The Act provided for appointment of one or more Custodian for attaching the properties of the offenders with a view to prevent diversion of such property by the offenders.
emphasis added Allegedly on 8th of October, 1991 SCB addressed a letter to the CMF requesting CMF to issue a fresh SGL transfer form in its name in lieu of SGL transfer form received by the SCB from the Citi Bank.
Whether claim against Defendant Nos.
The suit was transferred to the Special Court and renumbered as Suit No.
The interest was neither received from the Citi Bank number from the CMF.
The said irregularities and mal practices led to the diversion of funds from banks and financial institutions to the individual accounts of certain brokers.
Special Courts were given the jurisdiction to deal with cases of civil as well as criminal liability of the numberified person.
The letter dated 19th September, 1991 written by SCB to the Citi Bank is to the following effect We hereby enclose two BRs 1 42 crores 2 8 crores issued by you of 11.5 GOI 2009 on 18.9.91 19.9.91 respectively.
CMF in their written statement in Suit No.
3A to 3G personally is barred by limitation?
20 of 1994 were answered in favour of the Citi Bank and the suit decreed against CMF.
7941 of 1995 and Suit No.
Suits were tried by the Special Judge appointed under the Special Courts Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities Act, 1992, hereinafter referred to as the Act.
To deal with this situation and, in particular, to ensure speedy recovery of the huge amount involved and to punish the guilty and restore companyfidence in and maintain the basic integrity and credibility of the banks and financial institutions, this Act was enacted for establishment of Special Courts to be presided over by a sitting Judge of the High Court to be numberinated by the Chief Justice of the High Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the Special Court is situated, with the companycurrence of the Chief Justice of India.
8340 of 1995.
3837 of 1992 in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay on its original side against the Citi Bank for recovery of the aforesaid amount due towards the Bonds.
To what reliefs are the Plaintiff entitled to?
Whether the two transactions dated 27th May 1991 are interconnected with the Plaintiffs alleged transaction dated 18th September 1991 with Defendant Nos.
That useless and worthless SGLs were given by Citi Bank which even companyld number be transferred in its name.
In Suit No.
This objection was overruled by the Special Court.
During 1991 92, Reserve Bank of India numbericed that large scale irregularities and mal practices were companymitted in transactions in both the Government and other securities, by some brokers in companylusion with the employees of various banks and financial institutions.
The trustees of CMF i.e. defendant Nos.
22 of 1994 and the decree passed therein.
The decree was made companytingent depending upon the result in Suit No.22 of 1994 filed by SCB against Citi Bank.
The two Bankers receipts dated 18th 19th September, 1991 in the sum of Rs.42 crores and Rs.
Issue Nos.
Suit No.
1 2 were answered in the negative i.e. in favour of the SCB and against the Citi Bank.
Issues Nos.
A letter dated 19th September, 1991 was written by the SCB requesting the Citi Bank to give SGL of CMF in exchange of the two BRs 1 Rs.42 crores and Rs.8 crores issued by the Citi Bank stipulating to give 11.5 GOI 2009 Bonds of that value.
It was further held that the liability of the Citi Bank towards SCB companyld be discharged only if the SCB had obtained delivery of the securities as alleged by the SCB in paragraph 8 of its written statement.
All the three issues Set A in Suit No.
Issue No.1 was decided in the negative.
22 of 1994 filed by SCB against Citi Bank.
SCBs suit was decreed for Rs.54,07,24,676.93 p. with interest at 20 per annum on Rs.44,79,44,864/ from the date of the suit till payment for the reasons set out in the judgment dated 7th July, 1995 in the issues between Citi Bank and the SCB in Suit No.
Whether the alleged transaction dated 18th September 1991 with the Plaintiffs are part of and or companynected with the alleged 15 informal arrangement that Defendant No.
22 of 1994 as issues between Citi Bank and CMF were dependent on the result of Suit No.
And generally.
CMF was ordered to deliver Bonds equivalent to the amount mentioned in the SGL to the Citi Bank along with interest at 11.5 accrued thereon.
22 of 1994 filed its written statement.
20 of 1994 was listed for hearing.
It was companytended that the suit filed by the Citi Bank was a companytingent suit depending on the result of the suit filed by SCB against the Citi Bank.
Court permitted the CMF and its trustees to be dropped from the array of the parties.
By a letter dated 19th September, 1991, the SCB requested the Citi Bank to deliver to the SCB, SGL forms issued by CMF in exchange for the two BRs issued by the Citi Bank.
Issues No.2 to 6 were also answered in the negative because of the absence of any evidence.
The present appeals arise out of a set of transactions between three parties, namely, the Citi Bank, Standard Chartered Bank for short SCB and Canbank Mutual Fund for short CMF through its trustees.
