1.       The present Revision Petitions (RPs) have been filed by the Petitioner against Respondents as detailed above, against the order dated 23.12.2021 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeals (FA) No. 141, 143, 144, 145 and 146 of 2010 in which order dated 26.02.2010 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum- II, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaints (CCs) No. 814/2008, 815/2008, 813/2008, 811/2008 and 812/2008  were challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the order 23.12.2021 passed by the State Commission in the above detailed Appeals.

2.       While the Revision Petitioner (hereinafter also referred to as Opposite Party) was Appellant and the Respondents (hereinafter also referred to as Complainants) were Respondents in the said First Appeals (No. 141, 143, 144, 145 and 146/2010) before the State Commission, the Revision Petitioner was  Opposite Party and Respondents were Complainants before the District Forum in the CC Nos. 814, 815, 813, 811 and 812 of 2008.

3.       Notice was issued to the Respondents on 11.07.2022.  Parties filed Written Arguments/Synopsis on 02.08.2023 (Petitioner) and 24.07.2023 (Respondent No.1) respectively.

4.       As all the five Revision Petitions have been filed against the same common impugned order and the facts and issues involved are also same, hence, the same are being decided by a common order. For the sake of convenience the facts are taken from Revision Petition No. 307 of 2022. Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RPs, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Forum and other case records are that: -

In the year 2008, Respondent opened an account with the Petitioner Bank bearing account No. 302010100079082 and had a credit balance of Rs.11,93,304/- in that account. On 24.05.2008, Respondent approached the Bank to withdraw some amount, however, the payment was refused by the bank on the plea that there were insufficient funds as an amount of Rs.11.83 lacs had already been withdrawn by one Gurwinder Singh vide Cheque No. 063989. The Petitioner Bank also filed an FIR dated 21.03.2008 under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B against the suspected accused Gurwinder Singh in due compliance of procedure that has to be complied with in case of such instances when forged instruments are used with an intention to fraud. The Petitioner Bank in compliance with the instructions of Reserve Bank of India Master Circular on 'Frauds Classification and Reporting' has reported the matter to the Reserve Bank of India vide letter dated 15.07.2008. However, no response was received by the Petitioner Bank. The Respondent/complainant issued a legal Notice to the Bank demanding a sum of Rs.11,83,000/- along with an interest. Thereafter, a Consumer Case No. 814 of 2008 was filed by the Respondent before the District Forum.

5.       Vide Order dated 26.02.2010, in the CC No.814/2008, the District Forum

allowed the complaint and directed the Petitioner Bank to pay a sum of Rs.11,83,000/- for making a wrongful debit. Further, Rs. 2,00,000/- for mental harassment and Rs.5000/- for litigation costs were also directed to be given to the Respondent.

6.       Aggrieved by the said Order dated 26.02.2010 of District Forum, Petitioner appealed in State Commission and the State Commission vide order dated 23.12.2021 in First Appeals has dismissed the Appeals and partly accepted the complaint against the OP/Petitioner herein with costs and passed the following order:   

“Consumer Complaint No.814 of 2008

(Bharpur Singh Vs. Axis Bank & Another)

i)         To pay the amount of Rs.11,83,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date the said amount was wrongly debited from his Savings Bank Account i.e. 12.06.2008.

ii)        To pay a consolidated amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment and monetary loss suffered by him and also on account of costs of litigation.

iii)       This order be complied with by the appellant – Axis Bank within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which, the amount awarded at Clause (i) shall carry interest @9% per annum, instead of 6% per annum and the amount of Rs.1 Lakh awarded at Clause (ii) shall carry interest @6% p.m. from the date of default i.e. after expiry of 45 days’ period till actual realization.

