Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2002 (10) TMI 415

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eposits were made on 8-11-1994 and 2-1-1995 and were to respectively mature two years thereafter. In the meanwhile, the Company was notified on 17-6-1997 under the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as Special Court Act). 2. Notice of this petition was issued to the respondent-company and consequent thereupon a Counter Affidavit has been filed by the Custodian appointed under the Special Courts Act the gravamen of which is that these proceedings ought not to continue any further. The Custodian has himself made a Reference to the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court dated 9-9-1996 in Civil Appeal Nos. 7143-7144 entitled Tejkumar Balakrishna Ruia v. A.K. Menon [ .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... criminal matters is in respect of transactions during the statutory period of 1-4-1991 to 6-6-1992, and in relation to those properties of a notified person that had been attached pursuant to that reason having been notified under the Special Courts Act. The entire operation of the said Act revolves around the transactions in securities during the said period only, and not in respect of any others that may have occurred anterior or posterior thereto. It should be recalled that the FDRs in question are dated 8-11-1994 and 2-1-1995, and their maturity dates are 7-11-1996 and 1-1-1997 respectively. Since the respondent-company was notified under section 3(2) on 17-6-1997, while the movable and immovable assets on that date alone stood attached .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t, in full or in part, in respect of claims found due and payable by the Court, from out of the notified assets. 4. In Canara Bank v. Nuclear Power Corpn. of India Ltd. [1995] 4 SCL 42 , the Hon ble Supreme Court had to decide whether the jurisdiction of the Company Law Board (CLB) could be invoked by virtue of section 111 of the Companies Act in view of the prohibition contained in the Special Court Act. The CLB had been approached by Canara Bank since NTPC had refused to register its Bonds in the name of the Bank, which had alleged that it had purchased them from the Andhra Bank Financial Services Ltd. through a broker, Shri Hiten P. Dalal. Shri Dalal was a person notified under section 3(2) of the Special Court Act. The CLB favou .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nevertheless still be applied. When so interpreted, there is no room to include a Fixed Deposit of the Company as falling within the definition. The claim in this petition is thus not in respect of any security, and even if the FDR s are assumed for the sake of argument as a security the transaction not having occurred during the period 1-4-1991 and 6-6-1992, are beyond the ambit of the Special Courts Act. 5. In Hiten P. Dalal v. Bratindranath Banerjee [2001] 32 SCL 499 , the Apex Court has clarified that in the context of section 3(2) it is the transaction and not the offence that should have occurred between 1-4-1991 and 6-6-1992. It had been unsuccessfully contended that since the cheques in question had been dishonoured after 6 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ation. (2) The application referred to in sub-section (1) shall not be entertained unless it is accompanied by the original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy thereof. (3) Notwithstanding that an application has been made under sub-section (1) and that the issue is pending before the judicial authority, an arbitration may be commenced or continued and an arbitral award made. Sub-section (1) of section 8 provides that the judicial authority before whom an action is brought in a matter, will refer the parties to arbitration the said matter in accordance with the arbitration agreement. This, however, postulates, in our opinion, that what can be referred to the arbitrator is only that dispute or matter which the arbitrator is .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates