passed in Para 40 of order dated 16.04.2019. Apart, respondent No. 1-company vide Board Resolution dated 24.11.2017 has transferred back 14,96,000 shares from M/s. Dhuri Cold Storage Private Limited, respondent No. 2 to M/s. Aar Kay Chemicals Private Limited, applicant No. 1 with effect from 15.11.2017, which was registered as Transfer No. 24.

25. Now the question arises whether the respondent Nos. 1 to 10 have bonafidely and in strict compliance of order dated 16.04.2019 have taken effective steps for implementation of the said order The reply to this question is in negative. Firstly, because applicant No. 1-company never received back the relevant share certificates relating to 14,96,000 shares duly endorsed in its name consequent to any such rectification in the Register of Members as claimed by respondent Nos. 1 to 10 in pursuance to direction contained in Para 40(B) read with Para 40(C) of the order dated 16.04.2019

Secondly, even if the same steps are taken during the interregnum period as per directions in Para 161 (ii) to (vi) in order dated 15.11.2017 passed by this Bench till 16.04.2019 by any of the parties then those proceedings stood set aside. Thirdly, during the course of arguments, it is fairly admitted by learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 10 that the direction for payment of cost of Rs. 50,000/- to each of the Original Petitioners from their own funds by respondent Nos. 3 to 5 have not been complied with so far. Lastly, the consequent intimation has not been sent to the Registrar of Companies to ensure rectification of Register of Members and other relevant records of respondent No. 1-company to reflect cancellation/setting aside of allotment of 3,50,000 shares to respondent No. 7 on 29.06.2011 and allotment of 4,00,000 shares on 10.10.2012 to respondent Nos. 2, 3, 8, 9 and 10 in terms of directions recorded at para 40(C) of order dated 16.04.2019 passed by the Ld. NCLAT.

26. As a sequel to above discussion, it can be safely concluded that respondent Nos. 1 to 10 are non-compliant of the directions contained in Para No. 40 of the order dated 16.04.2019 under execution, passed by the Ld. NCLAT. Thus, Respondent Nos. 1 to 10 are directed to comply with the said directions passed by the Hon'ble NCLAT as contained in Para 40 within one month from the date of passing of this order. For effective implementation, Registrar of Companies, respondent No. 11 is directed to appoint a Gazetted Officer from his office to ensure compliance of directions contained in Para No. 40 of order dated 16.04.2019 passed by Ld. NCLAT and to verify that the Register of Members of respondent No. 1-company stands rectified so as to reflect 14,96,000 shares standing in the name of applicant No. 1-Aar Kay Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. with effect from 19.05.2010 in terms of directions recorded at Para 40(B) of order dated 16.04.2019 passed by Ld. NCLAT and relevant share certificates duly endorsed in the name of applicant No. 1-company are delivered back to applicant No. 1-company; and further, to ensure rectification of Register of Members and other relevant records of respondent No. 1-company to reflect cancellation/setting aside of allotment of 3,50,000 shares to respondent No. 7 on 29.06.2011 and allotment of 4,00,000 shares on 10.10.2012 to respondent Nos. 2, 3, 8, 9, 10 in terms of directions recorded at Para 40(C) of order dated 16.04.2019 passed by the Ld. NCLAT and to verify that the relevant share certificates are returned back to respondent No. 1-company and the same are duly cancelled; and payment of cost of Rs. 50,000/- to each of the Original Petitioners from their own funds by original respondent Nos. 3 to 5 as per direction in Para No. 40 (E) of the said order.

Thus, CA No. 722/2019 is allowed and disposed of.

The Registry is directed to supply a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the parties.