IN THE COURT OF CIVILJUDGE, (Senior Division)…….
Suit no . . . . . . . . . of 20. . .

IN THE MATTER OF:
Mr. A
S/O ______________
R/O_______________ … Plaintiff
VERSUS
M/s XYZ
CIN:
Regd. Office: _______________ …Respondent/ Defendants

Through its Director and Authorised Signatory,
Shri Mr. B
S/O______________
R/O______________

Plaint filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Order VII Rule-10 and long cause title.
1. That Plaintiff Mr. A, S/o. ________, ______ years, Hindu, job, residing at  ___________

2. That Respondent/ Defendants is M/s XYZ incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013
and having its registered office of__________________________________________
through its Director and Authorised Signatory is Mr. B, S/o. ______aged _______ years,
Hindu, Job, residing at _________________________.
Written Statement of the Respondent under Order 8 Rule 1
(or Written Statement on behalf of all the Respondents)
The respondent(s) respectfully state(s) as follows : –
(1) Para no. 1 of the plaint is purely based on facts and defendant do not any
objections on the same.
(2) Para no. 2 of the plaint is purely based on facts and defendant do not any
objections on the same.
(3) Para no. 3 of the plaint is purely based on facts and defendant do not any
objections on the same.

(4) Para no. 4 of the plaint is denied and not admitted on the basis of the following
grounds as:-
1. The Plaintiff was on Leave.
2. Claims to be on medical leave.
3. No documents / fitness certificate submitted.
4. Internal Policy without adequate proofs salary cannot be credited.
5. Employee has already exhausted the limit of leave which are granted
by an Organisation in a calendar year.
6. In case of proof are submitted salary for the days when he has reported.
(5) Para no. 5 of the plaint is purely based on facts and defendant do not any
objections on the same.
(Facts constituting cause of action)
(6) Para no. 6 of the plaint is purely based on facts and defendant do not any
objections on the same.
(7) Para no. 7 of the plaint is purely based on facts and defendant do not any
objections on the same.
(8) Para no. 8 of the plaint is purely based on facts and defendant do not any
objections on the same.
(9) Para no. 9, the plaint is denied and not admitted on the basis of the following
grounds as:-
1. The plaintiff has been well informed verbally and via email that due to lockdown,
Respondent will not able to pay his salary until 30th May 2021. He was agreed to
that he has his consent over email.
2. The plaintiff has not admitted it in the plaint. And Said Plaintiff has been filed a
mischievous ground, so no claims of court fees can be entertained.
3. The Plaintiff was on Leave. Claims to be on medical leave. No documents / fitness
certificate submitted.
4. Internal Policy without adequate proofs salary cannot be credited.

5. Employee has already exhausted the limit of leave which are granted by
organisation in a calendar year. In case of proof are submitted salary for the days
when he has reported.
(10) Para No 10 of the plaint is purely based on facts and defendant do not any
objections on the same.
(11) Para No 11 of the plaint is purely based on facts and defendant do not any
objections on the same.
(Jurisdiction/Optional)
Respondent has committed to pay the salary as per terms and conditions agreed by
__/__/_. Respondent already has consent from the plaintiff. The respondent
therefore prays that the suit be dismissed with costs.
VERIFICATION
Verified at [Place] on this [Date:_____…] that the contents of paras 1 to 11 of the
plaint are true to my knowledge derived from the records of the Plaintiff maintained
in the ordinary course of its business, those of paras1 to 11 are true on information
received and believed to be true and last para is the humble prayer to this Hon’ble
Court.
Dated: __/__/___

Advocate for the Defendant Defendant

List of the document filed
 Copy of the email having consent to delay the salary.

