Tc/173/2003 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax -I v. M/S.ashok Leyland Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 19.2.2007 Coram The Honourable Mr.Justice P.D.DINAKARANandThe Honourable Mrs.Justice CHITRA VENKATARAMAN T.C.Nos(Appeals).173 and 174 of 2003,404 and 405 of 2004 and1329 and 1330 of 2005 Commissioner of Income Tax – IChennai ...Appellant in TC.No.173 & 174/2003 Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai M/s.Ashok Leyland LtdChennai ...Appellant in TC.No.404 & 405/2004 T.C.No.1329&1330/2005-vs-...Respondent inall TCs Tax Case Appeals filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act. Tax Case(Appeal)No.173 & 174 of 02 filed under section 260-A preferredagainst the order of the Income Tax Appellant Tribunal Chennai Bench 'C'Chennai dated 12.6.03 in ITA No.634/Mds/95 and 368/Mds/90 Assessment year1991-92 against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-1 Madras.34 dated23.12.97 in ITA No.78/97-98 Assessment year 1991-92 against the order ofthe Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle II (1) Madras.34dated 27.3.97 PAN/GIR 47-066-CX-2964. Tax Case (Appeal)No.404 & 405 of 04 against the order of the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal Bench 'A' madras dated 29.7.02 in ITA 61/Mds/94 &70/Mds/94 Assessment year 1990-91 against the commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-1 Madras.34 dated 28.10.93 in ITA NO.52/93-94 Assessment year1990-91 against he order of the Assistant Commissioner Central Circle II(1) (I/C) Madras.34 dated 31.3.93 PAN/GIR No.s47-066-CX-2964. Tax Case (Appeal)No.1329 & 1330 of 05 against the order of the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal Chennai Bench 'B' Chennai.34 dated 23.8.04 in ITANo.445&446/mds/s98 Assessment year 1990-91 & 1991-92 against theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1 Madras.34 in ITA No.77/97-98 Assessment year 1990-91 against the order of the Assistant Commissioner ofIncome Tax Central Circle II (1) Madras.34 PAN/GIR No.AACA 4651 dated31.1.97 and against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1 Madras.34dated 23.12.97 in ITA No.78/97-98 Assessment year 1991-92 against theorder of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle II (1)Madras.34 PAN/GIR No.47-066-CX 2964 dated 27.3.97. For Appellant:Mrs.Pushya Sitaraman,Senior Standing Counsel for IT. (The judgment of the Court was delivered by CHITRA VENKATARAMAN,J)T.C.Nos.173 and 174 of 2003 are relating to 1991-92 assessmentperiod. The substantial questions of law formulated for consideration areas follows:- 1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal was right in holding that exciseduty will form part of the total turnover for thepurpose of calculation of Section 80 HHC? 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal was right in holding that scrapsales should not be included in the total turnover forthe purpose of calculation of deduction under Section80 HHC? 3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal was right that the recovery of rentmade from salaries to managerial personnel, leaserentals, other income and service charges should beincluded as business profits but excluded from totalturnover? 4. Whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal was right in holding that theassessee is eligible for benefit of depreciation onassets which were sold to the transport corporationthough the transaction was termed as lease?. 2. T.C.Nos.404 and 405 of 2004 are relating to 1990-91 assessmentperiod. The substantial questions of law formulated for consideration areas follows:- 1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal was right in holding that excise dutyshould be deducted from the total turnover for thepurpose of computation of benefits under Section 80HHC? 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal was right in holding that unabsorbedloss should not be deducted to arrive at the profits forthe purpose of calculation of deduction under Section 80HHC? 2. T.C.Nos.404 and 405 of 2004 are relating to 1990-91 assessmentperiod. The substantial questions of law formulated for consideration areas follows:- 1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal was right in holding that excise dutyshould be deducted from the total turnover for thepurpose of computation of benefits under Section 80HHC? 