THE NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY, BHOPAL

i i i i i

CASE ANALYSIS ON i i

Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd. The Uma Salma Mansuri and Ors. v The State of
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

Maharashtra and Anr. i i

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1805 OF 2021

i i i i i i

Submitted by i

Swati Giri i

Enrolment number: A-2507 i i

Roll number: 2022BALLB72

i i

I Semester
i

B.A.LL.B (Hons.) i

Submitted to i i

Prof. (Dr.) Ghayur Alam

i i i

Date of submission: 22 August 2022

i i i i i
 DECLARATION

I, i Swati i Giri i D/o i Vinay i Kumar i Giri i Roll i Number i 2022BALLB72 i Enrollment i Number i A-2507
i thus i certify i that i the i Project i of i case i analysis i on i “Indiabulls i Housing i Finance i Ltd. i The i Uma i
Salma i Mansuri i and i Ors. i v i The i State i of i Maharashtra i and i Anr.” i is i the i result i of i my i own i
independent i research i effort i and i was i completed i under i the i supervision i of i Prof. i (Dr.) i Ghayur i
Alam. i The i footnotes i and i bibliography i clearly i and i totally i credit i the i literature i on i which i I i relied i
for i the i purpose i of i this i Project. i The i project i is i not i plagiarised, i and i all i reasonable i precautions i
have i been i made i to i prevent i plagiarism. i According i to i the i Turnitin i Report, i the i similarity i index i
is i %. i In i case, i my i project i is i discovered i to i be i plagiarised, i the i course i instructor i shall i have i the i
complete i liberty i to i urge i me i to i rework i the i Project. i If i I i fail i to i follow i the i teacher's i directions, i
my i project i may i be i sent i to i the i Committee i Against i the i Use i of i Unfair i Means, i and i I i will i abide i
by i the i Committee's i judgement.
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

“It i is i my i great i honour i to i declare i my i profound i thanks i and i obligation i towards i my i lecturers i for i
their i useful i recommendations i and i constructive i criticism, i which i enabled i me i to i progress i and i
finish i my i project. i Their i helpful i counsel i and i unfailing i support i kept i me i on i track i throughout i the
i endeavour.”

"I i am i grateful i to i Prof. i (Dr.) i V. i Vijayakumar, i Vice-Chancellor, i National i Law i Institute i

University, i Bhopal, i for i providing i us i with i the i facilities i and i means, i as i well i as i for i mentoring i
me i throughout i the i project i work, i and i to i Prof. i (Dr.) i Ghayur i Alam, i our i Common i Law i Method i
Professor, i for i presenting i me i with i this i fantastic i opportunity."

“I'm i also i thankful i to i the i University's i library i and i computer i workers i for i supporting i us i in i
discovering i and i choosing i books i from i the i university i library. i Finally, i I'm i thankful i to i my i family
i and i friends i for i their i support i and i encouragement, i which i made i working i on i this i project i a i joy.”
 TABLE OF CONTENT
i i

DECLARATION.............................................................................................................................2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT...............................................................................................................3

NAME i AND i DATE i OF i THE i JUDGEMET..................................................................................5

NAME i OF i THE i JUDGES..............................................................................................................5

BENCH............................................................................................................................................5

NUMBER i OF i OPINION................................................................................................................5

TYPES i OF i OPINION.....................................................................................................................5

LIST i OF i ABBREVIATIONS.........................................................................................................6

TABLE i OF i CASES........................................................................................................................7

CONCRETE i FACTS......................................................................................................................8

MATERIAL i FACTS.....................................................................................................................10

IMMATERIAL i FACTS................................................................................................................11

GENERALISATION i OF i MATERIAL i FACTS...........................................................................12

CONTENTIONS i OF i THE i PETITIONERS.................................................................................13

CONTENTIONS i OF i THE i RESPONDENT.................................................................................15

CONCRETE i JUDGMENT...........................................................................................................17

RATIO i DECENDI........................................................................................................................18
 DETAILS OF THE CASE
i i i

Name i of i the i case: i i Indiabulls i Housing i Finance i Ltd. i Thr i Uma i Salma i Mansuri i and i Ors. i v i The i
State i of i Maharashtra i and i Anr
Date i of i the i judgement: i May i 04, i 2022 i