EXAMINATION OF THE PLAINT
1. Examination of plaints/petitions/applications etc:- On the presentation or receipt of a plaint, the Court should examine it with special reference to the following points, viz:-
(i) Whether the plaint contains the particulars specified in Order VII, Rule 1, and conforms to the other rules of pleadings in Orders VI and VII and rules made by the High Court
thereunder;
(ii) Whether there is, prima facie, any non-joinder or mis-joinder of parties, or mis-joinder of causes of action;
(iii) whether any of the parties to the suit are minors and, if so, whether they are properly represented as laid down in Chapter 1- M (d) of this volume;
(iv) whether the plaint is duly signed and verified;
(v) whether the suit is within the jurisdiction of the Court or must be returned for presentation to proper Court (Order VII, Rule 10 );
(vi) whether the plaint is liable to be rejected for any of the reasons given in Order VII, Rule 11;
(vii) whether the documents attached to the plaint (if any) are accompanied by lists in the prescribed form and are in order;
(viii) whether the plaintiff has filed a proceeding containing his address for service during the litigation as required by Rule 19 of Order VII as framed by the High Court.
(ix) In money suits, whether the plaintiff has stated the precise amount the claims;
(x) Whether the plaintiff has stated in his plaint regarding the documents on which he relies his claim and are not in his possession and a statement in whose possession or power they are;
(xi) Whether the plaintiff has filed the address of the party in the prescribed form.
2. Pleadings:- The provisions of the Code, with regard to the pleadings (which term includes the plaint and written statements of parties) should be carefully studied. The principal rules of pleadings may be briefly stated as follows:
(a) The whole case must be stated in the pleadings, that is to say all material facts must be stated (Order VI, Rule 2).
(b) Only material facts are to be stated. The evidence by which they are to be proved is not to be stated (Order VI, Rules 2, 10, 11 and 12).
(c) The facts are to be stated concisely.
(d) It is not necessary to allege the performance of any condition precedent; and averment of performance is implied in every pleading but a non-performance of condition precedent, if relied on, must be distinctly stated (Order VI, Rule 6).
(e) It is not necessary to set out the whole or any part of a document unless the precise words thereof are necessary. It is sufficient to state the effect of the document as briefly as
possible (Order VI, Rule 9).
(f) It is not necessary to allege a matter of fact which the law presumes, or as to which the burden of proof lies on the other side (Order VI, Rule 13).
(g) When misrepresentation, fraud, undue influence, etc., are pleaded, necessary particulars must always be given (Order VI, Rule 4).
(h) When a suit is prima facie time-barred, the ground on which exemption is claimed must be stated (Order VII, Rule 6).

If the plaint is prolix (lengthy) or indefinite or omits to give the necessary particulars or to specify the relief claimed precisely or is defective in any other respect, it should be returned to the party or his counsel for such amendment as may be necessary in the actual presence of the presiding officer after he has signed the endorsement. The Court has wide powers in this respect (see Order VI, Rule 16 and 17). Where amendment is directed, an order should be recorded by the Judge indicating the particulars about the necessary
amendment and fixing a date for filing the amended plaint.