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal was right in holding that unabsorbedloss should not be deducted to arrive at the profits forthe purpose of calculation of deduction under Section 80HHC? 3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal was right in holding that the premiumpayable on redemption of debentures in future years isto be spread over and part of it allowed as a deductionin this year? 4. Whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal was right in including lease rent,rental income and other miscellaneous income in theprofits of business for the purpose of computation ofdeduction under Section 80 HHC? 5. Whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal was right in directing the assessingofficer to recompute the interest exempted under Section10(15)(iv) in accordance with the ruling in Vijaya Bankvs. CIT 187 ITR 841 (SC)? 3. T.C.Nos.1329 and 1330 of 2005 are relating to 1990-91 assessmentperiod. The substantial questions of law formulated for consideration areas follows:- 1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal was right in holding that thetransaction between the assessee and the MSRTC Ltd., isa lease transaction and not a sale transaction when theMSRTC had paid almost the entire amount as down payment? 2. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal was right in holding thatthe assesseeis entitled for the depreciation on the abovetransaction? 3. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal had enough material to hold that the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ transaction was a lease transaction? and 4. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal was right in holding that the leaserental had to be excluded from the total turnover forthe purpose of deduction under Section 80 HHC? 4. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale ofchassis for medium and heavy duty commercial vehicles, engines etc. Theassessment for the year 1991-92 was originally completed under Section 143(3); again after the giving effect to the order in appeal. Subsequently,it was taken up for rectification under Section 154 on the question ofdepreciation, as regards the lease of buses to MSRTC and Pune MunicipalTransport Corporation which according to the Revenue was a saletransaction. Apart from that the relief under Section 80 HHC, as well asthe interest and commitment charges on the loan were also taken up forconsideration. The Assessing Officer construed the lease agreement as asimple sale and held that the assessee was not entitled to thedepreciation relating to the vehicles. 5. As regards the claim for deduction under Section 80 HHC, theAssessing Officer reworked the calculation. Aggrieved by the said order,the assessee went on appeal. The Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals,upholding the order of the Assessing Authority and following the order forthe earlier year, confirmed the view of the Assessing Authority that thelease was in reality a sale. 6. On the question of deduction under Section 80 HHC as regards thecommission paid to the dealers, the Appellate Authority rejected theappeal for deduction. The assessee preferred two appeals. One was againstthe regular assessment made and the other as against the revision made. 5. As regards the claim for deduction under Section 80 HHC, theAssessing Officer reworked the calculation. Aggrieved by the said order,the assessee went on appeal. The Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals,upholding the order of the Assessing Authority and following the order forthe earlier year, confirmed the view of the Assessing Authority that thelease was in reality a sale. 6. On the question of deduction under Section 80 HHC as regards thecommission paid to the dealers, the Appellate Authority rejected theappeal for deduction. The assessee preferred two appeals. One was againstthe regular assessment made and the other as against the revision made. 7. On the question of lease transactions taken as a sale, theTribunal noted that leasing of vehicles was the predominant businessactivity carried on by the assessee. It also noted the written leaseagreement executed between the parties and that the assessee company hadcollected deposits. The lease rentals were adjusted against the depositsmade by the lessee company. The Tribunal further noted that the assesseecompany was assessed to Maharashtra sales tax on these lease transactionswhich clearly showed that the exact nature of the transaction between theassessee and MSRTC was only a pure lease and not any sale. Hence, goingby the terms of the lease, the Tribunal upheld the contention of theassessee that the transaction was a lease transaction. Hence, going bythe evidence available and the legal position that the company shallcontinue to be the owner of the leased vehicles, the Tribunal found thatthere was no legal basis to bring to tax 100% of the security depositreceived from MSRTC. The Tribunal directed the assessing officer to treatthe rental amount received as its income. Consequently, the Tribunal heldthat the assessee was entitled to depreciation allowance on the leased outvehicles. 