Judges i name: i Justice i S.M. i Modak, i Justice i Prasanna i B. i Varale

Bench: i Division i bench i (2 i judges)

Number i of i opinions: i One

Types i of i opinions: i Unanimous

Name i of i the i judges i who i delivered i unanimous i opinion: i

Justice i S.M. i Modak i (Authored)
Justice i Prasanna i B. i Varale

Name i of i the i judges i who i delivered i separate i but i concurring i opinion: i

There i was i no i separate i but i concurring i opinion. i

Name i of i the i judges i who i delivered i dissenting i opinion: i

There i was i no i dissenting i opinion. i
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
i i
 TABLE OF CASES i i

Babu i Venkatesh i and i Others i Vs. i State i of i Karnataka i and i Another,(2022 i SCC i OnLine i SC i 20014

Devidas i V. i State i of i Maharashtra, i (2017 i SCC i OnLine i Bom i 8416)............................................18

Devidas i Vs. i State i of i Maharashtra, i (2017 i SCC i OnLine i Bom i 8416)...........................................14

Neeharika i Infrastructure i Pvt. i Ltd i v i State i of i Maharashtra i and i Others, i (2021 i SCC i OnLine i SC i

315)..............................................................................................................................................9

Priyanka i Srivastava i and i Another i Vs. i State i of i Uttar i Pradesh i and i Others, i ((2015) i 6 i SCC i 287.14

Sayed i Anwar i Ahmed i V. i State i of i Maharashtra, i (2017 i SCC i Online i Bom i 3972.........................18

State i of i Haryana i and i Others i v i Bhajan i Lal i and i Others i ,(1992 i Supp i (1) i SCC i 335)...................13

Vijay i kumar i Ghai i and i others i v i State i of i West i Bengal i and i Others,(2022 i SCC i OnLine i SC i 344)

....................................................................................................................................................14
 CONCRETE FACTS i

1. Ms. i Ridhi i Gada, i i.e., i the i respondent i no.2 i purchased i shares i for i the i first i time i from i the i
Petitioner-company, i i.e., i Indiabulls i home i loans, i i on i 17/03/21. i On i the i De-mat i account i
from i which i the i respondent i no.2 i purchased i the i said i 500 i shares, i he i is i shown i to i be i the i
resident i of i Dadar, i Mumbai. i
2. On i 26/03/21, i respondent i no.2 i executed i a i lease i and i license i agreement i pertaining i to i a i
room i at i Palghar. i On i the i same i day, i respondent i no.2 i approached i the i police i station i
Wada i to i raise i his i alleged i grievances i against i the i petitioner. i Thereafter, i on i 30/03/21, i
the i respondent i no. i 2 i went i to i the i superintendent i of i the i police, i Palghar i claiming i that i he i
disclosed i facts i showing i cognizable i offences i committed i by i the i petitioner i and i other i
accused i persons. i
3. On i 03/04/21, i respondent i no.2 i filed i a i complaint i before i JMFC i Wada i under i Section i 156 i
(3) i of i Cr.P.C. i Respondent i no. i 2 i has i made i allegations i against i the i petitioners i regarding i
alleged i fraud i and i siphoning i of i money i through i dummy i entities. i On i 07/04/21, i the i
magistrate i made i an i order i directing i registration i of i F.I.R i against i the i petitioner i on i the i
basis i of i the i said i complaints. i
4. Respondent i no.2 i claimed i that i he i knew i about i the i rigging i of i shares i by i

promoters/directors i of i petitioner-company i no.1 i since i 10/06/19. i Respondent i no.2 i has i