3. Non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties and causes of action:-
(a) Attention is drawn to the provisions of law contained in Order I and II of the Civil Procedure Code relating to non-joinder of parties and mis-joinder of causes of action and parties and as to representative suits:-
(i) Joinder of parties:- Order I, rule 1 and 3 provide in what case several plaintiffs or defendants may be joined in one suit.
(ii) Representative Suits:-Order I, rule 8 provides that when there are numerous persons having the same interest in one suit, one or more of such persons may sue or defend on behalf of all with the per- mission of the Court.
(iii) Objections as to non-joinder or mis-joinder:- Order I, rule 9 lays down that no suit shall be defeated by reason of mis-joinder or non- joinder of parties and Order I, rule 13 and Order II, rule 7 lay down that objections as to non-joinder or mis-joinder of parties or causes of action, etc., should be made at the earliest stage of the case.
(iv) Joinder of cause of action:- Order II, rules 3-5 provide in what cases several causes of action may be joined in one suit.
When an objection duly taken with regard to mis-joinder of causes of action is allowed by the Court the plaintiff should be permitted to select the cause of action with which he will
proceed and the Court should grant him time to amend the plaint by striking out the remaining causes of action. The Court should also give the plaintiff time within which to submit amended plaints for the remaining causes of action and for making up the Court fee that may be necessary. (Order II, Rule 8, Civil Procedure Code).
(v) Separate trial:- Order I, rule 2 and Order II, rule 6 provide for power of the Court to order separate trials if the joinder of several plaintiffs or several causes of action is inconvenient.
(vi) Striking out and adding parties:- Order I, rule 10 gives power to the Court to strike out unnecessary parties and add necessary parties.
(b) Necessary parties:-Suits for inheritance, partition or declaration of right in order to effect a partition, contribution, redemption, foreclosure, administration of property, dissolution and winding up of a partnership, and the like, cannot be properly disposed
of unless all persons interested in the matter are before the Court. Therefore, in cases of this description, if it appears that any necessary parties, have not been joined, the plaintiff should be ordered to joint them.
4. Signing and verification:-The plaint must be signed by the plaintiff, or, if by reason of absence or other good cause the plaintiff is unable to sign it, by his duly authorised agent. It must also be signed by the plaintiff’s pleader (if any) and be verified by the plaintiff, or by some other person proved to the satisfaction of the Court to be acquainted with the facts of the case.
The personal attendance of the plaintiff in Court for the purpose of verification is un- necessary. The verification must, however, be signed by the person making it.
5. Jurisdiction:- The jurisdiction of a Court depends upon the nature and value of the suit. (For detailed instructions see Chapter II on “Jurisdiction of Courts” and Chapter III on “Valuation of Suits “). If a suit is not within the jurisdiction of the Court, the plaint must be
returned in the presence of the Presiding Officer for presentation to proper Court. In such cases the presiding Officer must record on the plaint his reasons for returning it along with the other particulars mentioned in sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 of Order VII.
6. Rejection of plaint:- If the plaint discloses no cause of action, or is barred by any law on the statements made therein, or if the relief claimed is under-valued or the plaint is not sufficiently stamped and the plaintiff fails to correct the valuation or pay the deficiency in the Court-fee within the time fixed by the Court the plaint should be ‘rejected’ under Order VII, Rule 11 reasons being recorded by the Presiding Officer in support of the order.
It should be noted that the correct order in such cases is to ‘reject the plaint’ and not ‘dismiss the suit’. The rejection of a plaint does not preclude the institution of a fresh suit on the same cause of action, provided of course, it is not otherwise barred (e.g. by
limitation, etc.) by that time.
7. Comparison of copies of account:- Copies of any shop book or account produced should be compared with the original by Chief Ministerial Officer of the Court and the shop book or account should then be returned after marking the entries relied upon (Order VII, Rule 17).
When a shop book or other account written in a language other than English or the language of the Court is produced with a translation or transliteration of the relevant entry, the party producing it shall not be required to present a separate affidavit as to the correctness of the translation or transliteration but shall add a certificate on the document itself, that it is a full and true translation or transliteration of the original entry, and no
examination or comparison by the ministerial officer shall be required except by a special order of the Court.

8. Address of the parties:- The proceeding containing address for service is intended to facilitate the service of processes throughout the litigation (including appeals, etc.) and it is, therefore, important to see that it is duly filed at the outset according to this rule. Failure to comply with the rule is liable to be punished with dismissal of the suit but such an order may properly be passed in extreme cases when the failure is intentional and contumacious.

