Case Law Companies Act Union Of India Vs Allied International Products Ltd

PETITIONER:
UNION OF INDIA

Vs.

RESPONDENT:
ALLIED INTERNATIONAL PRODUCTS LTD. & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:
19/10/1970

BENCH:
SHAH, J.C.
BENCH:
SHAH, J.C.
HEGDE, K.S.
GROVER, A.N.

CITATION:
1971 AIR 251 1971 SCR (2) 661
1970 SCC (3) 595
ACT:
Companies Act, 1956, s. 73-Stock Exchange extending time for
consideration of application for enlisting of shares within
four weeks of closing of subscription list-Further
intimation given to company within seven weeks that
application was under consideration-Approval given after
seven weeks-Whether approval valid-Approval by one of
several exchanges to which applications made, whether valid
and sufficient Shareholder whether bound by allotment of
shares if stock exchange convenient to him does not approve
application-
Code of Civil Procedure, O 41, r. 33- High Court’s
discretion under Principles for exercising.
Interpretation of Statutes-S. 73(1) of Companies Act, 1956
is a penal provision and must be strictly construed.

 

HEADNOTE:
The first respondents limited company-issued a prospectus
offering its shares to the public for subscription. it was
mentioned in the prospectus that the company was applying to
the Bombay, Calcutta and Delhi Stock Exchanges (which were
recognised exchanges within the meaning of s. 2(39) of the
Companies Act, 1956), for enlistment of its shares. On June
3, 1956 the Company submitted the applications. The
subscription list was closed on June 21, 1965. On June 22,
1965 the Bombay Exchange extended the time for consideration
of the application till the expiry of seven weeks from the
date of closing of the subscription list. On August 6, 1965
the Exchange informed the company that the application was
receiving further consideration. On September 13, 1965 the
Exchange informed the company that its application for
enlisting its shares had been approved. The Calcutta and
Delhi Exchanges rejected the applications made to them. The
company Challenged the orders passed by the Calcutta and
Delhi Exchanges in appeals to the Central Government under
s. 22 of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956.
The Central Government dismissed the appeals. The company
filed writ petitions in the High Court. The Single Judge
held that the grant of permission by the Bombay Exchange was
valid and that allotment of shares did not become void
merely because one out of the three exchanges alone, gave
the permission to enlist the company’s shakes. He quashed
the order of the Central Government and. directed the issue
of mandamus to the Calcutta and Delhi Exchanges requiring
them to enlist the shares of the company. The Union of
India appealed to the Division Bench. The Calcutta and
Delhi Exchanges acquiesced in the orders passed against
them. The High Court confirmed the order of the Single
Judge. With certificate, the Union of India appealed to
this Court. The questions that fell for consideration were
: (i) whether the permission granted by the Bombay Exchange
after the expiry of seven weeks from the date of closing of
the subscription list violated the provisions of s. 73(1) of
the Companies Act, 1956 and was on that account invalid;
(ii) whether the grant of permission by one out of three
Exchanges was sufficient to protect the allotment of shares
from being invalid under s. 73(1) of the Companies Act,
1956; (iii) whether a shareholder who buys shares on the
15 L436Sup.(P)/71
662
representation that the shares would be enlisted in an
Exchange convenient to him is bound by the allotment even
when the condition of securing quotation in an Exchange
convenient to him has not been carried out; (iv) ‘Whether in
the circumstances of the case the High Court ought in
exercise of its power under O.41 r. 33 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, to have vacated the writ of Mandamus requiring
the Calcutta & Delhi Exchanges to grant permission for
quotation of the Company’s shares.
HELD : (i) It was not possible to accept the argument that
permission for enlistment of shares can be given within the
