58 of 1993.
declined to entertain the appellants prayer.
The petitioners claim against the 2nd respondent does number fall within the purview of the jurisdiction of this Court.
The Special Court by its order dated 26 8 1993, number under appeal.,
It would appear that the Andhra Bank Financial Services Ltd. had, in turn, invested large sums of money said to be in the order of Rs 240 crores, with a companypany called the Fairgrowth Financial Services Ltd. When the appellants deposits with M s Andhra Bank Financial Services Ltd. fell due for repayment, the latter pleaded its inability to make immediate repayment on the ground that its own funds were locked up with the Fairgrowth Financial Services Ltd. The said Fairgrowth Financial Services Ltd. was a numberified person under Section 3 2 of the Act and accordingly the Special Court under Section 11 of the Act had jurisdiction to direct repayment of its liabilities.
The appellant on various dates in July 1992 deposited with the Andhra Bank Financial Services Ltd. under what are called inter corporate deposits aggregating to about Rs 55 crores.
The deposits were to carry interest ranging from 21 to 22.
The appellant, it is number disputed, had numberprivity of companytract with the said Fairgrowth Financial Services Ltd. However, on the stand of the Andhra Bank Financial Services Ltd. that its funds were, in turn, locked up with and retained by the said Fairgrowth Financial Services Ltd., the appellant moved the Special Court for a direction that the securities of the Fairgrowth Financial Services Ltd. in the hands of the custodian be directed to be sold and the proceeds disposed of in favour of the Andhra Bank Financial Services Ltd. and that out of the sums so found payable, the sum of Rs 54 crores which was then due to the appellant together with accrued interest, be appropriated and applied for the discharge of the appellants claims.
By the said order the Special Court held that in relation to the transactions referred to and relied on by the appellant, it had numberjurisdiction to exercise powers under the Act.
It said In my view, this Court can only adjudicate on claim in respect of properties belonging to numberified parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATACHALIAH, C.J. M s Kudremukh Iron Ore Company Limited, a Government Company, prefers this appeal under Section 10 of the Special Court Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities Act, 1992 for short the Act against the order dated 26 8 1993 made by the Special Court at Bombay in Miscellaneous Petition No.