also i referred i to i the i alleged i manner i in i which i the i funds i were i diverted i by i the i petitioners
i through i the i companies i in i Mauritius. i And i it i is i stated i that i all i of i this i information i was i in
i the i public i domain i since i 2018-19 i and i were i known i even i to i the i respondent. i
5. Respondent i no.2 i knew i about i all i the i allegations i and i yet i chose i to i purchase i 500 i shares i
from i the i petitioner i company. i Also, i as i per i the i complaint, i respondent i no.2 i within i 10 i
days i of i purchasing i the i share i approached i the i police i station i of i Wada. i Respondent i no.2 i
thereafter i approached i the i senior i police i officer i on i 30/03/21 i and i without i waiting i for i
him i to i take i any i step, i lodged i a i complaint i before i the i magistrate i on i 03/04/21. i
6. Thus, i from i 17/03/21 i when i respondent i no. i 2 i bought i the i 500 i shares i of i the i petitioner i
company i for i the i first i time i to i 03/04/21, i when i he i registered i a i complaint i before i the i
 magistrate, i entire i set i of i grievances i of i respondent i no.2 i were i supposed i to i have i arisen i
under i an i F.I.R i under i Section i 156 i (3) i of i Cr.P.C i 1. i
7. These i admitted i facts i raised i a i question i about i the i bonafide i of i respondent i no.2 i and i it i
appeared i that i the i respondent i no.2 i has i been i set i up i to i initiate i criminal i proceedings i
against i the i petitioner-company. i Futher, i it i was i admitted i that i the i respondent i no. i 2 i
executed i a i lease i and i license i agreement i on i 26/03/21 i about i a i room i on i Palghar i and i on i
the i same i day i approached i the i magistrate i with i complaint i indicating i that i this i modus i
operandi i was i taken i only i to i foist i a i jurisdiction i on i the i Magistrate i of i Wada. i
8. It i was i also i held i significant i that, i in i the i complaint, i respondent i no.2 i has i claimed i that i he i
holds i a i de-mat i account i having i number i 613440 i and i that i he i was i involved i in i regular i
trading i of i the i stock. i However, i the i petitioner i submitted i a i document i showing i that i the i
De-mat i account i having i number i 613440 i is i not i connected i with i the i respondent i no.2 i and i
that i respondent i no.2 i purchased i 500 i shares i for i the i first i time i through i De-mat i account i
1202990006916691. i This i prima i facie i indicates i that i the i statement i made i by i the i
respondent i no.2 i in i the i complaint i is i a i false i statement i itself. i
9. It i was i also i brought i before i the i court i that i a i similar i attempt i was i made i was i made i in i
Delhi i High i Court i when i a i petition i was i filed i for i quashing i the i FIR. i The i Delhi i High i
Court i quashed i it i on i the i grounds i that i the i complaint i was i filed i with i an i oblique i motive. i
10. Filing i of i the i petition i was i a i given i a i wide i publicity i and i the i share i value i of i the i company i
was i reduced i due i to i the i negative i publicity i and i hence i the i company i was i subjected i to i
financial i loss. i

1
i Police i officer' i s i power i to i investigate i cognizable i case. i Any i Magistrate i empowered i under i section i 190 i may i

order i such i an i investigation i as i above- i mentioned

 MATERIAL FACTS i

1. Respondent i no.2 i issued i shares i for i the i first i time i from i the i petitioner i company i on i
17/03/21 i from i his i De-mat i account i in i which i he i is i shown i to i be i from i Dadar, i Mumbai. i
On i 26/03/21 i he i executed i a i lease i agreement i for i a i room i at i Palgarh.
2. On i 30/03/21 i he i approached i the i superintendent i of i Palgarh i police i station i with i a i
complaint i regarding i alleged i fraud i and i siphoning i of i money i by i the i petitioner i company.
3. On i 03/04/21 i he i filed i a i complaint i before i the i magistrate i regarding i the i same.
4. Respondent i no. i 2 i executed i a i lease i and i license i agreement i on i 26/03/21 i about i a i room i on
i Palghar i and i on i the i same i day i approached i the i magistrate i with i complaint i indicating i that

i this i modus i operandi i was i taken i only i to i foist i a i jurisdiction i on i the i Magistrate i of i Wada

5. Respondent i no.2 i claimed i to i know i about i the i allegations i of i fraud i by i the i board i of i
directors i since i 10/06/19 i yet i chose i to i purchase i the i shares i form i the i petitioner i company. i
6. Respondent i no.2 i claims i to i hold i De-mat i acc. i with i no. i 613440, i however i as i per i a i
document i submitted i by i the i petitioner, i respondent i no.2 i issued i the i shares i for i the i first-
time i using i account i no. i 1202990006916691.
7. The i FIR i has i attracted i significant i negative i publicity i and i has i caused i a i drop i in i the i price i
of i the i share i of i the i petitioner-company, i which i in i turn i has i led i to i financial i loss i for i the i
company.
8. The i complaint i as i contended i by i the i Petitioner-company i is i not i supported i by i an i affidavit
i and i made i only i with i an i oblique i motive.