initial period of four weeks, or if time be extended,,
within seven weeks from the date of closing of the
subscription list, and if permission be not granted by the
Exchange within those seven weeks, the allotment becomes
void, even if the Stook Exchanges intimates that it is
giving further consideration to the application. [669 B]
The intendment of sub-ss. (1), (2) and (5) of s., 75 of the
Companies Act, 1956 is plain. If within four weeks from the
date of the closing of the subscription list, the stock
exchange sends no intimation either extending time or
notifying that the application “‘though not at present
granted will be given further consideration”, the
application is deemed to be refused. If the Stock Exchange
so desires it may intimate that the period is being extended
to seven weeks. The Exchange may say nothing more during
the extended period, in which case, on the expiry of the
extended period the allotment becomes void. If however,
within the-four weeks, or within the extended period of
seven weeks, the Exchange intimates that even though the
application for permission is not at present granted, the
application will be given further consideration the
application is not deemed to be refused until it is finally
granted. [669 C-D]
Being a penal provision s. 73(1) must be strictly construed.
Unless the statute in clear terms so provides, when the
Exchange intimates its desire to consider the application
further, an inference that the Exchange has still rejected
the application cannot be made. [669 F]
The amendment made by Act 31 of 1965 in sub-s. (5) by the
substitution of the expression “permission shall not be
deemed to be refused” by the expression “it shall not be
deemed that permission has been granted” also gives a clue
to the legislative intention that the inference of refusal
shall not be made if the Exchange has intimated to the
applicant that further consideration will be given to the
application. [668 H]
(ii) It cannot be held that unless all the applications to
different Exchanges were granted, the allotment of shares
must, by virtue of sub-s. (1) of s. 73 be invalid. The
object of s. 73(1) is that the subscribers to the shares
must have facility to approach on Exchange for having their
holding converted whenever they desire. Even if out of
several exchange I approached, one or more, but not all,
have granted the application for enlistment, the facility of
ensuring quick conversion is still available. , It after
representing in the prospectus that an application bag been
made to a, recognised exchange for ‘*enlistment” or will be
made within the prescribed period, the company is unable to
obtain permission for “enlistment” from any Exchange, the
allotment will be invalid. But sub-s. (1) is not intended
to mean that it will be invalid even if permission is
obtained but not from all the Exchanges to which
applications have been made. [670 A-C]
(iii) Section 73 (1) declares the entire allotment void
: it does not take-into consideration the right or
convenience of individual shareholders.
663
An enquiry whether a shareholder or a class of shareholders
was or were induced to subscribe for shares on the
representation that the company was applying for enlistment
to several exchanges one of which was convenient to him, is
irrelevant in determining whether the allotment is tendered
invalid for failure to secure compliance with a statutory
condition. [671 B]
(iv) An appellate court may in appropriate case pass any
decree and make any order appropriate to the ends of
justice, even if a party has not appealed against an adverse
decision. The power may be exercised by the Court
notwithstanding that the appeal is as to a part only of the
decree and may be exercised in favour of all or any of the
parties, even though they may not have filed an appeal or
objection. [671 E]
[The Court did not give a final opinion on the question
whether in the present case the discretion was correctly
exercised by the High Court because the Calcutta and Delhi
Exchanges had applied for certificates in the High Court of
Delhi and the application was pending.] [671 G]