8. On the question of Section 80 HHC relief on the excise dutyelement as forming part of the total turnover for the purpose of therelief , referring to the decision reported in 245 ITR 769 (CIT v.SUDARSHAN CHEMICALS INDUSTRIES LTD.), the Tribunal directed the AssessingOfficer to exclude excise duty from the computation of turnover for thepurpose of working out the benefit available to the assessee under Section80 HHC of the Act. 9. As regards the addition of scrap scales to the total turnover, theTribunal noted that the metallic scrap churned out in the process ofassessee's manufacturing activities did not form part of the trading goodsor stock-in-trade of the assessee company. Applying the decision reportedin 257 ITR 60 (CIT v. MADRAS MOTORS LTD.), the Tribunal noted that theassessee never contemplated the export of scrap. As such, the scrap salescould not be taken as a part of turnover. Hence, the Tribunal directedexclusion of scrap on the computation of the total turnover for thepurpose of Section 80 HHC. 10. The next issue as regards relief under Section 80 HHC relates tothe lease rentals, recovery of rent made from the salaries paid tomanagerial personnel and other income and service charges. In respect ofrent recovered from the salaries paid to the managerial personnel, theTribunal noted that they did not form part of the receipts, and on theother hand, it represented the outgoings and recoveries. Consequently, theTribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in treating the said amountas non business income. The Tribunal set aside the view of the AssessingOfficer and directed him not to include the said amount in the computationof business profit for the purpose of Section 80 HHC. 10. The next issue as regards relief under Section 80 HHC relates tothe lease rentals, recovery of rent made from the salaries paid tomanagerial personnel and other income and service charges. In respect ofrent recovered from the salaries paid to the managerial personnel, theTribunal noted that they did not form part of the receipts, and on theother hand, it represented the outgoings and recoveries. Consequently, theTribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in treating the said amountas non business income. The Tribunal set aside the view of the AssessingOfficer and directed him not to include the said amount in the computationof business profit for the purpose of Section 80 HHC. 11. As regards lease rentals, the Tribunal noted that these werederived from the vehicles owned by the assessee let out to other parties.The Tribunal viewed that although it is a business income, it does notform part of the turnover. Hence, the Tribunal directed the AssessingOfficer not to include the lease rentals as part of the computation ofbusiness profit for the purpose of Section 80 HHC. 12. As regards service charges and other income, the Tribunal heldthat these two amounts shall be treated as assessee's business income, butdo not form part of its turnover. Thus the Tribunal allowed the claim ofthe assessee. 13. The Revenue has come on appeal on the questions of law relatingto the working of deduction under Section 80 HHC as well as on therecovery of rent made from salaries to managerial personnel, lease rental,other income and service charges on bills discounted relief. The Revenuehas also raised the question as regards the nature of transaction that theassessee had with MSRTC. 14. As regards the questions in T.C.Nos.173 and 173 of 2003 areconcerned, learned senior standing counsel for the Revenue fairly conceded that as regards the first question as to whether excise duty shall formpart of the turnover for the purpose of calculation of deduction underSection 80 HHC, in the decision reported in 272 ITR 652 (CIT v. SUNDARAMFASTENERS LTD.), the Division Bench of this Court held that excise dutywould not form part of the total turnover for the purpose of calculationof deduction under Section 80 HHC of the Act. Accordingly, the firstquestion is answered against the Revenue. 15. As regards the second question as to whether scrap sale is not tobe included in the total turnover for the purpose of calculation ofdeduction under Section 80 HHC, the same is also covered by the decisionsreported in 257 ITR 60 (CIT v. MADRAS MOTORS/M.M. FORGINGS LTD) and 258ITR 749 (CIT v. NSC SHOES). Going by these decisions, we hold that theTribunal is correct in holding that the scrap sales would not be includedin the total turnover for the purpose of calculation of deduction underSection 80 HHC. The second question is also answered against the Revenue. 