9. The i respondent i contends i for i the i investigation i to i continue i as i it i is i still i on i an i early i

stage. i

IMMATERIAL FACTS i

1. There i have i been i allegations i about i the i funds i being i diverted i by i the i directors i of i the i
petitioner-company i through i various i other i companies i at i Mauritius, i
2. There i has i been i certain i information i about i the i allegations i of i the i fraud i by i the i petitioner-
company i in i the i public-domain i since i 2018-19. i
3. Respondent i no.2 i has i approached i the i police i station i of i Wada i within i 10 i days i of i
purchasing i the i shares i from i the i petitioner-company. i
 GENERALISATION OF MATERIAL FACTS i i i

1. The i respondent i bought i some i shares i from i the i petitioner i company i and i approached i the i
police i superintendent i within i 10 i days i of i purchase i alleging i cognizable i offence i
committed i by i the i petitioner i company. i i
2. Within i next i 4 i days, i the i petitioner i approached i the i magistrate i and i filed i a i complaint i
which i was i not i supported i by i an i affidavit.
3. The i complaint i was i not i made i on i any i cogent i ground i but i has i attracted i the i attention i of i
general i public i which i in i turn i caused i a i significant i financial i loss i to i the i petitioner-
company. i
4. The i inquiry i has i moved i to i the i State-CID i and i the i investigation i is i on i an i early i stage. i
5. The i petitio
 CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONERS
i i i

Mr. i Rohtagi, i learned i counsel i appearing i before i the i court i submitted i that:
1. i The i complaint i filed i by i the i Respondent i no. i 2 i before i the i Magistrate i was i not i supported i
by i an i affidavit i that i is i a i pre-requisite i as i per i the i provisions i of i law i as i well i as i according i
to i the i judgments i of i this i court i and i the i apex i court. i

2. Filing i of i the i complaint i before i the i JMFC, i Wada i against i the i petitioner i company i was i an i
act i with i oblique i motive. i Further, i reference i was i made i to i a i similar i attempt i that i was i
made i in i other i part i of i the i county i and i a i Petition i was i filed i for i quashing i before i Delhi i
High i Court. i The i Delhi i High i Court i in i its i order i observed i that i the i complaint i was i filed i
with i oblique i motive. i

3. Filing i of i the i petition i was i a i given i a i wide i publicity i and i the i share i value i of i the i company i
was i reduced i due i to i the i negative i publicity i and i hence i the i company i was i subjected i to i
financial i loss. i Also, i the i petition i provoked i certain i private i individuals i and i business i
rivals i to i file i the i complaint. i There i have i been i numerous i complaints i against i the i
Petitioner-company i across i the i nation, i however, i these i complaints i are i baseless i and i
without i any i cogent i ground, i made i with i an i oblique i motive i against i the i petitioner i
company. i As i a i result, i the i question i as i to i the i bona i fide i approach i of i the i complaint i was i
raised. i

4. i It i was i contended i that i respondent i no.2 i had i not i raised i any i grievance i against i the i
competent i forum i like i SEBI i or i RBI i for i redressal i before i approaching i the i magistrate. i
Further, i it i is i submitted i that i it i is i not i submitted i in i the i reply i filed i by i the i RBI i and i
Ministry i of i Corporate i Affairs i that i the i Petitioner-company i has i conducted i any i misdeeds i
or i played i mischief. i

5. No i single i offence i can i be i made i out i against i the i Petitioner i even i if i the i complaint i is i
considered i on i its i face i value i and i carrying i out i the i proceedings i would i be i only i be i an i
abuse i of i the i process i of i law i and i the i present i complaint i files i squarely i into i the i category i
as i framed i by i the i Apex i Court i in i State i of i Haryana i and i Others i v i Bhajan i Lal i and i Others2.
i

