Issues: Whether the deceased's older married brothers could be treated as dependants entitled to compensation under the motor accident award.

Analysis: The evidence showed that the deceased lived separately, while the claimants were older, married siblings with their own families. In the absence of material showing dependency on the deceased's earnings, brothers and sisters are not ordinarily treated as dependants, particularly where they are independent, married, or otherwise not financially dependent on the deceased.

Conclusion: The three married siblings were not dependants of the deceased, and the compensation awarded in their favour was unjustified. The award as affirmed by the High Court was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: In a motor accident claim, adult married siblings are not to be treated as dependants unless evidence establishes actual financial dependency on the deceased.

1. Whether the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) can initiate penalty proceedings under Section 15HB of the SEBI Act for noncompliance of directions issued by the Whole Time Member (WTM) under Section 11B of the SEBI Act.

2. Whether directions issued under Section 11B of the SEBI Act constitute "directions" under Section 15HB, thereby attracting penalty for noncompliance.

3. Whether the appellants, having resigned as directors prior to the issuance of directions, can be held liable for noncompliance of the WTM's order.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis

Issue 1: Can penalty proceedings under Section 15HB be initiated for noncompliance of WTM directions under Section 11BRs.

The legal framework involves two key provisions:

- Section 11B empowers SEBI to issue directions after enquiry for protecting investors and regulating the securities market.

- Section 15HB provides for penalty where no specific penalty is prescribed for failure to comply with provisions of the Act, rules, regulations, or directions issued by SEBI.

The Tribunal noted that directions under Section 11B are issued after due enquiry and are in the nature of orders. This is supported by authoritative definitions from Black's Law Dictionary equating "direction" with "order," and judicial precedent confirming that a direction is an order issued by a competent authority during adjudication.

Section 15HB, on the other hand, is a residuary penalty provision under Chapter VIA of the SEBI Act, designed to penalize failures not specifically covered by other penalty provisions (Sections 15A to 15HAA). These other provisions deal with failures such as non-furnishing of information, failure to enter into agreements, or failure to redress grievances.

The Tribunal distinguished the "directions" under Section 15HB from the adjudicatory directions under Section 11B. The former refers to general directions issued under the Act, rules, regulations, or circulars that require compliance within stipulated timelines and for which no specific penalty is prescribed. Failure to comply with such directions may attract penalty under Section 15HB.

Conversely, directions under Section 11B are adjudicatory orders passed after enquiry which are enforceable akin to a decree under Section 28A of the SEBI Act. The Tribunal held that penalty proceedings under Section 15HB cannot be initiated for noncompliance of such adjudicatory orders.

This interpretation preserves the distinct procedural and substantive character of Section 11B orders, ensuring that enforcement of such orders follows the prescribed mechanisms rather than penalty imposition under a residuary clause.

Issue 2: Whether directions under Section 11B constitute "directions" under Section 15HB attracting penalty for noncomplianceRs.

The Tribunal analyzed the textual and contextual meaning of "directions" in both sections. It emphasized that the directions under Section 11B are issued post enquiry and adjudication, whereas Section 15HB contemplates penalty for failure to comply with directions issued under the Act, rules, regulations, or circulars where no separate penalty is prescribed.

The Tribunal relied on the legislative scheme and the placement of these provisions within the SEBI Act. Chapter II (containing Section 11B) deals with powers of SEBI to issue directions to protect investor interests and regulate the market, while Chapter VIA (containing Section 15HB) deals exclusively with penalties and adjudication.

Given this scheme, the Tribunal concluded that the "directions" under Section 15HB are distinct from adjudicatory directions under Section 11B. The former are administrative or regulatory directions, whereas the latter are quasi-judicial orders. Hence, penalty under Section 15HB cannot be invoked for noncompliance of Section 11B directions.

Issue 3: Liability of appellants who resigned prior to issuance of directions

Factually, the appellants resigned as directors on June 1, 2011, while the WTM's directions were issued in September 2015. The Tribunal found that since the appellants were no longer in charge or control of the company at the time the directions were issued, they were incapable of complying with the directions.