16. As regards the third question on other income and servicecharges, lease rentals, includable in the total turnover, learned seniorstanding counsel also pointed out that the same is covered by thedecisions reported in 257 ITR 60 (CIT v. MADRAS MOTORS/M.M. FORGINGS LTD)and 258 ITR 749 (CIT v. NSC SHOES) against the Revenue. As regards thebill discounting service charges and other income, the Tribunal, followingthe decision of this Court reported in 257 ITR 60 (CIT v. MADRASMOTORS/M.M. FORGINGS LTD) held that they did not form part of the turnoverand the said amount be treated as assessee's business income. 16. As regards the third question on other income and servicecharges, lease rentals, includable in the total turnover, learned seniorstanding counsel also pointed out that the same is covered by thedecisions reported in 257 ITR 60 (CIT v. MADRAS MOTORS/M.M. FORGINGS LTD)and 258 ITR 749 (CIT v. NSC SHOES) against the Revenue. As regards thebill discounting service charges and other income, the Tribunal, followingthe decision of this Court reported in 257 ITR 60 (CIT v. MADRASMOTORS/M.M. FORGINGS LTD) held that they did not form part of the turnoverand the said amount be treated as assessee's business income. 17. As regards lease rental and recovery of rent from the salariespaid to managerial personnel, considering the decision of this Courtreported in 262 ITR 278 (PANDIAN CHEMICALS Vs. CIT), the said items arenot includable in the total turnover; that they are to be included asbusiness income. In the circumstances, having regard to the interpretationplaced by the Apex Court on the income 'derived' from as appearing inSection 80HHC, the order of the Tribunal directing the exclusion of thesaid amount from turnover is correct. The income from lease rental is notrelatable to industrial activity to go for inclusion in the turnover.Admittedly, the source of the receipt was not relatable to the industrialactivity. In the decision reported in 262 ITR 278 (PANDIAN CHEMICALS Vs.CIT), the Apex Court held that the interest derived by the industrialundertaking of the assessee on deposits made with the Electricity Boardfor securing supply of electricity for running the industrial undertakingcould not be said to flow directly from the industrial undertaking itself,and was not derived by the undertaking for the purpose of the specialdeduction under Section 80HH of the Act. The principle of that decisionapplies to the facts of this case as well. Hence the Tribunal is right inordering exclusion of the recovery of rent made from the salaries ofmanagerial personnel from total turnover for the purpose of calculatingrelief under Section 80HHC. 18. The next question is as regards the claim for depreciation on thelease transactions entitled to depreciation entered into by the assesseewith MSRTC. Learned senior counsel appearing for the Revenue submittedthat going by the terms of the lease agreement, it is cleat that what wascontemplated by the assessee was only a sale and that the transaction wasan irrevocable one. Learned counsel also pointed out that when the entirecost of the vehicle to the extent of 90% is paid and the considerationshown as initial deposit will not earn any interest, the transaction,though called a lease, is in reality, a sale. She also pointed out thatthe lessee had taken the registration in its name. Further, as and whenthe bus body was built, the lessee was to raise an invoice for the bodyvalue. It is further seen that the initial deposit paid by the lesseewould not carry any interest and the said sum was to be adjusted towardslease rentals. Learned senior standing counsel submitted that consideringthe fact that more than 90% of the lease amount of the vehicles was paidby the assessee, the said transaction was nothing but a sale. 19. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the assesseesubmitted that considering the finding of the authorities below on thenature of transaction as lease and in the absence of any materials to showthat the character of the transaction could not be accepted as lease, theRevenue failed to substantiate its contention that the substance of thetransaction was nothing but a sale. He further placed reliance on thedecision reported in 272 ITR 115 (CIT v. SOUTH INDIA VISCOSE LTD),wherein, under identical circumstances, this Court accepted the plea ofthe assessee and rejected the contention of the Revenue. He submitted thatit is a matter of contract for the parties to have the terms fixed as pertheir needs and commercial wisdom. As such, in the absence of anymaterial, different conclusion could not be drawn from the document tohold the transaction as sale. 20. We agree with the contention of the assessee. Apart from the factthat the issue raised is a pure question of fact, a look at the terms ofthe document speak on the character