 

JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 1772 and
1773 of 1970.
Appeals from the judgment and order dated July 24, 1970, of
the Delhi High Court in Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 72 and
73 of 1969.
C. K. Daphtary, S. P. Nayar, for the appellant (in both
the appeals).
N. A. Palkhivala, Santosh Chatterjee, G. S. Chatterjee and
A. M. Parikh, for respondent No. 1 (in both the appeals).
B. N. Kirpal and Bishamber Lal, for respondent No. 2 (in
C.A. No. 1772 of 1970).
B. Sen and O. P. Khaitan, for respondent No. 2 (in C.A.
No. 1773 of 1970).
N. A. Palkhivala, Bhuvanesh Kumari, Santosh Chatterjee, J. B.
Dadachanji, for intervener No. 1.
M. C. Setalvad., Santosh Chatterjee, C. M. Oberoi and J.
B. Dadachanji, for intervener No. 2.
C. K. Daphtary and 1. N. Shroff, for intervener No. 3.
A. N. Sinha and Rathin Das, for intervener No. 4.
C. K. Daphtary and S. K. Dholakia, for intervener No. 5.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by-
Shah, J. On May 29, 1965, the Allied International Products
Ltd-hereinafter called ‘the Company-issued ‘a prospectus
offering to the public for subscription 5,00,000 equity
shares
664
of Rs. 10 each and 10,000 cumulative preference shares of
Rs. 100 each, and intimating that “applications are being
made to “Bombay, Calcutta and Delhi Stock Exchanges for
permission to deal in for official quotations of the shares
of the Company”.
On June 3, 1965, the Company submitted applications to the
Stock Exchanges at Bombay, Calcutta and Delhi which are
recognised Stock Exchanges within the meaning of S. 2(39) of
the Companies Act, 1956), for “enlisting” its shares. The
subscription list of the Company was closed on June 21,
1965. On June 22, 1965, the Bombay Stock Exchange extended
the. time for consideration of the application till the
expiry of seven weeks from the date of closing of the
subscription list and requested the Company to furnish
certain particulars to facilitate compliance with s. 73 of
the Indian Companies Act, 1956. On August 6, 1965, the
Exchange informed the Company that the application was
receiving further consideration and requested that certain
formalities be complied with. On September 13, 1965. the
Exchange informed the Company that it had considered and
approved the application for “enlisting” its shares.
On June 9, 1965, the Calcutta Stock Exchange called upon the
Company to modify certain Articles of Association, and by
letter dated July 12, 1965, asked for particulars in
respect of specified matters. On July 27, 1965, the
Calcutta Stock Exchange granted time for compliance till the
end of the seventh week from the date of the closing of the
subscription list. On November 5, 1965, the Calcutta Stock
Exchange rejected the application of the Company for
“enlisting” the shares.
The Delhi Stock Exchange informed the Company on July 10,
1965, that in order to facilitate compliance with the provi-
sions of s. 73 of the Companies Act, “the allotment of
shares should be finalised as soon as possible in
consultation with the Stock Exchange”. By another letter
dated August 9, 1965, the Exchange informed the Company that
the matter of “enlistment” of shares was under
consideration, and the Company will be intimated of the
decision of the Exchange as soon as it is taken. The Delhi
Stock Exchange by letter, dated December 4, 1965, rejected
the application of the Company for “enlistment” of its
shares.
The Company challenged the orders passed by the Calcutta and
Delhi Stock Exchanges rejecting the applications for
“enlistment”, in separate appeals under s. 22 of the
Securities Contracts (Regulations) Act 42 of 1956. The
Central Government dismissed the appeals. In the orders
recording dismissal it was recited that the Exchange did not
grant the permission for the shares
665
to be “enlisted” before the expiry of four weeks from the
date of closing of the subscription list as required by s. 7
3 (1) of the Companies Act, 1956, and that the Exchange did
not notify any extension of time for the grant of the
permission within four weeks.
The Company then moved petitions id the High Court of Delhi
for the issue of writs quashing the orders passed by the
Central Government in appeals under s. 22 of the Securities
Contracts (Regulation) Act, and the orders of the Stock
Exchanges rejecting the application of the Company as “void,
illegal and of no effect”, and for orders directing the
Stock Exchanges to “grant enlistment” of the shares of the
Company, and further declaring s. 22 of the Securities
Contracts. (Regulation) Act 42 of 1956, and s. 73 of the
Companies Act, 1956, ultra vires the Constitution of India.
Rangarajan, I was of the opinion that grant of permission by
the Bombay Stock Exchange was valid, and that allotment of
shares did not become void, merely because one out of the
three Exchanges alone gave the permission to “enlist” the
Company’s shares. The learned Judge quashed the order of
the Central Government and directed that writs of mandamus
do issue against the Calcutta and Delhi Stock Exchanges
requiring them to “enlist” the shares of the, Company.
Against the decision of Rangarajan, J., the Union of India
appealed to a Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi.
The two Exchanges acquiesced in the orders passed against
them. The High Court confirmed the orders of Rangarajan, J.
With certificate granted by the High Court, the Union of
India has appealed to this Court.
In support of these appeals, two principal contentions were
