# Delhi Public School v. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and others

- **Citation:** (2008) 2 ILRA 579
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2008-05-01
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 1287 of 2008
- **Bench:** Amitava Lala, Shishir Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/delhi-public-school-v-the-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-and-others-41232
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Motor Vehicle Act, 1988-S-173-Claim
Petition-accident by Maruti car-having
compressive
insurance
policyauthorising for passenger-vehicle driven
by the owner-Driver occupying side seatwhether
the
claim
petition
by
the
dependents of driver is maintainable?-
held- yes. While driver not driving-his
status become as passenger-necessary
direction issued.

Held: Para 1

According to us, when a driver is not
driving the vehicle, he can not be held to
be driver but a lawful passenger, which
is covered under the comprehensive
policy. A comprehensive policy can be
made by insured and insurance company
as per the terms and conditions of the
contract
upon
payment
of
higher
premium
unless
prohibited
by
the
statute. There is no prohibition now
under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
unlike Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 where
the liability of the insurance company
was statutorily limited.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1995 All. 1
580 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008

## Text

2 All] Delhi Public School V. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and others
579
7.7.1983 only explain the position which
was as per the notification dated 5.12.1968.
A reading of paragraph 7 of the judgment
does not lead to any other meaning.
Moreover, the power is vested with the
State Government to empower Assistant
Collector by a gazette notification and the
Secretary, Board of Revenue cannot alter
the empowerment, which has been made
by the gazette notification by the State in
any manner. This letter dated 7.7.1983
does not improve the case of the appellant
any further.

24. Thus, after notification dated
17.1.1976 it has to be accepted that the
power to approve the auction sale
conducted under section 286 of the
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act vest with the
Collector and Sub Divisional Officer
cannot exercise the power of approval.

25. In the present case it is admitted
position that Collector has not approved
the auction sale and learned Single Judge
has rightly set aside the auction and also
its confirmation by Sub Divisional Officer
and all other consequential action on that
ground.

26. In view of the aforesaid
observations, we are of the considered
opinion that the learned Single Judge has
rightly allowed the writ petition. We do
not find any error in the order of the
learned Single Judge. The appeal is
dismissed.

27. However, the auction purchaser
shall be entitled to refund of the amount
of Rs. 60,400/-, which was deposited in
pursuance of the auction sale, along with
5% interest as deposited by the writ
petitioner.

Appeal Dismissed.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.05.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMITAVA LALA, J.
THE HON'BLE SHISHIR KUMAR, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 1287 of 2008

Delhi
Public
School,
Yamunapuram
Colony

...Appellant
Versus
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited
and others

...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Vinod Sinha

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri V.B. Kesharwani

Motor Vehicle Act, 1988-S-173-Claim
Petition-accident by Maruti car-having
compressive
insurance
policyauthorising for passenger-vehicle driven
by the owner-Driver occupying side seatwhether
the
claim
petition
by
the
dependents of driver is maintainable?-
held- yes. While driver not driving-his
status become as passenger-necessary
direction issued.

Held: Para 1

According to us, when a driver is not
driving the vehicle, he can not be held to
be driver but a lawful passenger, which
is covered under the comprehensive
policy. A comprehensive policy can be
made by insured and insurance company
as per the terms and conditions of the
contract
upon
payment
of
higher
premium
unless
prohibited
by
the
statute. There is no prohibition now
under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
unlike Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 where
the liability of the insurance company
was statutorily limited.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1995 All. 1
580 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
(Delivered by Hon'ble Amitava Lala, J.)