9. Land Suits:- If the plaint relates to agricultural land and the plaintiff is illiterate, it should be scrutinised with special care, according to the following directions:-
(i) The Presiding Officer shall ascertain by careful examination of the plaintiff or his agent, whether the prayer in the plaint corresponds in all particulars with the exact relief which the plaintiff orally describes himself as seeking. If the oral statements of the plaintiff or his agent are at variance with the written description of his claim, the plaint shall, in his or his
agent’s presence, be returned for amendment, and no amended plaint should be accepted until the Court is satisfied that it correctly expresses the claim which the plaintiff desires
to establish.
(ii) Every such plaint shall be accompanied by a statement, in the prescribed form setting forth the particulars relating thereto recorded in the Settlement record and in the last Jamabandi. This statement shall be verified by a signature of the Patwari of the Circle in which the land concerned is situate. Where by reason of partition, river action or other cause, the entries in the Settlement record and in the last Jamabandi do not accord, a brief explanation of the reason should be given in the column of remarks. Where the suit is for a specific plot with definite boundaries, it shall also be accompanied by a map, drawn to scale, showing clearly the specific plot claimed, or in relation to which the decree is to be made and so much of the fields adjoining it, also drawn to scale, as may be sufficient to facilitate identification. The specific plot and adjoining fields shall be numbered in accordance with the statement and the map shall be certified as correct by the Patwari or other person who prepared it. Where, however, the suit is for the whole of one or
more khasra numbers as shown in the Settlement map, or a share in such numbers, and not for a specific portion thereof no map will be required unless it is necessary for other reasons to show the boundaries of such khasra numbers.
10. Suits for recovery of money, mesne profits and accounts:- If the plaintiff seeks the recovery of money, the plaint should state the precise amount, as far as the case admits. In a suit for mesne profits or unsettled accounts it is sufficient to state the amount
approximately.
11. Suits by or against firms:-Suits by or against firms should be in the form prescribed in Order XXX. An explanation has been added by the High Court to Rule I of Order XXX, making it applicable to joint Hindu trading partnerships. (Notification No. 2212-G., dated 12th May, 1909).
12. Copies or concise statements of plaints:- When the plaint is admitted (after such amendment as may be found necessary), the plaintiff should be required to give as many copies of the plaint on plain paper as there are defendants, for being supplied to them. If
the plaint is long, or the number of defendants is large, the Court may permit concise statements of the plaint to be supplied instead. Such copies or concise statements must be examined by the chief ministerial officer and signed, if found correct (Order VII, Rule 9).
13. Parcha Yaddasht.:- When a plaint or petition is admitted and a date fixed for summoning of the other party or for any other purpose a memorandum (parcha yaddasht) on strong paper in the form given below duly filled in shall be given to the plaintiff or the petitioner or his agent if he is illiterate and not represented by counsel.

Form of Parcha Yaddasht.
IN THE COURT OF THE________________________AT Court____________
HOURS FROM _______________AM____________TO _________________
PM (Suit ____________) Civil Appeal________) No. ______________of 19

(Miscellaneous Application)

Instructions

1. In the case of parties who are illiterate and un- accompanied by counsel a parcha is to be given without demand (1) to the person who presents the plaint, appeal or petition and (2) when a case is not disposed of at the first hearing, to the defendant, or, if there be
serveral, to such defendants or respondents as the Court may direct.

2. Every entry in any column after the first entry is to be signed by the officer making it.

14. Parcha Yaddasht:-A similar parcha shall be given to the opposite party when he appears if he is illiterate and not represented by counsel.
15. Filling in of the Parcha:- Parcha shall he filled in and signed by the Reader of the Court and given to the parties concerned in the presence of the Presiding Officer as soon as the date of hearing is fixed.
In Small Cause Courts and in the Courts of the District Judges this parcha may be filled in by any other official if the Presiding Officer so directs.
16. Filling in of the Parcha:- The above parcha shall be used throughout the proceedings and properly filled in whenever the case is adjourned. If the parcha is lost a duplicate should be given.

District court

Due Date

With the changing time, the adjudication process has evolved, becoming simpliciter providing alternative remedies in case of a dispute thereby reducing the cost and complexities of the primeval process. ‘Arbitration’ is necessarily one of them, which can be identified as a one of its kind flexible and consensual mechanism for resolving disputes (not necessarily commercial in nature) in a binding and enforceable manner, wherein parties refer their disputes to a neutral third party or a panel of neutral parties without resorting to the court action.

India has in place a modern, an efficient arbitration mechanism in the form of ‘The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996’ wherein the scheme of the act is clearly outlined, laying down the scope, ambit and intent of the legislation. Arbitration is a private fora chosen voluntarily by the parties to the dispute, to adjudicate their disputes in place of courts and tribunals which are public fora constituted under the laws of the country; so necessarily not all disputes could be held arbitrable. The meaning of the expression ‘Arbitrable’ has been discussed time and again by judicial authorities, where it has been observed,

“Adjudication of certain categories of proceedings are reserved by the legislature exclusively for public fora as a matter of public policy. Certain other categories of cases, though not expressly reserved for adjudication by public fora (courts and tribunals), may by necessary implication stand excluded from the purview of private fora. Consequently, where the cause/dispute is inarbitrable, the court where a suit is pending, will refuse to refer the parties to arbitration, under Section 8 of the Act, even if the parties might have agreed upon arbitration as the forum for settlement of such disputes” and one such example is disputes relating to rights and liabilities which give rise to or arise out of criminal offences.

