TMI Blog2010 (4) TMI 619X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Subramonium Prasad, Rana Mukherjee, Siddharth Gautam and Goodwill Indeever for the Appearing Parties. JUDGMENT B. Sudershan Reddy, J. - These appeals are directed against the orders of interlocutory nature passed by the Special Court constituted under the provisions of the Special Courts (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). They are being disposed of by this common order since the question that arises for our consideration is one and the same. 2. M/s. Dhanraj Mills Private Limited in its ordinary course of business had advanced interest-free loans to the appellant M/s. Killick Nixon Limited and its group of companies. In the year 1992, the Special Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sue of notification. 5. In the year 1995, the appellant M/s. Killick Nixon Limited and its group Companies filed separate applications before Special Court for ascertaining their individual liabilities with a request to grant time for recompense. Simultaneously, the Custodian also filed applications for fixation of liability and demanding interest at the rate of 24 per cent per annum. In the year 1997, the Special Court passed decrees against the appellant and its group Companies which are consent decrees qua invitum the Custodian, whereby individually ascertained amounts were to be paid in instalments with the interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum. Similar consent decree was passed against 13th group Company also. 6. M/s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cted the Custodian not to proceed with execution of the decrees, subject to payment of defaulted instalments. As usually, the appellant and its group Companies defaulted in payment of the said amounts once again. Left with no alternative, the Custodian filed execution applications against the judgment debtors for recovery of dues from M/s. Dhanraj Mills Private Limited. It is not necessary to refer the facts, the subsequent events in detail and various objections raised from time to time as to the sale of properties in the process of realizing the decretal amounts. However, one important fact that may be required to state is that the Special Court by its earlier order dated 30-11-2001 required the judgment debtors to pay Rs. 16 crores payab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ards a consolidated decree. It is not necessary to refer in detail the stand taken by the Custodian opposing the plea of the appellants. Various instances were pointed out by the Custodian as to how the appellants themselves were treating the decrees as a consolidated one. 10. It was specifically demonstrated by the Custodian that the appellants not only treated them as one group but have themselves proceeded and agreed to have appropriation of the sale proceeds of the properties sold on group basis. The averment in the petition filed in the Special Court contained figures relating to the aggregate dues of the group, the aggregate amounts received from the sale of properties and the aggregate balance amount. 11. The Special Court af ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rees and the manner of appropriation, in our considered opinion, by itself does not amount to deciding any lis as such between the parties. Under section 10 of the Act that an appeal shall lie to this Court from any judgment, sentence or order of the Special Court but not against the interlocutory orders. Appeals against interlocutory orders are specially excluded under the said provision. 14. There cannot be any iota of doubt that M/s. Killick Nixon and other companies were always treated as one group and there is a clear finding in this regard by the Special Court that the said group of companies are nothing but front companies of M/s. Dhanraj Mills Private Limited. 15. The orders impugned in these appeals are purely interlocu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|