JUDGMENT

1. When these matters were taken up for hearing, it was submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the matter is required to be referred to a larger Bench in view of the pendency of some connected matter before a Constitution Bench [Civil Appeal No.2357/2017 - referred to a Constitution Bench by order dated 15.02.2017] of this Court or the hearing of these matters may be deferred until the Constitution Bench decides the various questions referred to it.

2. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the appellants vehemently objected to such a process and submitted that the questions involved in the instant appeal are no way connected to the issues involved in the matter referred to the Constitution Bench. Therefore, there is neither any need to refer this matter to the Constitution Bench nor to await the decision of the Constitution Bench.

3. In the abovementioned background, we decided to examine the tenability of the abovementioned submissions of the respondents. We indicated that after hearing both the sides, in the event of our not agreeing with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents, we would proceed to hear the instant a