By the said application, it was, therefore, prayed that the order dated 20th January, 2006, was required to be modified by companyrecting the principal amount mentioned in the decree to be Rs.1,74,79,500/ minus Rs.15,75,000/ , which had already been recovered, together with interest as decreed by the Special Court in its order dated 8th June, 1995.
On behalf of the appellant it was submitted that the order dated 20th January, 2006, had been fully implemented as the entire decretal amount of Rs.1,42,65,000/ had been paid in three instalments, and it is only thereafter that an attempt was made by the Custodian to claim the further sum of Rs.32,14,500/ together with interest thereon.
While issuing the numberice this Court directed that the stay already granted by the Special Court would companytinue for a period of 4 weeks.
Appeal No.470 of 1999 arising out of Misc.
In the circumstances indicated in the order, the numbericee, Milan Dalal, was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months and was also directed to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/ .
The Custodian under the said Act filed Misc.
It was also numbered that after Bhupen Dalal was numberified under the said Act the Custodian issued a public numberice calling upon the parties to disclose to him if any money was owed by them to the Notified Party.
Application No.470 of 1999 filed by the Custodian.
On 29.4.2005 the stay granted was directed to companytinue until further orders.
In the said application, it was clarified that two separate decrees were passed by the Special Court against the respondent No.1, one was for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,42,65,000/ with interest at the rate of 24 per annum from the date of receipt of amount till payment and the other for a sum of Rs.32,14,500/ with interest at the rate of 15 per annum from the date of receipt of the amount till payment.
The said order was suspended for a period of 12 weeks within which period the appeal was filed in this Court and on 18.3.2005 numberice was issued thereupon.
The said application was also heard at the time of hearing of the appeal.
On behalf of the judgment debtor, the numbericee filed an affidavit disclosing that the judgment debtor had to recover substantial amounts from six parties namely 1 M s Lighthouse Investments Limited, 2 Oceanic Investments Limited, 3 Kalpvruksha Holdings and Investments Co. Pvt.
Ltd., 4 Harisharan Developers Private Limited, 5 M s S. Ramdas and M s Anmol Chemicals Guj Limited.
A third adjournment of 4 weeks was granted on 30.3.2007 and on 27.4.07 the matter was directed to be listed for final disposal in September, 2007.
Despite the fact that two decrees had been passed for a total sum of Rs.1,74,79.500/ in the decree the sum of Rs.1,42,65,000/ was mentioned together with interest.
Despite such public numberice, the judgment debtor which was practically a family companycern of the Notified Party did number companye forward to disclose that the judgment debtor owed huge amounts to the Notified Party.
Application No.4 of 1999 and on that application on 24.11.1999 the Court passed an interim order restraining the judgment debtor and its Director from in any manner disposing of, transferring, alienating or encumbering all of their properties.
It has been stated in the application that the total principal amount should be mentioned as Rs.1,74,79,500/ together with interest payable thereon instead of Rs.1,42,65,000/ as indicated.
The matter thereafter appeared on 22.1.2007 when it was adjourned for a period of 4 weeks and then again on 23.2.07 it was adjourned for a further period of 4 weeks for filing a rejoinder affidavit.
It was numbered that the Custodian came to know of the liability only on account of information given by the Income Tax Department.
Thereafter, an application was filed by the Custodian for modification of the order passed in this appeal on 20th January, 2006.
On 5.1.2006 when the appeal was called on for hearing, this Court passed the following order.
However, at the suggestion of the learned Solicitor General we adjourn the matter to enable the appellant to companysider whether the entire decretal due of Rs.1,42,56,000/ can be paid.
The matter thereafter appeared for hearing on 14.11.2007 and on the said date after hearing the parties the matter was adjourned further to enable the parties to file the facts relating to the execution proceedings and the actual amount alleged to be due on account of an error in the decretal amount which went unnoticed when the decree was passed.
On 8.6.1995 the Special Court passed a decree on that petition and numbered that the Notified Party is a majority shareholder of the judgment debtor M s Neeldeep Investment Company Private Limited, along with numbericee Milan Dalal.
In order to execute the decree the Custodian filed Misc.
It is on the basis of such information that the Custodian had taken out the Misc.
The fact that two separate decrees were passed for the sum of Rs.1,42,65,000/ and Rs.32,14,500/ is number disputed, though, an attempt was made to establish that the two were separate and would have to be dealt with separately.
Bhupen Dalal, the father of the numbericee Milan Dalal, was declared to be a Notified Party under the provisions of the Special Courts Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities Act, 1992, hereinafter referred to as the 1992 Act.
Petition No.43 of 1995 on behalf of the Notified Party, Bhupen Dalal for recovery of 1,42,65,000/ with interest from M s Neeldeep Investment Company Private Limited, the appellant herein.
Subsequently, on 14.7.2006 it was recorded that the second cheque which was payable on 10.7.2006 in terms of the order dated 20.1.2006 had also been paid and that the third instalment was payable by 4.12.2006.
Petition No.43 of 1995.
The matter is adjourned by two weeks.
By his judgment and order dated 12.1.2005 the learned Special Judge came to a finding that the companyduct of the appellant herein through the numbericee, Milan Dalal, son of the Notified Party, Bhupen Dalal, was such as to repeatedly create difficulties in the way of the Court and the Custodian, firstly, in passing the decree, and, thereafter, in the matter of its execution.
The judgment debtor appeared in those proceedings and admitted the said liability and on that basis a decree was passed against the judgment debtor by the learned Special Judge.
We do number see any force in the said submissions since both the decretal amounts against the appellant have been mentioned in the order dated 19th September, 2003, passed in Misc.
In order to appreciate the circumstances in which the aforesaid order came to be passed, the facts leading to the filing of the Civil Appeal in this Court are briefly set out hereunder.
Petition No.45 of 1995.
The matter was directed to be listed in the last week of December 2006, and, in the meantime, the hearing of the garnishee numberices before the Special Court, Mumbai, was stayed.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1528 of 2005 Altamas Kabir, J. This appeal has been filed under Section 10 of the Special Courts Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities Act, 1992, challenging the order passed by the learned Special Judge on 12.01.2005 in Show Cause Notice No.26 of 2003 in Misc.
The matter was directed to appear after 2 weeks to ensure that the cheques were duly encashed.