This factual circumstance negates any finding of willful failure to comply. The Tribunal held that the appellants could not be held liable for noncompliance as they lacked the capacity or control to effect compliance post-resignation.

Treatment of Competing Arguments

The respondent argued that Section 15HB permits imposition of penalty for noncompliance with any directions issued by SEBI, including those under Section 11B, since no separate penalty is prescribed for noncompliance of Section 11B directions. The Tribunal rejected this argument on textual, contextual, and purposive grounds, emphasizing the distinct nature of Section 11B orders and the legislative intent to treat them as enforceable orders rather than mere directions attracting penalty.

The Tribunal also considered the legislative scheme of Chapter VIA, noting the presence of specific penalty provisions for various contraventions, and that Section 15HB is a residuary provision not intended to override the enforcement mechanisms for orders passed under Chapter IV or Section 11B.

Conclusions

The Tribunal concluded that:

- Penalty under Section 15HB cannot be imposed for noncompliance of directions issued under Section 11B, as such directions are adjudicatory orders enforceable through other mechanisms.

- The appellants, having resigned prior to the issuance of directions, were not liable for noncompliance.

- Consequently, the penalty order imposing Rs. 50 lakh under Section 15HB was unsustainable and was quashed.

Significant Holdings

The Tribunal held:

"Directions issued under Section 11B are in the nature of orders which are passed after due enquiry."

"The word 'directions' issued by the Board under Section 15HB is different and distinct from the directions issued under Section 11B after due enquiry and adjudication."

"Section 15HB cannot be invoked for noncompliance of any directions issued under Section 11B after enquiry and adjudication."

"An adjudicatory order passed under Chapter IV or under Chapter VIA, after enquiry and adjudication can be enforced like a decree under Section 28A. Penalty proceedings cannot be initiated for non-compliance under Section 15HB."

"The appellants having resigned in 2011 were not in a position to comply with the direction of the WTM to bring back the money as they were no longer in-charge of the Company."

"The provisions of Section 15HB cannot be utilized for imposition of penalty for non-compliance of an order of the WTM passed under Section 11B of the SEBI Act."

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions addressed in the judgment are:

• Whether the petitioner can be granted a stay on the recovery of the disputed tax amount due to the non-constitution of the Appellate Tribunal under the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act (B.G.S.T. Act).
• What are the implications for the petitioner's right to appeal under Section 112 of the B.G.S.T. Act in light of the Tribunal's non-constitutionRs.
• What conditions must the petitioner fulfill to avail the statutory relief of stay under the B.G.S.T. ActRs.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Stay on Recovery of Disputed Tax Due to Non-Constitution of Tribunal

• Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The petitioner sought relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, focusing on Section 112 of the B.G.S.T. Act, which provides for an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. The relief was sought due to the Tribunal's non-constitution, which has been acknowledged by the State authorities.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court recognized the petitioner's inability to appeal due to the Tribunal's non-constitution and highlighted the State's acknowledgment of this issue through a notification. The court emphasized that the petitioner should not be deprived of statutory benefits due to this administrative delay.
• Key Evidence and Findings: The State's notification dated 11.12.2019, which postponed the limitation period for appeals until the Tribunal's President assumes office, was pivotal in the court's decision.
• Application of Law to Facts: The court applied the law by ensuring the petitioner could avail the stay of recovery by depositing 20% of the disputed tax, as per Section 112(9) of the B.G.S.T. Act.
• Treatment of Competing Arguments: The court balanced the petitioner's right to statutory relief against the respondent's administrative constraints, ensuring fairness by requiring the petitioner to file an appeal once the Tribunal is constituted.
• Conclusions: The court concluded that the petitioner should be granted a stay on the recovery of the disputed tax amount, contingent upon the deposit of 20% of the disputed amount.