Consumer Complaint No.815 of 2008

(Harinder Pal Singh Vs. Axis Bank & Another)

i)         To pay the amount of Rs.14,90,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date the said amount was wrongly debited from his Savings Bank Account i.e. 07.06.2008.

ii)        To pay a consolidated amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment and monetary loss suffered by him and also on account of costs of litigation.

iii)       This order be complied with by the appellant – Axis Bank within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which, the amount awarded at Clause (i) shall carry interest @9% per annum, instead of 6% per annum and the amount of Rs.1 Lakh awarded at Clause (ii) shall carry interest @ 6% p.m. from the date of default i.e. after expiry of 45 days’ period till actual realization.

Consumer Complaint No.813 of 2008

(Pal Singh Vs. Axis Bank & Another)

i)         To pay the amount of Rs.17,70,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date the said amount was wrongly debited from his Savings Bank Account i.e. 04.06.2008.

ii)        To pay a consolidated amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment and monetary loss suffered by him and also on account of costs of litigation.

iii)       This order be complied with by the appellant – Axis Bank within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which, the amount awarded at Clause (i) shall carry interest @9% per annum, instead of 6% per annum and the amount of Rs.1 Lakh awarded at Clause (ii) shall carry interest @6% p.m. from the date of default i.e. after expiry of 45 days’ period till actual realization.

Consumer Complaint No.811 of 2008

(Jasvir Singh Vs. Axis Bank & Another)

i)         To pay the amount of Rs.11,00,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date the said amount was wrongly debited from his Savings Bank Account i.e. 04.06.2008.

ii)        To pay a consolidated amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment and monetary loss suffered by him and also on account of costs of litigation.

iii)       This order be complied with by the appellant – Axis Bank within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which, the amount awarded at Clause (i) shall carry interest @9% per annum, instead of 6% per annum and the amount of Rs.1 Lakh awarded at Clause (ii) shall carry interest @6% p.m. from the date of default i.e. after expiry of 45 days’ period till actual realization.

Consumer Complaint No.812 of 2008

(Prem Singh Vs. Axis Bank & Another)

i)         To pay the amount of Rs.13,50,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date the said amount was wrongly debited from his Savings Bank Account i.e. 31.05.2008.

ii)        To pay a consolidated amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment and monetary loss suffered by him and also on account of costs of litigation.

iii)       This order be complied with by the appellant – Axis Bank within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which, the amount awarded at Clause (i) shall carry interest @9% per annum, instead of 6% per annum and the amount of Rs.1 Lakh awarded at Clause (ii) shall carry interest @6% p.m. from the date of default i.e. after expiry of 45 days’ period till actual realization.”

7.       Petitioner has challenged the said Order dated 23.12.2021 of the State Commission mainly on following grounds:-

(i)  the State Commission failed to appreciate that this Commission vide order dated 11.12.2014 in Revision Petition 02 of 2011, agreed with the findings of the State Commission and upheld the order of the State Commission while dismissing the Petition filed by the Respondent herein. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed the State Commission to decide the matter on merits in accordance with law along with reassessing the signature specimens however, the State Commission has not dealt the matter in a comprehensive and appropriate manner. It is well settled principle of law that if signature on the cheque is genuine and there is a mandate by the customer to pay then the banker has no obligation but to discharge the liability. The State Commission ought to have considered that the relationship between the customer of a bank and the Bank is that of a creditor and debtor, when a signed cheque is presented for encashment, the bank has the obligation to pay after verifying the details, which in the present case is done.

(ii)     The State Commission ought to have considered that the Bank had fulfilled its entire obligation and discharged its liability. The State Commission ought to have considered that the Bank had taken prompt steps such as filing of a complaint/FIR, when the issue was bought into light by Respondent, however, the Respondent had failed to lodge any complaint against Gurwinder Singh. The State Commission ought to have considered that the Respondent herein has failed to even add Gurwinder Singh as a party in any of the petition/complaint, however, the Petitioner Bank has made all efforts to even serve the copy of notice of the orders of the State Commission by publication in the newspapers.