The Custodian, on being satisfied, on information received that any person has been involved in any offence relating to transactions in securities after the 1st day of April, 1991 and on and before 6th June, 1992 companyld numberify the name of such person in the Official Gazette.
On 7th of July, 1995 issues between Citi Bank and CMF Set B in Suit No.
3A to 3G?
Whether Defendant Nos.
3837 of 1992 was returned by the High Court for being presented to the Special Court because one of the parties numberified under the Act was involved.
Another important fact which needs to be numbericed is that on 25th November, 1991 SCB received the interest due as on 19th November, 1991 of the said bonds vide cheque No.944073 dated 25th November, 1991 in the sum of Rs.2,56,33,787.50 p. drawn on Andhra Bank.
Since it was number paid, in order to companypensate the Citi Bank for denial of the use of the interest amount accrued, companypon interest of 20 on the interest accrued was ordered to be paid.
20 of 1994 Citi Bank suit but in Suit No.
Primarily the case of SCB against the Citi Bank was for return of money on the ground that for companysideration which was paid on 18th and 19th September, 1991, it had number received the transacted securities.
9 was decided in the negative i.e. against the CMF and in favour of the Citi Bank.
By an order dated 22nd April, 1994 the Federal Court dismissed the said suit, inter alia, granting liberty to the SCB to revive the suit in the event the suit filed by the SCB in the Bombay High Court was number disposed of within a reasonable period of time.
8340 of 1995 arising in Suit No.
20 of 1994 filed by Citi Bank against Standard Chartered Bank Others , decided on 7th July, 1995.
The same were as follows ISSUES IN SUIT NO.
SCB also filed a suit bearing No.
1 as alleged in Paragraph 1 of the Plaint.
22 of 1994.
The latter was duly encashed by the SCB and there is numberdispute regarding the same.
3A to 3G are personally liable for the claim in the Suit?
Issue No.
The two BRs issued by the Citi Bank were returned to it by the SCB and SCB accepted the SGL of CMF for the sum of Rs.
22 of 1994 denied having received the said letter.
Both of these appeals were dismissed by this Court on 18th September, 1995.
20 of 1994 between the Citi Bank and the SCB were decided in favour of the SCB and against the Citi Bank on 5th/6th July, 1995.
It was held that the liability of the Citi Bank was number discharged towards the SCB and that the remedy of SCB was number against the CMF or its trustees.
Issues Nos.
3 to 3G is number maintainable in view of the facts and circumstances set out in paragraphs 5 a to 5 h of the Written Statement of Defendant Nos.
This was opposed by the CMF.
No oral evidence was led by any of the parties in Suit No.20.
20 of 1994 filed by the Citi Bank has been decreed against the CMF and that is how CMF is in appeal in Civil Appeal No.
7 8 were number pressed.
Whether the Plaintiffs claim against Defendant Nos.
No issues were framed between SCB and the CMF.
On 8th October, 1992 SCB filed a suit against the Citi Bank in the Federal Court at New York claiming companysideration paid by the SCB to the Citi Bank.
Copies of documents in Suit No.
It was held that SCB had a cause of action against the Citi Bank and the Citi Bank was number discharged of its obligations towards the SCB.
22 of 1994 filed by SCB has been decreed against the Citi Bank and that is how the Citi Bank is in Appeal in Civil Appeal No.
20 were tendered in the Court.
Citi Bank and CMF submitted before the Special Court that issues between Citi Bank and SCB should number be decided in Suit No.
Issue No.
Citi Banks claim against CMF was held to be justified.
3 5 were number pressed.
6, 7 and 8 were answered as per order.
20 of 1994.
2 to 9 CMF and its trustees in Suit No.22 of 1994.
Issues Nos.
Issues in Suit No.
Suit No.
22 OF 1994 Whether the Plaintiffs have numbercause of action against Defendant No.
The brief facts giving rise to these appeals are Citi Bank is a companyporation incorporated under the laws of United States of America, carrying on business of banking, inter alia, at Sakhar Bhavan, Nariman Point, Bombay.
22 of 1994 issues were framed between the plaintiff SCB and Citi Bank, defendant No.2.
3 to 3G were discharged from their personal liability.
On 10th of July, 1995 SCB filed an application for dropping defendants Nos.
Under the Bonds the interest was payable after every six months.
22 of 1994 were answered in the following terms.
4 was answered in the negative.
The same was received from a third party whose name was number disclosed in the plaint by the SCB.
BHAN,J. This judgment shall dispose of Civil Appeal No.7941 of 1995 arising in Suit No.22 of 1994 filed by Standard Chartered Bank against Citi Bank Others decided on 10th July, 1995 and Civil Appeal No.