urged on behalf of the Union :
(1) The permission granted by the Bombay
Stock Exchange after the expiry of seven weeks
violated the provisions of s. 73(1) of the
Companies Act, 1956 and was on that account
invalid; and
(2) that grant of permission by one out of
the three Exchanges did not protect the
allotment of shares from being invalid under
s. 73(1) of the Companies Act, 1956.
The two Stock Exchanges which had acquiesced in the judgment
of the Rangarajan, J., urged that the order granting writs
of mandamus requiring the two Exchanges to “enlist” the
shares of the Company was without jurisdiction. Rangarajan,
J., it was
L436 Sup.CI/70
6 66
said, could only direct that the applications be considered
by the two Exchanges.
The relevant provisions of s. 73 of the Companies Act, 1956,
in force at the date of the applications for permission
for the shares to be dealt in the Exchanges provided:
“(1) Where a prospectus, whether issued
generally or not, states that application has
been made or will be made for permission for
the shares or debentures offered thereby to be
dealt in on a recognised stock exchange, any
allotment made on an application in pursuance
of ,he, pros tu shall, whenever made, be void,
if the permission has not been applied for
before the tenth day after the first issue of
the prospectus, or, if the permission has not
been granted before the expiry of four weeks
from the date of the closing of the
subscription lists or such longer period not
exceeding seven weeks as may, within the said
four weeks be notified to the applicant for
permission by or on behalf of the Stock
Exchange.
(2) Where the permission has not been
applied for as aforesaid, or has not been
granted as aforesaid, the company shall
forthwith repay without interest all, moneys
received from applicants in pursuance of the
prospectus, and, if any such money is not
repaid within eight days after the company
becomes liable to repay it, the directors of
the company shall be jointly and severally
liable to repay that money with interest at
the, rate of five per cent per annum from the
expiry of the eighth day
Provided
(5) For the purpose of this section
permission shall not be deemed to be refused,
if it is intimated that the application for
permission though not at present granted,
will be given further consideration.
(7) No prospectus shall state that
application has been made for permission for
the shares or debentures offered thereby to be
dealt in on any stock exchange, unless it is a
recognised stock exchange.”
667
By the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, ‘machinery is
set up for extending recognition to and for withdrawal of
recognition to Stock Exchanges and for other incidental
matters such as the making of rules and bye-laws of the
Exchanges and appeals against the orders of recognised
Exchanges. By s. 22 of the Act it is provided :
“Where a recognised stock exchange acting in
pursuance of any power given to it by its bye-
laws, refuses to list the securities of any
public company, the company shall be entitled
to be furnished with the reason for such
refusal, and may appeal against the decision
of the recognised stock exchange to the
Central Government, and the Central
Government, may after giving the stock
exchange an opportunity of being heard, vary
or set aside the decision of the recognised
stock exchange and when it does so the stock
exchange shall be bound to act in conformity
with the orders of the Central Government.”
Sub-section (5) of s. 73 of the Companies Act, 1956, is
intended to be explanatory of sub-ss. (1) & (2) of s. 73.
Before that sub-section was amended by Act 31 of 1965
different phraseology was used in sub-ss. (1) & (2) and in
sub-s. (5) : the former used the expression “permission has
not been granted”, whereas sub-s. (5) used the expression
“permission shall not be deemed to be refused”. The
expression “permission has not been granted” is ambiguous :
it may mean “permission has been refused” : it may also mean
that the application for permission is under consideration
and has not been disposed of. Sub-sections (1) & (2) of s.
73 were borrowed from s. 51 of the English Companies Act,
1948 with slight modifications. But the draftsman of the
Indian Act, for reasons which it is difficult to appreciate,
substituted the expression “permission has not been granted”
for the expression “permission has been refused”. In
enacting sub-s. (5) of s. 73 the words used in sub-s. (5) of
s. 51 of the English Act, viz. “Permission shall not be
deemed to be, refused” were adopted. In our judgment, the
expression “permission has not been granted” in sub-ss. (1)
& (2) was intended in the context in which it occurs and in
the light of the object of the enactment, to mean
“permission has been refused”.
A Stock Exchange fulfils a vital function in the economic
development of a nation: its main function is to “liquify
capital by enabling a person who has invested money in say a
factory or a railway to convert it into cash by disposing of
his share in the enterprise to some one else”. Investment
in joint stock companies is attractive to the public,
because the value, of the shares is announced day after day
in the Stock Exchanges, and the shares
66 8
quoted on the Exchanges are capable of almost immediate
conversion into money. In modern days a company stands
little chance of inducing the public to subscribe to its
capital, unless its shares are quoted in an approved Stock
Exchange. All public companies are anxious to obtain