(iii)    The State Commission ought to have considered the conduct of the Respondent in pursuing his remedy in recovering the amount allegedly withdrawn from his account. The State Commission ought to have considered that under Section 31 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the Bank had a liability to honour the said cheque and make payment if the cheque was otherwise in order. 'Payment in due course' under Section 10 of the Negotiable Instruments Act means payment in accordance with the apparent tenor of the instrument in good faith and without negligence. Irrespective of receiving two reports having contrary views on the signature, the Ld. Commission had earlier concluded that on bare perusal of the specimen signature tallied with the disputed signatures. The State Commission ought to have considered that the banks do not follow a practice of scrutinizing each and every cheque under the ultraviolet ray lamp or other prevalent practice to scrutinise cheques involving a particular amount under such lamp by way of extra precaution. In the present case, no forgery could be detected on visual scrutiny of the cheque and reasonable care by way of scrutiny of the cheque with reference to its serial number, verification of the specimen signature of the signatory of the cheque had been made.

(iv)    The Bank has no liability except for the reasons of the payment made by it on the basis of said instrument. The impugned order passed is otherwise bad in law as well as facts also. 

8.       Heard counsels of both sides.  Contentions/pleas of the parties, on various issues raised in the RP, Written Arguments, and Oral Arguments advanced during the hearing, are summed up below.

8.1     In addition to the grounds for filing the Revision Petition, the Petitioner contended that the Respondent filed a Revision Petition No. 02 of 2011 before this Commission. Vide order dated 11.12.2014, this Commission dismissed the Revision Petition by upholding the Order passed by the State Commission. Aggrieved by the order dated 11.12.2014, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 20541 of 2015 was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court to which a counter affidavit was filed by the Bank. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 30.01.2018 while disposing of SLP (Civil) No. 20541 of 2015 [Civil Appeal No. 1363 of 2018] remanded the matter to the  State Commission to examine whether the Bank was justified in debiting the account of the Respondent and decide the matter on merits in accordance with law. The Petitioner Bank served notice to Sh. Gurwinder Singh through newspaper publication and the same was placed on record vide application dated 22.10.2018 field before the State Commission for newspaper publications dated 15.10.2018. It is contended that sole liability of protection cannot be given to any party in transactions initiated via instruments. However, the banks cannot be held liable if the act of forging is done within the knowledge of the customer. Moreover, even if a cheque or a negotiable instrument has been altered, if the alteration is not apparent at the time when payment was made, then the bank is duty bound to make payment, without incurring any liability for having acted and honoured the instrument in good faith. The State Commission vide impugned order dismissed the Appeal filed by the Petitioner. It is further contended that in view of the submission made herein above as also in view of the grounds raised in the Appeal before the State Commission, the Petitioner has a very strong case in its favour and the Petitioner has two orders (i.e. order dated 16.11.2010 in Appeal No.141 of 2010 passed by the State Commission and order dated 11.12.2014 in RP No.02 of 2011) in which the case has been decided in favour of the Petitioner Bank. This  Commission vide order dated 11.12.2014 in Revision Petition 02 of 2011, agreed with the findings of the State Commission and upheld the order of the State Commission while dismissing the petition filed by the Respondent herein.  It is further contended that the Bank had adhered to the provisions prescribed under the Negotiable Instruments Act for verifying the signatures and discharging its liability as a Bank. On visual examination, no sign of forgery or tampering with the writings on the cheque could be detected which is established with the report of the Handwriting expert dated 13.08.2008. On scrutiny of the cheque, the signature on the cheque with the specimen signature, no defect could be detected by the Bank. On 05.11.2008, an affidavit-in-evidence of a handwriting expert was filed before the District Forum stating therein that the signatures do match with the concerned cheque.  On 13.10.2009, another handwriting expert affidavit was filed before the District Forum stating that the signatures did not match the concerned cheque.  The State Commission has rendered interpretation that they have minutely compared signatures on the disputed cheques and specimen available in bank records and on naked eye comparison that the alleged signatures appear to vary and forged, while it was impermissible for the State Commission to carry out such an exercise, which ought to have been left for the experts.  It is trite law that court can compare disputed signatures however, such comparison without the assistance of any expert, has always been considered to be hazardous.  The Courts cannot compare the disputed signatures by mere glance.  The State Commission having discarded contrary hand writing reports and by taking upon itself to examine the disputed signatures is untenable in law.  As the same cannot be done on a casual perusal or a mere glance, particularly without even recording an analysis of the characteristics of the admitted signatures as comparted to those of the disputed ones. According to Rule 11.2 of the Savings Bank Account Rules, cheque book would be sent by registered post at the cost and responsibility of the account holder, hence, it was their duty to see that the cheque book is received by a proper person.  All the fraudulent transactions have taken place in one month from the date of opening of these accounts with the Petitioner Bank precisely, which leads to a possible conclusion that the Respondents and Gurwinder Singh have joined hands with each other to defraud the Bank and that is why Gurwinder Singh has neither been made a party till Hon’ble Supreme Court directed the same vide order dated 30.01.2018 until then it was too late and Gurwinder Singh was already untraceable.  As observed by this Commission that Respondents’ present address on record with the Bank is the same i.e., GTM Trading Company, and permanent addresses are of different Districts of Punjab.  However, the Respondents have opened their accounts in Chandigarh which raises suspicion.  The Petitioner  Bank cannot be forced to part with valuable consideration against the same instrument twice as it was first paid to Gurwinder Singh and now is unable to recover the said amount. 