1. This appeal has been made by the
owner of the vehicle making the insurance
company as well as claimants as party
respondents. The judgement and order
dated 09th January, 2008 passed by the
concerned
Motor
Accident
Claims
Tribunal, Bulandshahar is under challenge
in this appeal. The owner has contended
that
the
claim
is
covered
by the
comprehensive
insurance
policy.
The
insurance company itself contended before
the
tribunal
that
the
policy
is
comprehensive. We have called upon the
parties to show the policy. A photocopy of
the insurance policy has been produced
before this Court which is directed to be
kept with the record. From the policy we
find that four persons are allowed to travel
by the Maruti Car i.e. the vehicle involved
in the accident. On the fateful day at the
time of accident the Car was being driven
by the owner when the deceased driver
was sitting by the side of the owner. The
tribunal has taken a plea that since the
driver seems to be the occupier, he should
be covered under the insurance coverage
by payment of an extra premium. We are
of the view that fallacy lies with the
judgement on that score. When the
insurance company is comprehensively
covering four persons and the driver was
occupying the seat as fourth person, right
of claim can not be denied. Learned
Counsel appearing for the appellant relied
upon a Division Bench judgement of this
Court reported in AIR 1995 All. 1 (New
India Assurance Company Limited Vs.
Smt. Raj Kumari and others), which
speaks on the similar line. According to us,
when a driver is not driving the vehicle, he
can not be held to be driver but a lawful
passenger, which is covered under the
comprehensive policy. A comprehensive
policy can be made by insured and
insurance company as per the terms and
conditions of the contract upon payment of
higher premium unless prohibited by the
statute. There is no prohibition now under
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 unlike
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 where the
liability of the insurance company was
statutorily limited.

2. Therefore, we are of the view that
the appeal at the stage of admission can
be treated to be disposed of with a liberty
upon the appellant to make a rectification
application in the tribunal in the selfsame
proceeding and upon receipt of such
application, the tribunal concerned will
issue notice upon the insurance company
and upon hearing both the parties, an
appropriate order will be passed with
regard to recovery of amount of the
payable compensation. However, under
no circumstances the claimants will be
made to suffer. Therefore, the payment of
compensation to the claimants under no
circumstances will be deprived but will be
paid by the appellant as per the direction
of the tribunal and the order of the
tribunal will be carried out not beyond a
period of one week from the date of
communication of this order. Thus, the
appeal is disposed of without imposing
any cost.

3. Incidentally, the appellant-owner
prayed that the statutory deposit of
Rs.25,000/- made before this Court for
preferring this appeal shall be remitted
back to the concerned Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal as expeditiously as
possible in order to adjust with the
amount of compensation to be paid to the
claimants,
however,
such prayer is
allowed.

Appeal Disposed of.
---------
2 All] Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works V. Shri Gokalesh Pathak and another
581
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.05.2008

BEFORE THE HON'BLE VINOD PRASAD, J.

Criminal Revision 1580 of 1993

Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works ...Applicant
Versus
Shri Gokalesh Pathak and another

 ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri. Sudhanshu Dhulliya
Sri. Himanshu Kane
Sri. Shashi Kant Shukla

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Sri. Prashant Agarwal
A.G.A.

Code of Criminal Procedure-Section 397quashing
of
complaint
case-offence
alleged under Section 295-A, 298, 504
IPC-Revisionist Managing Director of
Manglore
Ganesh
Beedi
Workscomplainant
a
follower
of
Hindu
Religion-Lord Ganesh most sacred dietyaccused depicting picture of Lord Ganesh
on its beedi products-hurts the religious
susceptibilities
of
Hindus-held-A
trademark duly registered having picture
of Lord Ganesha on rapper-cannot be
termed as offence-impugned summoning
order quashed.

Held: Para 20

From the discussions made above I am
of the opinion that the revisionist was
manufacturing Beedi with the trademark
duly registered having picture of Lord
Ganesh on its rapper and hence it cannot
be said that they have committed any
offence. They have got many judgments
in their favour, which have been referred
to above and once they are acting in
accordance with law they cannot be
anointed with any offence.
Case Law discussed:
Bombay High Court Criminal Writ Petition No.
1072 of 1991; ILR (Vol. XXIV) page 499

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vinod Prasad, J.)