Issue 2: Implications for Right to Appeal

• Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 112 of the B.G.S.T. Act outlines the procedure for appeals to the Tribunal. The court referenced similar relief granted in previous cases, such as SAJ Food Products Pvt. Ltd. vs. The State of Bihar.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court determined that the petitioner's right to appeal should be preserved, despite the Tribunal's non-constitution, by allowing the appeal to be filed once the Tribunal becomes operational.
• Key Evidence and Findings: The notification postponing the appeal period until the Tribunal's operationalization was crucial evidence supporting the court's decision.
• Application of Law to Facts: The court ensured that the petitioner's right to appeal remains intact and enforceable upon the Tribunal's constitution.
• Treatment of Competing Arguments: The court balanced the need for administrative efficiency with the petitioner's right to legal recourse, ensuring that the appeal process would commence once feasible.
• Conclusions: The court concluded that the petitioner must file an appeal under Section 112 once the Tribunal is constituted, maintaining the statutory framework's integrity.

Issue 3: Conditions for Availing Statutory Relief of Stay

• Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The statutory requirement under Section 112(9) of the B.G.S.T. Act mandates a deposit of 20% of the disputed tax amount to avail a stay on recovery.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court reasoned that the petitioner should comply with the statutory deposit requirement to balance equities and ensure fairness in the interim relief granted.
• Key Evidence and Findings: The court's decision was supported by the statutory framework and the precedent set in similar cases.
• Application of Law to Facts: The court applied the law by stipulating the deposit condition for the stay, ensuring compliance with statutory requirements.
• Treatment of Competing Arguments: The court addressed potential concerns about open-ended relief by requiring the petitioner to proceed with the appeal once the Tribunal is constituted.
• Conclusions: The court concluded that the petitioner must deposit 20% of the disputed tax to avail the stay, with the expectation of filing an appeal upon the Tribunal's constitution.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

• Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: "The petitioner cannot be deprived of the benefit, due to non-constitution of the Tribunal by the respondents themselves."
• Core Principles Established: The judgment reinforces the principle that statutory rights should not be hindered by administrative delays and that equitable relief should be provided to maintain fairness.
• Final Determinations on Each Issue: The court determined that the petitioner is entitled to a stay on the recovery of the disputed tax amount, contingent upon a 20% deposit, and must file an appeal once the Tribunal is operational.

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The judgment primarily revolves around the following core legal questions:

• Whether the petitioner is entitled to the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 112 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act (B.G.S.T. Act) despite the non-constitution of the TribunalRs.
• Whether the petitioner can be granted a stay on the recovery of the disputed tax amount under Section 112(9) of the B.G.S.T. Act in the absence of the TribunalRs.
• What are the implications of the non-constitution of the Tribunal on the petitioner's right to appeal and seek a stayRs.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Entitlement to Statutory Remedy of Appeal

• Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The B.G.S.T. Act provides the statutory framework for appeals under Section 112. However, the Tribunal's non-constitution has impeded the petitioner's ability to appeal.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court recognized the petitioner's right to appeal under Section 112, which is currently obstructed due to the Tribunal's non-constitution.
• Key Evidence and Findings: The state authorities acknowledged the Tribunal's non-constitution and issued a notification to address the limitation period for appeals.
• Application of Law to Facts: The court applied the provisions of the B.G.S.T. Act, emphasizing the petitioner's right to appeal, which cannot be nullified by the Tribunal's non-existence.
• Treatment of Competing Arguments: The court noted the state's notification as an acknowledgment of the issue and a temporary solution to the limitation period problem.
• Conclusions: The petitioner retains the right to appeal once the Tribunal is constituted, and the limitation period will commence from the date the Tribunal becomes functional.