2
i State i of i Haryana i and i Others i v i Bhajan i Lal i and i Others i ,(1992 i Supp i (1) i SCC i 335)
 6. The i Counsel i also i contended i that i Not i only i must i the i Petitioner i Company i face i totally i
false i charges i in i the i complaint i and i bear i the i rigours i of i the i legal i system, i but i also i Such i
false i complaint i harms i the i Petitioner i Company's i reputation, i and i the i impact i of i such i
false i complaint i leads i in i a i drop i in i share i value i in i the i market, i causing i the i Petitioner i
Company i to i incur i a i significant i financial i loss, i which i is i very i probably i irreparable. i

7. The i Counsel i has i also i placed i heavy i reliance i on i Vijay i Kumar i Ghai i and i others i v i State i of
i West i Bengal i and i Others3 i for i the i selected i jurisdiction i by i respondent i no.2. i In i so i far i as i
filing i of i the i affidavit i along i with i the i complaint i before i the i magistrate i being i a i pre-
requisite i is i concerned, i the i counsel i places i reliance i on i Devidas i Vs. i State i of i

Maharashtra4, i Priyanka i Srivastava i and i Another i Vs. i State i of i Uttar i Pradesh i and i Others5, i
& i Babu i Venkatesh i and i Others i Vs. i State i of i Karnataka i and i Another6. i

8. It i was i submitted i that i the i Board i of i Directors i consists i of i a i Former i Judge i of i the i
Supreme i Court i of i India, i a i Retired i Senior i Officer i of i the i Reserve i Bank i of i India, i and i a i
Retired i Director i General i of i Police, i and i that i if i the i complaint i is i entertained i by i the i
Magistrate i and i orders i are i passed i on i such i complaint i without i application i of i mind, i the i
same i would i have i serious i irreversible i consequences i and i the i court i can i exercise i its i
power i under i Section i 482 i of i Code i of i Criminal i Procedure7. i Thus, i learned i Counsel i for i
Petitioners i urged i for i the i Petition i to i be i granted.

3
Vijay i kumar i Ghai i and i others i v i State i of i West i Bengal i and i Others,(2022 i SCC i OnLine i SC i 344)
i
4
Devidas i Vs. i State i of i Maharashtra, i (2017 i SCC i OnLine i Bom i 8416)
i
5
i Priyanka i Srivastava i and i Another i Vs. i State i of i Uttar i Pradesh i and i Others, i ((2015) i 6 i SCC i 287)
6
i Babu i Venkatesh i and i Others i Vs. i State i of i Karnataka i and i Another,(2022 i SCC i OnLine i SC i 200)
7
i
 CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT i i i

1. It i was i stated i that i while i the i Petitions i are i pending, i the i inquiry i has i been i moved i to i the i
State i CID i in i Pune, i and i the i investigation i is i in i the i early i stages; i let i the i investigation i be i
finished; i and i pleaded i for i dismissal i of i the i Petition. i

2. It i was i admitted i that i Respondent i No. i 2 i did i not i approach i authorities i such i as i SEBI i or i
RBI i and i submitted i that i because i Respondent i No. i 2 i had i lodged i a i complaint i against i the i
Petitioners i for i their i misdeeds, i the i Respondent i No. i 2 i expected i that i upon i registration i of i
a i FIR i against i the i Petitioner i Company, i the i investigating i agency i would i take i appropriate
i steps i during i the i course i of i the i investigation, i including i seeking i necessary i information i
from i SEBI i and i RBI.

3. It i is i further i claimed i that i the i filing i of i the i Public i Interest i Litigation i lowered i the i share i
value i of i the i Petitioner i Firm, i and i that i certain i directors i of i the i company i acquired i the i
shares i at i a i cheaper i price i for i their i own i advantage, i even i at i the i expense i of i the i
company's i reputation. i It i is i claimed i that i by i misbehaving, i the i Petitioner i Company i aided
i the i beneficiaries, i namely i Jasol i Investment i and i Trading i Company i Pvt. i Limited. i It i is i
then i claimed i that i Respondent i No. i 2 i filed i the i company's i annual i reports i with i the i
complaint. i It i is i claimed i that i the i failure i to i swear i the i affidavit i in i support i of i the i lawsuit i
is i a i correctable i flaw.