8.2     On the other hand it is contended by Respondent No.1 that the order dated 23.12.2021 passed by the State Commission and order dated 26.02.2010 passed by the District Forum is not erroneous in nature but in accurate as the signatures in question are varying in nature and the same can be made out with the naked eye.  The same has been admitted by the Petitioner Bank.  The same can also be seen in the observations made by the State Commission in paragraph No. 11 and No. 15 in its order dated 23.12.2021.  Even the District Forum in paragraph No.16 of its order dated 26.02.2010 made a similar observation.   Thus the finding that the signatures not tallying even when seen with the naked eye is a concurrent finding of fact.  In support of their contentions, the Respondents have relied upon the judgment of this Commission in Avinash Kumar Pandey & Anr. Vs. Madhya Pradesh Housing Board and Ors. Revision Petition No. 3401 of 2011.  It is further contended that the inspection report of the petitioner Bank pertaining to the negligence committed by the Bank dated 04.07.2008 and the letter dated 15.07.2008 sent by the Bank to the Reserve Bank of India clearly show that Respondent No.2 Gurwinder Singh and the Bank officials were hand in glove and yet the Bank chose not to take any action against its officials.  The State Commission  observed in para 10 and 11 of its order dated 23.12.2021 that no concrete investigation report alongwith documents, in compliance to direction issued by this Commission were placed on record for the reason best known to Bank.  On  multiple occasions, the State Commission ordered to the Bank to place on record the internal investigation procedings and the documents relating to the same but the Bank failed to do the same even after taking 15 adjournments for the same purpose and delaying justice deliberately, even after cost was imposed upon the Bank on some such occasions. The Bank in inspection report pertaining to the negligence committee by the Bank dated 04.07.2008 that the bank officials delivered the duplicate cheque books to a third party without any written consent of the Respondent No.1.  The same has been observed by the State Commission in para 16 of its order dated 23.12.2021.

9.       In this case, there are concurrent findings of both the Fora below against the Petitioner herein.  We have carefully gone through the orders of the State Commission, District Forum, other relevant record and rival contentions of the parties.  In this case, there was a direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 30.01.2018 to the State Commission to implead Sh.Gurwinder Singh as a party and also compare the signatures of the cheques and thereafter decide the matter in accordance with law.  Accordingly, on an application moved by the Axis Bank, service was effected on him through publication.  But he did not appear, hence, proceedings were passed ex-parte against the said Sh. Gurwinder Singh. In this regard, extract of relevant paras of the State Commission’s order is reproduced below:-

“6.     We have heard the Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the original record/file (containing pages No.1 to 143), which was placed on record on 18.02.2020 by Sub Inspector Krishan Kumar of Vernacular Record Keeper (VRK) Branch, Police Line, Sector 26, Chandigarh in compliance to our order dated 20.01.2020 and also the written submissions of the parties.