of the transaction. A reading of thedocument would clearly show that the parties were clear as to what theyintended to do. The fact that the lessee had paid more than 90% of thecost of lease rental by way of meeting the expenditure, 90% of thesecurity deposit going in for adjustment towards lease rentals does not byitself convert otherwise a lease transaction into sale. As rightlysubmitted by the learned counsel for the assessee, the lease transactionwas with the Government Agency, and the registration certificate clearlyshowed that the vehicles were under lease. Clause 3 of the agreementspeaks about the title to the vehicle, which showed that theassessee/lessor had exclusive right over the property, namely, the subjectmatter of lease. The lessee had also expressed that during the currencyof the lease agreement, it would not include the leased assets as fixedassets in its books of accounts, capitalize the leased assets, since theparties agreed that the ownership of the asset during the lease tenureundisputedly rested only with the lessor/assessee. It is also seen that inthe event of total damage to the vehicles, the lessee would have to forego the deposit standing to its credit with the lessor. On the termination oflease, by efflux of time at the end of 9 years, the lessee shall deliverthe vehicle to the lessor, unless the parties agreed for renewal of thelease. In the background of these facts, and considering the fact that thesales tax assessment was made on the basis of deemed sale in the nature ofright to use the vehicles under the provisions of the Maharashtra SalesTax Act, we do not find any justification in the submission made by thelearned senior standing counsel, that the transaction could be viewed as asale. The fact that the assessee paid 90% of the value by way of fixeddeposit is a matter of agreement between the parties and the same cannotbe read in isolation without reference to the other clauses in theagreement. Consequently, the payment of 90% of the value, per se, doesnot make the transaction a sale, read in the context of the variousclauses showing the effective ownership of the assets still lying withthem. In the context of the factual findings, we do not find any merit inthe appeal preferred by the Revenue. In the circumstances, this questionis answered against the Revenue. 21. The Tribunal correctly arrived at the factual finding that thetransaction is a lease transaction; that the lease rentalsreceived/receivable by the assessee from MSRTC is to be assessed asincome. Consequently, the direction given by the Tribunal to grant thedepreciation allowance on the leased out vehicles at the rates applicableas per the Rules cannot be found fault with. In the circumstances, weconfirm the order of the Tribunal and reject the appeal on this issue. 21. The Tribunal correctly arrived at the factual finding that thetransaction is a lease transaction; that the lease rentalsreceived/receivable by the assessee from MSRTC is to be assessed asincome. Consequently, the direction given by the Tribunal to grant thedepreciation allowance on the leased out vehicles at the rates applicableas per the Rules cannot be found fault with. In the circumstances, weconfirm the order of the Tribunal and reject the appeal on this issue. 22. As far as T.C.Nos.404 and 405 of 2004 are concerned, in the lightof the view we have taken, the first question as regards excise duty to bededucted from the total turnover for the purpose of computation ofbenefits under Section 80 HHC is answered against the Revenue. 23. The second question of law relates to deduction of unabsorbedloss to arrive at the profits for the purpose of calculating the deductionunder Section 80HHC. The Tribunal upheld the claim following 88 ITR 192(CIT Vs. VEGETABLE PRODUCTS LTD (S.C.). The Revenue has questioned thiscontending that brought forward loss should not be deducted from theprofits and gains of business for the purpose of working out the reliefunder Section 80HHC. A perusal of Section 80A(1) describes the deductionsto be computed from the gross total income. Section 80B (5) defines totalincome as one computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act beforemaking any deduction under Chapter VI A. Touching on the provision ofSection 80-AB, in the case of IPCA LABORATORY LTD. V. DEPUTY C.I.T (266ITR 521), the Supreme Court held that in computing the total income of theassessee, both profits as well as losses will have to be taken intoconsideration. Referring to Section 80B (5) as well as to Section 80AB,the Apex Court held that for purposes of working out the relief underSection 80HHC, the computation has to be made first as given under Section80AB, which means, the computation of income has to be in