1. Challenged in this revision is the
impugned
summoning
order
dated
16.6.1993, passed by Judicial Magistrate
I, Meerut in Complaint Case No. 32/9 of
92. Vaidya Gokalesh Pathak versus
Managing Director Mangalore Ganesh
Beedi Works u/s 295-A, 298 and 504 IPC,
P.S.
Inchauli,
district
Meerut.
The
grounds for challenge is that no offence at
all is made out against the revisionist, the
proceedings are actuated with malafides
and
the
Magistrate
without
any
application of mind has summoned the
revisionist.

2. The facts, in brief, as are
perceptable from the record of this
revision are that Complaint No. 32/9 of 92
was filed by Vaidya Gokalesh Pathak
against the Managing Director Mangalore
Ganesh Beedi Works, Vinoba Bhavey
Road Mysore, P.S. Mangalore, Kamataka
for offences u/s 295-A, 298 and 504 IPC,
P.S.
Inchauli,
district
Meerut
on
22.12.2003 in the court of Judicial
Magistrate I, Meerut with the allegations
that the complainant Gokalesh Pathak is a
follower of Hindus religion and belongs
to a Brahman family. He is a great
devotee of Lord Ganesh who is a most
sacred deity of Hindus. Before starting
any work by Hindus, for a successful and
uninterrupted completion of the same,
Lord Ganesh is worshiped. Lord Ganesh
is considered to be deity of wisdom and
prosperity
and
he
also
diminishes
miseries.

3. Smoking is considered to be a
vice in Hindus and is a social malady. The
582 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
accused Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works
is depicting picture of Lord Ganesh at its
Bidi product as a result of which the
religious susceptibility of Hindus are
being hurt. It is also alleged that the
accused is utilizing the name of the said
pious deity for his commercial benefit. It
is further alleged that after smoking of
Bidi the residue is thrown on the roads
and on the other filthy places and the said
residues are being trampled under the
shoes, which hurt the religious sentiments
of Hindus and brings disrepute to the
deity.
It
is
further
alleged
that
complainant had given a notice to the
accused but he has not stopped hurting the
religious sentiments of Hindus by not
removing depiction of Lord Ganesh from
its bidi product therefore it has committed
offences u/s 295-A, 298 and 504 IPC.
With
the
aforesaid
allegation
the
complainant prayed that the accused be
summoned
and
be
punished
for
committing aforementioned offences.

4. Judicial Magistrate I, Meerut vide
his impugned order dated 6.6.1993
summoned the applicant u/s 298 IPC only
and fixed 3.8.1993 for his appearance.
Hence this revision.

5. I have heard Sri Sudhanshu
Dhuliya,
Senior
Advocate
and
Sri
Himanshu Kane Advocates in support of
this revision and learned AGA in
opposition. No body appeared to argue
the revision on behalf of complainant
though on 10.10.2006 time was sought by
the counsel to seek instructions.

6. Controversy in this revision lies
in a narrow compass as to whether
depicting picture of Lord Ganesh at its
beedi product by Mangalore Ganesh beedi
Works hurts religious susceptibilities of
Hindus or not for making out offence u/s
298 IPC?

7.

Learned
counsel
for
the
revisionist contended that no offence 298
IPC is made out all, as the feeling of
Hindus are not at all hurt. They submitted
that in many a judicial pronouncements
this question had been decided in favour
of the revisionist by various High Courts
including ours and there remains nothing
in favour of the complainant for making
out offence u/s 298 IPC against the
revisionist. They further submitted that
Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works is a
registered partnership Firm manufacturing
Mangalore Ganesh Bidi at Vinoba Road
Mysore,
Kamataka.
The
firm
is
represented by Sri M Suresh Rao as one
of his partner. The said firm is using the
picture of Lord Ganesh on its product as
its trade mark with expressions "
Mangalore Ganesh Beedi" and numeral
"501" since more than 50 years. This
trademark with picture of Lord Ganesh is
duly registered under the Trade And
Merchandise Mark Act 1958 herein after
referred as Act. They further submitted
that the notice dated 29.9.1992 issued by
the complainant was duly replied by the
accused through his advocate Sri W.H.
Kane of Solicitor Firm W.H. Kane and
Company of Bombay on 14.10.1992
wherein it is clearly mentioned that the
Trade Mark used by the accused is duly
registered under the Act and that u/s 23 of
the .Act there is no prohibition imposed
by the Central Government from using the
said mark having picture of Lord Ganesh.
They
further
contended
that
the
Magistrate after filing of the complaint
did not conduct any inquiry as is
contemplated u/s 200 Cr. P.C. and 202 Cr.
P.C. and without holding such an inquiry,
summoned the accused revisionist by
2 All] Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works V. Shri Gokalesh Pathak and another
583
passing the impugned order, which is
wholly illegal and is in the teeth of the
procedure prescribed for the complaint
case under Chapter XV Cr. P.C. They
further submitted that none of the
ingredients of section 298 IPC is made
out from the bare perusal of the complaint
and therefore, summoning order as well
as
whole
prosecution
against
the
revisionist are liable to be quashed.