7.   The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order aforesaid has brought the entire controversy in a narrow compass by directing this Commission to compare the signatures on the alleged cheques through which, the amounts were fraudulently debited.

8.  It was argued by the Counsel for the appellant that the comparison of the signatures in normal course and in a manner in which the Bank is supposed to compare the same, strictly varies. It was further argued by him that the comparison of the signatures has to be made in the light of provisions as contained in Sections 10, 31 and 89 of the Negotiable Instrument Act 1881. To support his argument, he mainly placed reliance on the judgment of Bank of Maharashtra Vs. Automotive Engineering Co., 1992 Supp 3 SDCR 482.

9.     On the other hand, it was argued on behalf of the respondents/complainants that there was clear cut deficiency on the part of the appellant – Bank in realizing the cheques, in question, which were presented before it and those cheques, on their behalf were fraudulently presented by one Gurwinder Singh by forging their signatures thereon.

10.   It may be stated here that this Commission had called for the internal investigation proceedings/report alongwith all the concerned documents from the appellant – Bank but rather doing so, the appellant Bank vide letter dated 20.01.2020 placed on record of this Commission intimated as under:-

“With reference to the above captioned case, the bank would like to state that a general investigation inquiry was duly held by the bank. The matter was placed before the Special Committee for Monitoring Large Value Frauds at its meeting held on 14.07.08. The matter was also reported to RBI by way of a D.O. letter dated 15.07.08.

Finding of the inquiry was that the staff members involved in opening of accounts had complied with the laid down norms and procedures and all accounts were found to be KYC complaint. The payments made by the officers concerned were more of a business call and that no malafide intentions can be attributed to them. Hence no disciplinary action is warranted against the staff. Subsequently to the whole incident bank filed FIR against the persons in the Police authority.”

11.     No concrete investigation report alongwith documents, in compliance to direction issued by this Commission were placed on record for the reasons best known to the appellant – Bank. However, in its Introspection Report dated 04.07.2008 placed on record by the appellant – Bank itself vide MA/229/2021, which the appellant – Bank submitted to the top managemnt of the Bank, the appellant – Bank has categortically  observed, inter-alia, as under:-

“We agree with the observations and recommendations of our NZO. The Brancch and Zonal Office have confirmed that the signatures on the cheques in the above transactions apparently tally with the specimen signatures on record. However, on a closer scrutiny, it is felt, the possibility of forged signature cannot be ruled out.”

Thus, the appellant – Bank itself admited and observed that the possibility of forged signatures could not be ruled out.

12.    We may add here that qua the culprit, namely, Gurwinder Singh, the police submitted Untrace Report before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, which was duly accepted by the said Court vide order dated 21.08.2019. As per the said Untrace Report, after investigating the matter, Police was unable to trace out the said Gurwinder Singh.

13.    As regards the argument of the Counsel for the appellant that the comparison of the signatures in normal course and in a manner in which the Bank is supposed to compare the same, strictly varies and further that the comparison of the signatures has to be made in the light of provisions as contained in Sections 10, 31 and 89 of the Negotiable Instrument Act 1881, it may be stated here that the said limb of argument is not available to the appellant particularly in view of the aforesaid order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court whereby this Commission has been directed to compare the signature of the complainants, as only thereafter, deficiency in rendering service on the part of the appellant – Bank can be established.