Issue 2: Grant of Stay on Recovery of Disputed Tax

• Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 112(9) of the B.G.S.T. Act allows for a stay on the recovery of the disputed tax amount upon depositing a specified percentage of the tax.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court determined that the petitioner should not be deprived of the stay benefit due to the Tribunal's non-constitution, provided the petitioner deposits 20% of the disputed tax amount.
• Key Evidence and Findings: The court referenced a similar case where relief was granted under comparable circumstances.
• Application of Law to Facts: The court applied the statutory provisions to grant a stay on the recovery of the balance tax amount, contingent upon the deposit of 20% of the disputed amount.
• Treatment of Competing Arguments: The court balanced the equities by ensuring the petitioner fulfills the statutory deposit requirement while awaiting the Tribunal's constitution.
• Conclusions: The petitioner is granted a stay on the recovery of the disputed tax amount, subject to the deposit of 20% of the amount, until the Tribunal is constituted.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

• Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: "The petitioner cannot be deprived of the benefit, due to non-constitution of the Tribunal by the respondents themselves."
• Core Principles Established: The court established that statutory rights and remedies cannot be negated due to administrative delays, such as the non-constitution of a Tribunal.
• Final Determinations on Each Issue:
  
  • The petitioner retains the right to appeal under Section 112 of the B.G.S.T. Act, with the limitation period commencing upon the Tribunal's constitution.
  • The petitioner is entitled to a stay on the recovery of the disputed tax amount, subject to depositing 20% of the amount, until the Tribunal is constituted.
  • If the petitioner does not file an appeal within the specified period after the Tribunal's constitution, the state authorities are at liberty to proceed in accordance with the law.
  
  

The judgment concludes by disposing of the writ petition with specific directions and observations, ensuring the petitioner's rights are preserved while balancing the interests of the state authorities.

Issues: (i) Whether the 2005 amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 confers on a daughter, in the same manner as a son, the right to become a coparcener and consequently a Karta of a Mitakshara HUF; (ii) whether marriage, non-participation in family affairs, or absence of male spiritual functions disqualify a female coparcener from being Karta; (iii) whether the HUF and coparcenary subsisted on the facts, having regard to the family settlement, mutation entries, and alleged prior partition; (iv) whether the suit was maintainable and properly valued for court-fee purposes.

Issue (i): Whether the 2005 amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 confers on a daughter, in the same manner as a son, the right to become a coparcener and consequently a Karta of a Mitakshara HUF.

Analysis: The amended provision expressly states that the daughter of a coparcener becomes a coparcener by birth in her own right in the same manner as a son and enjoys the same rights and liabilities in the coparcenary property. The judgment held that the statute is clear and unambiguous, and its object is to remove gender discrimination and confer equal status on daughters. Once a daughter acquires coparcenary status, the right to manage the joint family property follows as an incident of that status. The limiting notion that Karta must necessarily be the senior-most male was held to be inconsistent with the amended statutory scheme.

Conclusion: The daughter, if otherwise the senior-most coparcener, can be Karta. The conclusion was against the appellant and in favour of the respondent.

Issue (ii): Whether marriage, non-participation in family affairs, or absence of male spiritual functions disqualify a female coparcener from being Karta.

Analysis: The Court held that the amended law does not distinguish between married and unmarried daughters, and marriage does not sever coparcenary rights. Non-participation in management does not destroy the legal entitlement to be Karta, because actual management and legal status are distinct. The argument founded on supposed religious or spiritual functions was rejected for Mitakshara coparcenary, as such considerations do not create a statutory disqualification once the daughter has coparcenary rights. Societal hesitation was held incapable of overriding express legislative equality.

Conclusion: These factors do not disqualify a daughter from being Karta. The conclusion was against the appellant and in favour of the respondent.

Issue (iii): Whether the HUF and coparcenary subsisted on the facts, having regard to the family settlement, mutation entries, and alleged prior partition.

Analysis: The Court found from the mutation records, the family settlement of 1999, and the evidence of the parties that the family had already undergone severance of status and division of shares, though not by metes and bounds. The property continued to be shown in revenue and income-tax records as HUF property only for administrative purposes, but the underlying status had become that of divided ownership among the branches. The Court further held that the Income-tax Act fiction under Section 171 does not prevent recognition of a partition in Hindu law where severance of status has already taken place.

Conclusion: The HUF had ceased as a living coparcenary in the Hindu law sense, though the property could still be described in records for limited purposes. This issue was decided in favour of the respondent to the extent that the prior partition and continued recordal did not defeat her claim.