8.

Learned
counsel
for
the
revisionist further submitted that Madras
High Court in a original petition no.
113/1987
A.T.
Raja
Madras
Vs.
Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works had
decided in favour of the accused that by
depicting the picture of Lord Ganesh on
their beedi product as well as using the
name of Lord Ganesh, the firm do not
offend any of the provisions u/s 9, 11(d),
56, 107 of the Act. They further
contended that in the aforesaid judgment
Madras High Court has held that smoking
is not prohibited by religious of doctrines
of Hindus. U/s 23 of the Act the Central
Government has not prohibited depicting
the picture of Lord Ganesh as a
trademark. Learned counsel for the
applicant further relied upon many other
judgments in support of their contention,
which
shall
be
referred
at
their
appropriate stage in this judgment.

9. Learned AGA on the other hand
submitted that in this case depicting of
picture of Lord Ganesh at Beedi by the
revisionist was deliberate and intentional
act and therefore the offence for which
revisionist has been summoned is fully
made out and the complainant must get a
change to prove his version of allegations.
He contended that at the stage of
summoning only a prima-facie case is to
be seen and once that is disclosed
summoning order cannot be set aside. He
further submitted that offence u/s 298 IPC
is clearly made out and, therefore, this
revision being merit less and deserves to
be dismissed as the act of the revisionist
accused was done with the intention of
wounding the religious sentiments of
Hindus.

10.

I
have
considered
the
submissions raised by both the sides and
have gone through the affidavit filed in
support of this revision.

Before adverting to appreciate the
contention raised by the revisionist,
relevant provisions are referred.

11. Section 298 IPC provides that
whoever with the deliberate intention of
wounding the religious feelings of any
person utters any words or make any
sound in the hearing of that person or
makes any gesture in the sight of that
person or places any object in the sight of
that person shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to one year, or
with fine, or both.

The question, that comes up for
consideration is as to whether the
revisionists have committed the said
offence or not?

12. From the allegations levelled in
complaint, it is nowhere mentioned that
feelings of Hindus were hurt. Nothing
tangible and specific has been levelled in
the complaint. No stances have been
quoted and only generalized statement has
been made in the complaint, which cannot
be taken as commission of any offence. It
is to be born in mind that section 298 IPC
is a penal provision, which requires strict
interpretation. From the perusal of the
584 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
complaint, I am not at all satisfied that act
of the revisionist was with deliberate
intention to hurt the religious feeling and
sentiments
of
Hindus.
Thus
the
ingredients of section 298 IPC are not
satisfied In this case, which is sine-quanon for summoning of any person as an
accused.