The Tribunal under the act, has been bestowed with enormous powers dealing with the adjudication of the disputes and the scope of judicial intervention during and post the process is limited to a great extent. Section 34 is one such provision where the rule with respect to the setting aside of an award is embodied. On 20th April 2020, Honorable High Court of Gujarat has pronounced a judgment in the case of ‘GTPL Hathway Ltd. vs Strategic Marketing Private Limited’, where the contentions on the proposition: whether any order passed during pendency of arbitration proceedings under the Act­ 1996 can be challenged by certiorari under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India or not? has been settled citing various key precedents and judicial interpretation of the existing law.

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a suit under Article 226 of the constitution, challenging the ongoing arbitral proceedings on the ground that dispute raised in the suit is not capable of settlement through arbitration. The preliminary objections were dismissed by the tribunal and as a result – present petition was filed praying that impugned order can be challenged under Article 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution of India because Arbitration Tribunal cannot be permitted to continue with arbitration proceedings when dispute is non arbitrable as there are serious allegations of fraud leveled by the petitioner which requires evidence for deciding the issue pertaining to criminal offences for which criminal proceedings are pending before the appropriate Court.

In light of the facts and issues raised herein, the scope of the judicial power of writs need to be discussed. Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. The power of the High Court to issue prerogative writs is wide. The Constitution does not place any limitation on such power. However, the Courts have, through judicial pronouncements, evolved self imposed restrictions on the exercise of power by the writ Court. When an efficacious alternative remedy is available, the High Court does not normally exercise jurisdiction. There are certain well­ recognised exceptions where the bar of alternative remedy does not apply. Where the authority has acted without jurisdiction, the High Court should not refuse to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution on the ground of an alternative remedy, as held in Kuntesh Gupta vs. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya, Sitapur, U.P. & Ors. Complete lack of jurisdiction of an authority to take the impugned action, as in this case, is always a good ground to entertain a writ petition. Moreover, as held by the Court in State of U.P and Others vs. Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd, there is no rule of law that the High Court should not entertain a writ petition when an alternative remedy is available to a party. It is always a matter of discretion with the Court and if the discretion has been exercised by the High Court not unreasonably or perversely, it is settled practice of this Court not to interfere with the exercise of discretion by the High Court.

Whether remedy under Article 226 can be invoked or not in cases of arbitration was firmly settled by the Apex Court in the case of S.B.P. & Co. v. Patel Engineering Ltd. where it has been held;

“…….Under Section 34, the aggrieved party has an avenue for ventilating his grievances against the award including any in­ between orders that might have been passed by the arbitral tribunal acting under Section 16 of the Act. The party aggrieved by any order of the arbitral tribunal, unless has a right of appeal under Section 37 of the Act, has to wait until the award is passed by the Tribunal. This appears to be the scheme of the Act. The arbitral tribunal is after all, the creature of a contract between the parties, the arbitration agreement, even though if the occasion arises, the Chief Justice may constitute it based on the contract between the parties. But that would not alter the status of the arbitral tribunal. It will still be a forum chosen by the parties by agreement. We, therefore, disapprove of the stand adopted by some of the High Courts that any order passed by the arbitral tribunal is capable of being corrected by the High Court under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. Such an intervention by the High Courts is not permissible.”

The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is a self-explanatory code, where the scope of ‘judicial intervention’ has been cleared under certain sections.

Firstly, section 5 of the Act, 1996 provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, in matters governed by this part, no judicial authority shall intervene except where so provided in this part.

Secondly, It incorporates the well­ known doctrine of “Kompetenz ­ Kompetenz” or “competence de la competence” under section 16(1). It recognizes and enshrines an important principle that initially and primarily, it is for the Arbitral Tribunal itself to determine whether it has jurisdiction in the matter, subject of course, to ultimate court­ control. It is thus a rule of chronological priority. Kompetenz ­Kompetenz is a widely accepted feature of modern international arbitration, and allows the Arbitral Tribunal to decide its own jurisdiction including ruling on any objections with respect to the existence or validity of the arbitration­ agreement, subject to final review by a competent court of law; i.e. subject to Section 34 of the Act. The said rule also has been outlined and discussed by Hon’ble Justice C.K. Thakkar while concurring with the majority opinion in the case of S.B.P & Co. (supra).