accordance withthe provisions of the Act. Hence, before deduction under Section80 HHC is considered, the Assessing Authority has to compute the income in accordance with the provisions of the Act. In which event, the profits andgains of income from business will have to be computed taking note ofSection 72A also. The Commissioner (Appeals) pointed out that theaccumulated loss which were carried forward and set off under theprovisions of Section 72A were correctly deducted by the AssessingAuthority before computing the deduction under Section 80HHC. Hence, thecomputation done is in accordance with the scheme, as interpreted by theSupreme Court. In the above circumstances, we do not find anyjustification to accept the plea of the assessee that the unabsorbed lossshould not be deducted to arrive at the profits for the purposes ofcalculating the deduction under Section 80HHC. In the circumstances, theorder of the Tribunal in this regard is unsustainable and hence thequestion is answered in favour of the Revenue. 24. As regards the third question on the premium payable onredemption of debentures in future years is to be spread over and part ofit allowed as a deduction in this year, the same is covered by thedecision of the Apex Court reported in 225 ITR 802 (MADRAS INDUSTRIALINVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD Vs. CIT) and the decision of this Courtreported in 204 CTR 115 (CIT Vs. FIRST LEASING CO. OF INDIA LTD.), towhich one of us were a party (P.D. DINAKARAN, J), and is thereforeanswered against the Revenue. 25. The fourth question as regards these appeals is the same as thethird question raised in T.C.Nos.173 and 174 of 2003. Considering thequestion already answered against the Revenue, the same are rejected andanswered against the Revenue. 24. As regards the third question on the premium payable onredemption of debentures in future years is to be spread over and part ofit allowed as a deduction in this year, the same is covered by thedecision of the Apex Court reported in 225 ITR 802 (MADRAS INDUSTRIALINVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD Vs. CIT) and the decision of this Courtreported in 204 CTR 115 (CIT Vs. FIRST LEASING CO. OF INDIA LTD.), towhich one of us were a party (P.D. DINAKARAN, J), and is thereforeanswered against the Revenue. 25. The fourth question as regards these appeals is the same as thethird question raised in T.C.Nos.173 and 174 of 2003. Considering thequestion already answered against the Revenue, the same are rejected andanswered against the Revenue. 26. As regards the fifth question relating to the Tribunal remandingthe matter to the Assessing Officer to re-compute the interest exemptedunder Section 10(15(iv) in accordance with the ruling in Vijaya Bank Vs.CIT reported in 187 ITR 841 (SC), the Tribunal had noted that it is notclear from the records as to whether the bonds were subscribed orpurchased from the market. If the bonds are subscribed, then the interestthereon would be exempt under Section 10(15) of the Act. If the bonds arepurchased from the market, then the ratio laid down in the decision of theSupreme Court reported in 187 ITR 841 (SC), (VIJAYA BANK Vs. CIT) wouldapply. Considering the view expressed by the Tribunal as regards thepaucity of materials to arrived at the conclusion, the remand order passedby the Tribunal cannot be found fault with. In the circumstances, we donot find any question of law arising in this matter. Consequently, theappeal of the Revenue stands rejected. 27. As far as T.C.Nos.1329 and 1330 of 2005 are concerned, in thelight of the view we have taken in the appeals referred to above, all thequestions are answered against the Revenue. Hence T.C.Nos.1329 and 1330of 2005 are dismissed. No costs. In the circumstances, in T.C.Nos.173 and 174 of 2003, all the fourquestions are answered against the Revenue. In T.C.Nos.404 and 405 of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2004, except question No.2, all other questions are answered against theRevenue. In T.C.Nos.1329 and 1330 of 2005, all the questions are answeredagainst the Revenue. bg sd/-Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrar To 1. The Assistant Registrar, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, III Floor, Rajaj Bhavan, Besant Nagar, Chennai.34.2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)I Madras.34.3. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle II(1) Madras.344. The Commissioner of Income Tax - 1 Chennai.5. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. + 1 cc to Mrs.Pushaya Sitaraman Advocate SR.NO.9707 KK(CO)RD 21.9.07 T.C.Nos(Appeals).173 and 174 of 2003, 404 and 405 of 2004 and 1329 and 1330 of 2005 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/