Issue (iv): Whether the suit was maintainable and properly valued for court-fee purposes.

Analysis: The suit for declaration was held maintainable without a consequential prayer for possession because the parties were treated as being in constructive joint possession. On valuation, the Court accepted the jurisdictional valuation but held that ad valorem court-fee was payable on that value under the Suits Valuation Act, 1887, and the fixed fee earlier paid was deficient.

Conclusion: The suit was maintainable, but deficient court-fee had to be made good. This issue was partly against the respondent on court-fee and otherwise in favour of the respondent on maintainability.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, the respondent's entitlement to represent the family before the competent authority was affirmed, and the declaration of her status as Karta was upheld, with directions regarding payment of deficient court-fee.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, a daughter of a coparcener acquires coparcenary status by birth in the same manner as a son, and the right to manage the coparcenary property as Karta is an incident of that status unless lawfully displaced.

Outcome: Notice was directed to be issued to the standing/nominated counsel for the State, rejoinder and service steps were permitted within specified timelines, interim directions were issued regarding enforcement of the impugned judgment in the event of non-deposit, and the matter was directed to be listed again in February 2024.

Issues: Whether the interim order dated 16 October 2023 deserved to be made absolute.

Analysis: The appellant had not been arrested even during the course of investigation. In the facts and circumstances placed before the Court, the interim protection already operating was found fit to be continued on the same terms and conditions.

Conclusion: The interim order dated 16 October 2023 was made absolute, and the appeal was allowed.

Issues: (i) Whether the amount of Rs. 1 crore deposited under protest could be treated as compliance with the pre-deposit requirement for filing an appeal under the GST law. (ii) Whether the alleged blocking of input tax credit had ceased by operation of law.

Issue (i): Whether the amount of Rs. 1 crore deposited under protest could be treated as compliance with the pre-deposit requirement for filing an appeal under the GST law.

Analysis: The deposit was made under protest before any demand had been raised. Such deposit was not made in pursuance of an adjudicated liability, and the subsequent demand could not alter the character of the earlier payment. The Court followed the principle that a voluntary deposit made under protest is not to be excluded while examining compliance with the statutory pre-deposit condition for maintaining an appeal. A technical insistence on a fresh deposit would frustrate the appellate remedy.

Conclusion: The Rs. 1 crore deposit was rightly directed to be treated as the pre-deposit required for the appeal.

Issue (ii): Whether the alleged blocking of input tax credit had ceased by operation of law.

Analysis: The respondents stated that they had not blocked the input tax credit. In any event, the alleged blocking had been in existence beyond the statutory period, and the attachment could not continue indefinitely. On the expiry of the statutory period, the restraint ceased to operate by force of law.

Conclusion: The alleged blocking of input tax credit stood defreezed by operation of law.

Final Conclusion: The petition was disposed of by granting the assessee relief on both substantive issues and by directing the appellate authority to decide the appeal on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: A voluntary payment made under protest, when no demand had yet been raised, can be counted towards the mandatory pre-deposit for an appeal, and a statutory restraint on input tax credit cannot continue beyond the period permitted by law.

Issues: Whether further attribution of business profits to the alleged permanent establishment in India was warranted where the Indian subsidiary had already been remunerated on an arm's length basis.

Analysis: The Tribunal found that the assessee had a fixed place permanent establishment in India through its subsidiary, but also found that the subsidiary had already been compensated at arm's length. On that basis, it held that once the commission and remuneration paid to the Indian entity were adjusted against the profits attributed to the permanent establishment, no taxable income remained and no further attribution was justified. The High Court found no reason to interfere with that finding and held that no substantial question of law arose.

Conclusion: Further profit attribution was not warranted, and the assessee succeeded on the substantive issue.

Final Conclusion: The appellate challenge failed because the Tribunal's view on arm's length remuneration and consequent absence of further taxable attribution was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the Indian entity through which a permanent establishment is alleged to exist has already been remunerated at arm's length, no further attribution of profits is warranted if the adjusted computation leaves no taxable income in the hands of the permanent establishment.