permission from reputed exchanges for securing quotations of
their shares and the management of a company is anxious to
inform the investing public that the shares of the company
will be quoted on the Stock exchange. ‘To prevent
malpractices, the Parliament enacted legislation which aimed
at securing control over the proper functioning- of the
Stock Exchanges, and also placed stringent restrictions
upon the representations made by the companies in issuing
prospectus inviting subscriptions. The Parliament enacted
the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act 42 of 1956, and
simultaneously made provision in s. 73 of the Companies Act,
1956, for ensuring that representations made in the
prospectus are carried out and fluidity of the investment by
the holder of stock is ensured by procuring permission for
quotation of shares in a recognized stock exchange.
Under sub-s. (1) of s. 73 an application for permission to
secure quotation, if not previously made, shall be made
before the tenth day after the first issue of the
prospectus, and if the. application is not so made, the
allotment is void. Again if the Exchange rejects the
application within four weeks, or within seven weeks after
extending the time, the allotment will be void, unless
within that period the Exchange has informed the Company
that further consideration will be given to the application.
It is however not enacted in s. 73(1) that if the
application is not granted within the time prescribed, it
cannot be granted after the expiry of the prescribed period,
even if the Exchange has intimated that it will give further
consideration to the application. Sub-section (5) contains
a clear implication to the contrary. If the Exchange has
intimated within the period prescribed by sub-s. (1) that
the application will be given further consideration, it is
not to be, deemed that the application is refused. The
Exchange is not obliged to give any intimation relating to
the consideration of the application before the last day of
the prescribed period. If no intimation is given till the
last date of the prescribed period, no inference of refusal
follows. It would then be difficult to hold that if the
Exchange intimates that it is considering the application or
intends to give further consideration to the application
that such an inference may follow. The amendment made by
Act 31 of 1965 in sub-s. (5) by the substitution of the
expression “Permission shall not be deemed to be refused” by
the expression “it shall not be deemed that permission has
not been granted” also gives, a clue to the legislative
intention that the inference of refusal will not be made if
the-
669
Exchange has intimated to the applicant that further
consideration will be given to the application.
We are unable to hold that permission for “enlistment” of
shares can be given within the initial four weeks or if time
be extended within seven weeks from the date of the closing
of the subscription list, and if permission be not granted
by the Exchange within those seven weeks, the allotment
becomes void, even if the Stock Exchange intimates that it
is giving further consideration to the application. The
intendment of sub-ss. (1), (2) & (5) is plain. If within
four weeks from the date of the closing of the subscription
list, the Stock Exchange sends no intimation either
extending the time or notifying that the application “though
not at present granted will be given further consideration,”
the application is deemed to be refused. If the Stock
Exchange so desires it may intimate that the period is being
extended to seven weeks. The Exchange may say nothing more
within the extended period, in which case, on the expiry of
the extended period the allotment becomes void. If,
however, within the four weeks, or within the extended
period of seven weeks, the Exchange intimates that even
though the application- for permission is not at present
granted, the application will be given further considera-
tion, the application is not deemed to be re-fused until it
is finally decided.
The application for allotment of shares and acceptance
thereof constitute a contract between the Company and the
applicant. Section 73(1) of the Companies Act imposes a
penalty whereby the allotment of shares becomes void on the
happening of the contingency specified therein. The
imposition of penalty depends upon the violation of the
Exchange and when imposed operates to invalidate all
contracts resulting from allotment of shares between the
applicants for shares and the Company. Such a provision
must be strictly construed. Unless the statute in clear
terms so provides, when the Exchange intimates its desire to
consider the application further an inference that the
Exchange has still rejected the application, cannot be made.
It is true that in the prospectus issued by the Company it
was intimated that applications are being made to the
Bombay, Calcutta and Delhi Stock Exchanges for permission
for official quotations of the shares of the Company. It is
not contended, and it cannot reasonably be contended, that
only one application for permission to secure quotation of
the shares in an ‘approved Exchange may be made. The
expression “a recognised stock exchange” means “any
recognised exchange”. More applications than one for
quotation of shares may therefore be made In the present
case, three applications were submitted on June 3, 1965.
Two of these applications were rejected and one was granted.
We
670