Lastly, section 16 of the Act,1996 which provides for competence of Arbitration Tribunal to rule on its jurisdiction and sub­section(6) of section 16 of the Act, 1996 which provides that a party aggrieved by such an arbitral award may make an application for setting aside such an arbitral award in accordance with section 34 of the Act, 1996. In view of such provisions, it was submitted that there is a remedy available to the petitioner under section 34 of the Act, 1996 for setting aside the arbitral award.

It is widely clear that the the Scheme of the Act reveals that once the arbitrator enters into reference, the challenge to his jurisdiction questioning his independence or impartiality or otherwise has to be made before the arbitrator himself. Even before the arbitrator such challenge cannot be made by the party to the pro­ceeding belatedly at his whims and fancy. Moreover, if the challenge of the party to the arbit­rator fails then the arbitrator will proceed with the arbitration proceedings and the party aggrieved has to wait till the passing of the award and there­ after, the validity of the award can be assailed by the aggrieved party only by invoking the provisions of Section 34 of the Act.

It is to be noted that while discussing the scope of judicial intervention under the Arbitration Act, one another contention which is widely raised is that, under Chapter VII of the act ‘arbitral award’ including an ‘interim award’ as defined in section 2(c) is held to be a ‘decree’ as passed by the court, so it can be challenged as in the case of a suit before a court. However, Delhi High Court in ATV Projects India Ltd. v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Anr. has held;

“the proceedings under the Arbitration Act cannot at all times be viewed through the prism of CPC. The Act equates the award to a ‘decree’ only for the purposes of the enforcement thereof under Section 36 and our concepts and terminology of a suit cannot otherwise be applied to arbitration proceedings. The legal fiction of equating the award to a decree is for the limited purpose of enforcement and not intended to make an award a decree for all purposes”.

At this conclusion stage, the recent pronouncement by the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Deep Industries Limited v. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (order dated 28th November, 2019 in Civil Appeal No.9106/2019) is widely important, where it has been observed that;

“if petitions were to be filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution against orders passed in appeals under Section 37, the entire arbitral process would be derailed and would not come to fruition for many years. At the same time, we cannot forget that Article 227 is a constitutional provision which remains untouched by the non­-obstante clause of Section 5 of the Act. In these circumstances, what is important to note is that though petitions can be filed under Article 227 against judgments allowing or dismissing first appeals under Section 37 of the Act, yet the High Court would be extremely circumspect in interfering with the same, taking into account the statutory policy as adumbrated by us herein above so that interference is restricted to orders that are passed which are patently lacking in inherent jurisdiction.”

The Apex Court judgment in Deep Industries Limited (supra) weighs in favour of the act being a “self-contained” act and limits the opportunity of approaching writ jurisdiction of court only in case of ‘patent lack in inherent jurisdiction’. While relying on the judgments in the cases of S.B.P & Co. (supra) and Deep Industries Limited (supra), the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat has dismissed the present petition without entering into merits of the matter, only on the ground that the order passed during course of arbitration cannot be challenged under Articles 226 and/or 227 of the constitution of India and it would be open for both the sides to raise all the contentions on merits before the appropriate forum in appropriate proceeding at appropriate time in accordance with law.

References:

1. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, available at http://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/A1996-26.pdf

2. Booz Allen and Hamilton Inc. v. SBI Home Finance Limited and Others, (2011) 5 SCC 532

3. State of Rajasthan v. Lord Northbrook 2019 SCC Online SCC 1117

4. M/s. S.B.P. and Co. v. M/s. Patel Engineering Ltd. and Anr. (2005) 8 SCC 618

5. Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Ltd. v. M/s. R.A.M. Earth Movers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr, 2010 SCC OnLine Raj 4560

6. ATV Projects India Ltd. v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Anr., 2013 SCC OnLine Del 1669

7. M/s. Deep Industries Limited v. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation, order dated 28th November, 2019 in Civil Appeal No.9106/2019