168 of 2001 praying that Justice Kapadia may recuse himself from the matter.
This Act will hereinafter be referred to as the Special Courts Act.
Subsequently the Special Court Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities Act, 1992 was passed.
Appellants then filed, in the Special Court, Miscellaneous Application No.
In May 1995 Canbank Financial Services Limited Canfina filed a Civil Petition No.
38,01,13,561/ .
Criminal Application No.
2 of 1998 to 19th April, 2001, indicating that unless a stay was obtained, Special Case No.
2 of 1998 would be proceeded with.
74 of 1995 by a judgment dated 17th January, 2001.
Sometime in September 2000, Special Case No.
Canfina claimed damages arising out of the tort of companyspiracy in a sum of Rs.
In March 1998 CBI filed Criminal Case No.
809 of 2001 be placed before a Division Bench of the Court as an important question arose.
Thereafter on 8th March, 2001, the Judge adjourned Special Case No.
Under this Special Courts Act one Special Court came to be established.
As there were only two presiding Judges in the Special Court, in effect the Appellants wanted the case to be transferred to Justice Trivedi.
One of the two Judges of the Special Court i.e. Justice Kapadia disposed of, after a lengthy trial, Petition No.
By the Order dated 16th April, 2001, i.e. one of the impugned orders , the Division Bench directed that a written application for transfer be moved before the Special Court, i.e. before the Honble Judge, Mr. Kapadia himself.
On 3rd of April, 2001, a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court directed that the Criminal Application No.
The Learned Judge rejected the oral request.
2 of 1998 was earlier before the other Judge presiding over the Special Court, Justice Trivedi.
On 5th March, 2001 parties made a mention in the Chamber of Justice Kapadia that they had filed Criminal Application No.
The Appellants then filed Criminal Application No.
809 of 2001 was disposed of.
In the beginning there was only one Judge.
2 of 1998 was administratively transferred by the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court from Justice Trivedi to Justice Kapadia.
809 of 2001 before the Bombay High Court praying for an order transferring the case from Justice Kapadia to any other Special Court.
All civil and criminal matters, even if they arose from the same transaction were before the same Judge.
Hence this SLP against the Orders of the Bombay High Court dated 16th April, 2001 and 19th April, 2001.
It is only thereafter that there have been two Judges.
N. VARIAVA, J. Leave granted.
809 of 2001 was heard by a Division Bench on 16th April, 2001.
In this Appeal we have number permitted parties to argue on merits.
With these directions the Criminal Application No.
Heard parties.
The Chief Justice, therefore, assigned it to a Division Bench.
It is only because the work load was found to be very heavy that the Special Courts Act was amended in 1997, to enable appointment of more Judges.
It would appear that Special Case No.
Briefly stated the facts leading to these Appeals are as follows Due to large scale diversions of public funds, belonging to banks and financial institutions, to the individual accounts of certain brokers, the Government first promulgated an Ordinance.
These Appeals are against Orders dated 16th April, 2001 and 19th April, 2001 passed by the Bombay High Court.
The same Judge had, in fact, tried both civil and criminal matters even though they arose out of the same transaction or same set of facts.
74 of 1995 before the Special Court, claiming criminal companyspiracy to cause unlawful loss to them by sale and purchase of the same securities within a period of two days at differing rates.
2 of 1998 before the Special Court alleging criminal companyspiracy amongst the Respondents to cause unlawful loss to Canfina by sale and purchase of the same securities within a period of two days at differing rates.
On the same date, i.e. 19th April, 2001 parties moved for some clarification before the Division Bench and the Division Bench by its order dated 19th April, 2001 has refused to issue any clarification.
By an order dated 19th April, 2001, that application has been rejected.