4. contended i that i the i Petitioner i has i no i involvement i with i the i Petition i filed i in i Delhi i High i
Court i at i the i behest i of i one i Mr. i Atul i Pandey i and i that i the i Petitioner i cannot i displace i the i
Respondent i by i associating i itself i with i Atul i Pandey. i It i is i said i that i the i Delhi i High i Court
i issued i specific i instructions i in i one i of i the i petitions i filed i at i the i request i of i the i Citizen i
Whistleblower i Forum, i which i includes i renowned i individuals i such i as i Prashant i
Bhushan, i Senior i Advocate. i It i is i claimed i that i he i learned i of i a i petition i filed i before i the i
Delhi i High i Court i only i through i the i news i media, i and i that i he i is i unrelated i to i the i
petition.

5. It i was i claimed i that i money i was i diverted i by i specific i private i individuals. i The i money i
was i diverted i and i routed i through i Mauritius, i and i the i Counsel i pointed i to i facts i in i the i
 complaint i put i on i record i at i pages i 271, i 272, i 283. i It i is i then i argued i that i Respondent i No. i
2 i had i placed i all i relevant i evidence i on i record, i and i because i the i FIR i is i not i an i
encyclopedia, i the i investigating i agency i is i obliged i to i examine i the i complaint i and i collect i
the i essential i material.

6. Even i if i the i Petitioner i raises i certain i issues i regarding i the i locus i of i Respondent i No. i 2, i
and i even i if i the i malafides i are i against i Respondent i No. i 2, i the i Petitioner i cannot i free i
itself i of i criminal i liability. i It i is i also i argued i that i anybody i can i start i the i criminal i law i in i
action, i and i the i claims i of i malafide i against i Respondent i No. i 2 i cannot i be i used i to i
overturn i the i report.

7. It i was i also i requested i that i the i Court's i ruling i giving i the i investigation i a i stay i be i annulled i
and i the i investigation i agency i be i allowed i to i proceed i with i the i probe. i The i counsel i relied i
on i the i following i judgements i in i support i of i its i claims i : i A.R. i Antulay i Vs. i Ramdas i
Sriniwas i Nayak i and i Another8, i Sheno i Nandan i Paswan i Vs. i State i of i Bihar i and i Others9.

8
i A.R. i Antulay i Vs. i Ramdas i Sriniwas i Nayak i and i Another, i AIR i 1984 i SC i 716.
9
i Sheno i Nandan i Paswan i Vs. i State i of i Bihar i and i Others, i AIR1987 i SC i 877.
 CONCRETE JUDGMENT i

1. The i division i bench i observed i that i the i complaint i filed i before i the i Judicial i Magistrate i by i
respondent i no.2 i was i not i supported i by i an i affidavit i which i is i a i pre-requisite i not i only i
according i to i the i provisions i of i the i law i but i also i as i per i the i judgments i given i by i the i
Apex i court i as i well i as i this i court. i Reference i was i made i to i the i cases i of i Sayed i Anwar i
Ahmed i V. i State i of i Maharashtra10 i and i Devidas i V. i State i of i Maharashtra11, i wherein, i it i
was i laid i that i the i complaints i filled i before i the i Magistrate i must i be i supported i by i an i
affidavit i so i that i the i complainant i can i be i held i responsible i for i the i allegations i and i
statements i made, i
2. The i division i bench i was i of i prima i facie i opinion i that i that i the i complaint i filed i by i the i
respondent i no.2 i is i malafide i and i deficient i and i the i court i is i inclined i to i grant i ad-interim i
stay12. i
3. The i bench i found i merit i in i the i contention i that i the i respondent i shifted i to i Tq. i Wada, i only i
with i an i oblique i objective i to i select i the i jurisdiction i of i the i Wada i Court. i
4. The i division i bench i also i granted i ad-interim i relief i in i terms i of i prayer i clause i and i also i
held i that i no i further i action i on i the i basis i of i the i FIR i would i arise i as i the i bench i had i stayed
i the i investigation. i

5.

10
iSayed i Anwar i Ahmed i V. i State i of i Maharashtra, i (2017 i SCC i Online i Bom i 3972)
11
iDevidas i V. i State i of i Maharashtra, i (2017 i SCC i OnLine i Bom i 8416)
12
i “Ad i interim i stay i means i the i temporary i order i of i injunction i passed i by i the i court i while i the i suit i is i still i pending.

i It i is i granted i when i the i applicant i established i that i there i would i be i irreparable i damage i without i it i or i as i per i the i

Court i require.”
RATIO DECENDI
i