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The judgment addresses the following core legal questions:

• Whether the prerequisites of Section 74 of the U.P. GST Act, 2017 are satisfied in the show cause notice and orders passed by the revenue authorities.
• Whether the denial of the right to a second appeal due to the non-constitution of the appellate tribunal under Section 112 of the U.P. GST Act, 2017 is justified.
• What is the appropriate percentage of pre-deposit required for interim relief in the absence of a functional appellate tribunalRs.
• How should the court balance the interests of the revenue and the rights of the assessee in granting interim ordersRs.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Prerequisites of Section 74 of the U.P. GST Act, 2017

• Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 74 of the U.P. GST Act, 2017 prescribes conditions for issuing show cause notices and orders by revenue authorities.
• Court's interpretation and reasoning: The petitioner argued that the conditions under Section 74 were not met, but the court did not provide a detailed analysis on this point, focusing instead on the procedural aspects of appeal rights.
• Key evidence and findings: The court did not delve into the specifics of the evidence regarding Section 74 compliance.
• Application of law to facts: The court acknowledged the petitioner's contention but did not make a conclusive finding on this issue.
• Treatment of competing arguments: The court noted the petitioner's argument but did not address it substantively in the interim order.
• Conclusions: The issue remains unresolved pending further proceedings.

Issue 2: Denial of Right to Second Appeal

• Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 112 of the U.P. GST Act, 2017 provides for a second appeal to an appellate tribunal, which has not been constituted.
• Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court emphasized that executive inertia should not deny statutory rights, citing Supreme Court precedents on avoiding impossibility due to state inaction.
• Key evidence and findings: The court acknowledged the absence of the appellate tribunal and the resulting denial of the petitioner's appeal rights.
• Application of law to facts: The court applied principles of fairness and non-discrimination, asserting the petitioner's right to appeal should not be hindered by the government's failure to establish the tribunal.
• Treatment of competing arguments: The court sided with the petitioner, finding the state's inaction unjustifiable.
• Conclusions: The court recognized the petitioner's right to appeal and granted interim relief pending tribunal constitution.

Issue 3: Appropriate Percentage of Pre-Deposit

• Relevant legal framework and precedents: Sections 107 and 112 of the GST Acts outline pre-deposit requirements for appeals.
• Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court examined inconsistent interim orders regarding pre-deposit percentages, emphasizing the need for uniformity and fairness.
• Key evidence and findings: The court reviewed past orders requiring 30% or 50% pre-deposits and noted the inconsistency with statutory requirements.
• Application of law to facts: The court decided on a 20% pre-deposit, aligning with statutory provisions and ensuring equitable treatment.
• Treatment of competing arguments: The court balanced revenue interests with assessees' rights, opting for a consistent approach.
• Conclusions: The court directed a 20% pre-deposit, maintaining consistency with statutory guidelines and prior judgments.

Issue 4: Balancing Revenue Interests and Assessee Rights

• Relevant legal framework and precedents: The court referenced Supreme Court judgments on equitable interim relief and consistency in judicial decisions.
• Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court emphasized the need for similar treatment in similar cases to avoid discrimination and uphold Article 14 of the Constitution.
• Key evidence and findings: The court highlighted the inconsistency in previous interim orders and the need for a standardized approach.
• Application of law to facts: The court applied principles of fairness, opting for a 20% pre-deposit to balance interests.
• Treatment of competing arguments: The court considered the state's and assessees' positions, favoring a balanced interim relief approach.
• Conclusions: The court established a precedent for consistent interim orders, ensuring fairness and non-discrimination.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

• Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: "The executive inertia cannot become the cause of denial of a statutory right."
• Core principles established: The court underscored the need for consistency in interim orders, fairness in appeal rights, and non-discrimination in judicial treatment.
• Final determinations on each issue: The court directed a 20% pre-deposit for interim relief, pending the constitution of the appellate tribunal, and stayed recovery proceedings for the balance amount.

Outcome: Delay condoned. The special leave petition was dismissed following the judgment relied upon by the petitioner.