are unable to hold that unless all the applications were
granted, the allotment of shares must, by virtue of sub-s.
(1) of S. 73, be invalid. The object of S. 73(1) is that
the subscribers to the shares must have facility to approach
an Exchange for having their holdings converted whenever
they desire. Even if out of several Exchanges approached,
one or more, but not all, have granted the application for
“enlistment”,. the facility of ensuring quick conversion is
still avail-able. If after representing in the prospectus
that an application has been made to a recognised exchange
for “enlistment” or will be made within the prescribed
period, the Company is unable to obtain permission for
“enlistment” from any exchange, the allotment will be
invalid. But sub-s. (1) is not intended to mean that it
will be invalid, even if permission is obtained, but not
from all the Exchanges to which applications have beer,
made.
Section 73(1) is enacted with the object that the
subscribers will be ensured the facility of easy
convertibility of their holdings when they have subscribed
to the shares on the re presentation in the prospectus that
an application for quotation of shares has been ‘II be made.
The allotment of shares will, be invalid only or WI when
permission for quotation is not obtained. When permission
from one or more of the Exchanges is obtained, it carries
out the object of the Act. It will be a mechanical
interpretation wholly divorced from the true object and
intendment of the Act to hold that even if permission is
secured for quotation of shares in an Exchange, the
allotment will be invalid because another exchange has not
granted the permission. That this is the true meaning of s.
73(1) is clear from the fact that the penalty of avoidance
of allotment of shares is attracted not only where the
permission’ applied for has not been granted, but where no
application has been made within the prescribed period. ‘If
applications are made to several exchanges, some within the
period of ten days after the first issue of the prospectus,
and some beyond, or that one or more applications, but not
all, is or are defective, and the error is not rectified, it
would be unreasonable to hold that because some of the
applications made beyond the tenth day after the first issue
of the prospectus, or are defective, are liable to be
rejected, the applications properly made before some of the
Exchanges are ‘also ineffective and the allotment made may
be invalid.
Counsel for the Calcutta Stock Exchange urged that where a
person is induced to subscribe for shares relying upon a
representation that an application is made or intended- to
be made for quotation of the shares in an Exchange near his
home-town, and it is found that the application is not made,
or if made it is rejected by the Exchange, it would be a
great hardship to the
67 1
shareholder if he is bound by the allotment, even if the
condition of securing quotation in the Exchange convenient
to him is not carried out. But s. 73(1) declares the entire
allotment void : it does not take into consideration the
right or convenience of individual shareholders. An enquiry
whether a shareholder or a class of share-holders was or
were induced to subscribe for shares on the representation
is irrelevant in determining whether the allotment is for
failure to secure compliance with a statutory condition
rendered invalid. We need not consider whether the
individual shareholder who finds that an Exchange convenient
to him has not listed the shares furnishes a cause of action
to him for avoiding the contract.
We are in the view we have taken not called upon to decide
whether the provisions of s. 73 of the Companies Act, 1956,
are ultra vires, nor do we consider it necessary to decide
whether s. 22 of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act,
1956, is ultra vires.
It was urged on behalf of the Delhi and Calcutta Stock Ex-
changes that the High Court ought, in exercise of the power
under O. 41 r. 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to have
vacated the writ of mandamus issued requiring them to grant
permission for quotation of the Company’s shares. An
Appellate Court may in appropriate case pass any decree and
make ‘any order appropriate to the ends of justice, even if
a party has not appealed against an adverse decision. That
power may be exercised by the Court notwithstanding that the
appeal is as to a part only of the decree and may be
exercised in favour of all or any of the parties, even
though they may not have filed any appeal or objection. But
the jurisdiction is discretionary and the High Court has not
exercised it apparently for good reasons. The order passed
against the Union and the two Exchanges were in substance
distinct. Against the Union the order was made quashing its
order in appeal against the orders of the Exchanges; and
against the Exchanges the order was made directing inclusion
of the shares in the list of quoted shares. ‘Me Exchanges
acquiesced in the direction.
We need, however, not express any final opinion in this
question. We are informed at the Bar that the Calcutta
Stock Exchange has applied for certificate to the High Court
of Delhi and that application is pending. We need not pre-
judge the result of that application or the appeal, if any,
which may be filed in this Court.
The appeals fail and are dismissed with costs. There will
be one hearing fee in favour of the Company. The other
parties will bear their own costs.
Appeals dismissed.
G.C.
672

 

 

Leave a Comment