13. Further the record reveals that
the Magistrate while summoning the
revisionist has not observed whether he
had at all followed procedure under
Chapter XV of Cr. P.C. relating to
complaint
to
a
Magistrate.
The
summoning order is silent as to whether
any statement u/s 200 Cr.P.C. of the
complainant and that of his witness u/s
202 Cr. P.C. were recorded or not? The
revisionist has taken a specific ground
that they have been summoned without
conducting any inquiry as is contemplated
in Chapter XV Cr. P.C. Learned AGA
also failed to bring on record any thing to
rebut the said contention. On the contrary
order sheet dated 10.10.2006 indicates
that counsel for the complainant O.P. had
made a statement before this court that he
had got no instructions. In this view of the
matter it is not clear as to whether the
Magistrate conducted any inquiry on the
complaint filed by the respondent no. 1 or
not. In absence of any reference of the
said inquiry in the impugned order, I am
left with no option but to presume that the
Magistrate has not conducted any such
inquiry which was an indispensable
necessity unless the complaint is filed by
a public servant.

14. Moreover, learned counsel for
the revisionist relied upon a judgment of
Bombay High Court rendered in Criminal
Writ Petition No. 1072 of 1991 K.R.
Mallya versus Maulana Ayyub Kadri alias
Baba Kadri and others decided by Hon.
Mrs. Justice S.S. Parkar, on 24.8.1999. In
the aforesaid judgment the very question,
which is involved here was considered.
After going into a detailed discussion and
looking into the provisions of Trade and
Merchandise
Mark
Act
1958,
His
Lordship held that no offence has been
committed by the respondent no. 2 which
was Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works and
was pleased to quash Criminal Case No.
772 of 91 pending before J.M. F.C. Court
No.1 Pune and the process issued by the
said court on 14.6.1991 against the
respondents Maulana Ayyob Kadri alias
Baba Kadri and Mangalore Ganesh Beedi
Works in that case.

15. Learned counsel for the
revisionist further relied upon a judgment
rendered by Madras High Court in
Original petition No. 113 /87 A.T. Raja
Madras versus Mangalore Ganesh Beedi
Works Mysore as respondent. After a
detailed discussion and looking into
various provisions of law under the Trade
and Merchandise Mark Act, Madras High
Court in the aforesaid judgment has
observed as follows:-

"12. According to the petitioner,
religious susceptibility of the petitioner
and of the Hindus in general is affected by
the use of picture of Lord Ganesh on the
label used by the respondent. The
petitioner has not adduced any evidence
in support of his assertion. He also merely
asserted that Lord Ganesh is worshipped
by all Hindus in general, and the object of
such reverence and worship cannot be
allowed to be used as commercial mark
for enabling the user to make profits with
the use of the image of the God.
13. While considering this contention, it is
necessary to note the fact that the
2 All] Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works V. Shri Gokalesh Pathak and another
585
registered mark in this case was registered
in the year 1942 and that during the
course of these 52 years, no other person
has questioned the validity of the
registration on the ground that the
religious susceptibilities of the Hindus are
affected
by
using
the
mark
for
commercial purpose. The petitioner's
claim that his religious susceptibility had
been injuriously affected by the use of the
impugned mark as also the pictorial
representation cannot be given much
credence. It is not as if the petitioner
alone belongs to the class or section who
worship Lord Ganesh. Though the vast
majority of the population in this country
worship Lord Ganesh, none had objected
to the use of the mark for over half a
century. Moreover, Hinduism is generous
and tolerant, and does not easily take
offence at the pictorial representation of
the Gods or Goddesses who from part of
the Hindu Pantheon Respondent has
produced a list of registered trademarks
containing the names of Lord Ganesh as
also a list of marks incorporating the
name of Lord Krishna.
14. In the directions issued by the Central
Government under S. 23 (1) of the Act,
setting out a list of marks which cannot be
registered and which list includes Lord
Budha, Sri Ramakrishna, Sri Sarada Devi,
the Sikh Gurus, Lord Venkateshrvara, and
Chatrapathi Shivaji, among others, Lord
Ganesli is not mentioned. The Central
Government is apparently of the view that
registration of a mark containing the name
or pictorial representation of Lord Ganesh
is not per se objectionable."