14.    Now in the realm of the limited directions given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as stated hereinabove, we proceed to compare the signatures of the respondents/complainants on the alleged cheques with the one appending on their Saving Bank Account Opening Forms, after going through the original record received from the Police Authority, detail whereof is as under:-

15.   We have minutely compared the signatures of the aforesaid respondents/complainants appearing on the disputed cheques with the specimen signatures available on the records of the Bank i.e. Account Opening Forms. On naked eye comparison thereof, this Commission is of concerted view that the signatures on the alleged cheques apparently vary and differ from that on the Account Opening Forms and do not appear to be a genuine one. All this lead to an irresistible conclusion that before passing the cheques/ instruments in question, the concerned officials failed to compare the signatures of the complainants/ respondents appearing on the cheque with that of their specimen signatures available with the Bank. In other words, the signatures apparently appear to be forged one and on closer scrutiny, even an ordinary person could detect the same. Thus, we hold that the appellant - Bank had failed to discharge proper care and passed the Cheques without observing due diligence. We may add here that the resultant comparison view of this Commission of mismatch of the signatures of the respondents/complainants on the cheques had earlier been dealt with threadbare by the learned District Forum in view of the expert opinion rendered by Sh. Devendra Prasad, Handwriting Expert, in case of all the respondents/complainants, as transpired by the previous orders of the Forum below. Thus, the ratio of the judgment in the case of Bank of Maharashtra (supra), as relied upon by the Counsel for the appellant – Axis Bank, being distinguishable on facts, is of no help to the appellant.

16.    During the course of the arguments, Counsel for the respondents/complainants has raised a specific plea that the alleged cheques, which were issued for withdrawing money from their account, were not from the cheque books/leaflets originally issued to them by the Bank and in fact belonged to some other cheque books/leaflets which were not in their knowledge. When we confront the learned Counsel for the appellant–Axis Bank on this aspect, he argued that the respondents/complainants might have got issued some other cheques books/leaflets besides the original ones issued by the Bank. However, there is nothing on record to substantiate as to whether any such requests were ever made by the respondents/complainants. The original cheque books issued to the complainants were intact and still in their possession.

17.    To cap it all, this Commission is of the concerted view that there was glaring deficiency in rendering service on the part of the appellant – Axis Bank as its officials failed to discharge their duties with proper care, caution and diligence, which led to huge financial and monetary loss to the respondents/complainants, who deposited their hard earned money in good faith in the Saving Bank Accounts with the appellant – Bank. Therefore, the appellant–Bank is liable to make good the loss suffered by the respondents/complainants on account of its deficient service by paying the respective amounts alongwith interest thereon, compensation for mental agony and physical harassment and monetary loss suffered by the respondents/complainants besides litigation costs.

18.    Here, it is pertinent to mention that so far as the liability of the said - Gurwinder Singh is concerned, we feel that it is entirely the inter se dispute between the appellant–Bank and the said Gurwinder Singh and the appellant–Bank may initiate appropriate proceedings against him in accordance with law.”

10.     The State Commission has given a very detailed and well-reasoned order and we tend to agree with its observations/findings.  During the hearing it was admitted by the Petitioner-Bank that the cheques encashed in question were not the ones from the cheque books issued to the Respondents.  Further, the signatures on the cheques do not tally with the specimen signatures in the Accounts Opening Form in these accounts.  The Petitioner-Bank does not seem to have done KYC properly, despite having got documents like Voter Card as proof of identity and Electricity Bill/Phone Bill/Passport as proof of address. 

11.     As was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rubi Chandra Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2011) 11 SCC 269], the scope in a Revision Petition is limited. Such powers can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order. In Sunil Kumar Maity Vs. State Bank of India & Ors. [AIR (2022) SC 577]  held that “the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.”   

12.     For the reasons stated hereinabove, and after giving a thoughtful consideration to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, various pleas raised by the learned Counsel for the Parties, we uphold the order of the State Commission.  Accordingly, all the Revision Petitions are dismissed.

13.     The pending IAs in all the above cases, if any, also stand disposed off.