16. Further in the present case, from
the statement made in the complaint,
claim of the petitioner seems to be very
queer lacking in credibility so far as the
hurting the religious susceptibility of
Hindus are concerned. During the course
of argument it was pointed out that the
revisionist has been using the said
trademark since 1942. For a period of half
century no body had made any grievance
against the said trademark but for the
respondent complainant. In a such view I
am of the opinion that the allegation of
the complainant does not make out any
offence of hurting religious sentiments of
public at large. Moreover, it is to be noted
that u/s 32 of Trade and Merchandise
Mark Act, it is provided that after seven
years of original registration a registered
trademark shall be taken to be a valid
trade mark in all respect unless it is
obtained by fraud or is registered in
contravention of section 11 of the Trade
and Merchandise Mark Act. For a proper
under standing section 32 of the Trade
and Merchandise Mark Act is quoted
below:-

"32. Registration to be conclusive as
to validity after seven years- Subject to
the provisions of Section 35 and Section
46, in all legal proceedings relating to a
trade mark registered in Part A of the
register (including applications under
Section 56), the original registration of
the trade mark shall, after the expiration
of seven years from the date of such
registration be taken to be valid in all
respects unless it is proved-
(a) that the original registration was
obtained by fraud;

or
(b) that the trade mark was registered in
contravention of the provisions of Section
11 or offends against the provisions of
that section on the date of commencement
of the proceedings; or
(c) that the trade mark was not, at the
commencement
of
the
proceedings,
586 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
distinctive of the goods of the registered
proprietor.

17. Thus in the present case there is
nothing on record to show that section 32
of the Act does not apply on the facts of
the present case. On the contrary it was
conceded by AGA that section 32 has got
full applicability on the facts of the
present case.

18.

Learned
counsel
for
the
revisionist further relied upon a Judgement
rendered by this court in Civil Misc. Writ
Petition No. 25640 of 1994 Mangalore
Ganesh Beedi Works versus District Judge,
Meerut
and
others.
In
this
case
complainant Gokulesh Pathak was the
respondent no. 3. After a detailed
discussion and after going through various
rulings, this court allowed the writ petition
filed by the revisionist and had quashed the
order dated 28.7.1994 passed by District
Judge Meerut, by which order, First
Appeal filed by the plaintiff Gokulelsh
Pathak being FAFO No. 304 of 1993 was
allowed by IV Additional District Judge,
Meerut. The aforesaid court had allowed
the interim injunction application of
plaintiff Gokulesh Pathak (complainant)
and had injected the present revisionists,
which were the respondents in the
aforesaid writ from publishing picture of
Lord Ganesh on the rapper of their Beedi.
The aforesaid judgment rendered by this
court in the aforesaid writ petition
completely demolishes the prosecution
case and therefore it cannot be said that
any offence has been committed by the
revisionists and resultantly, the complaint
filed by the respondents does not make out
any offence against the revisionist.

19. Learned counsel for the
revisionist further relied upon ILR (Vol.
XXIV) page 499 Behari Lal and others V
s. Ghisa Lal and others where in Hon'ble
Justice Blair has held that cutting of a
branch of a Peepal tree does not hurt the
religious susceptibility of Hindus.

20. From the discussions made
above I am of the opinion that the
revisionist was manufacturing Beedi with
the trademark duly registered having
picture of Lord Ganesh on its rapper and
hence it cannot be said that they have
committed any offence. They have got
many judgments in their favour, which
have been referred to above and once they
are acting in accordance with law they
cannot be anointed with any offence.

21. In view of what I have said
above, this revision is allowed. The
impugned
summoning
order
dated
16.6.1993 passed by Judicial Magistrate I,
Meerut, in Complaint Case No. 32/9 of 92
is hereby set aside and the proceedings of
Complaint Case No. 32/9 of 1992
Gokalesh Pathak versus Manager and
Director Mangalore Beedi works U/S 298
IPC,
pending
before
the
Judicial
Magistrate, I, Meerut are hereby quashed.

22. This revision is allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.07.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SANJAY MISRA, J.

Civil Misc. Contempt Petition No. 1839 of
2007

Medi Lal

...Applicant
Versus.
Achala Khanna

...Respondent