Out of these properties, there were nine residential flats purchased, in a building called Madhuli, in Worli, Mumbai.
The said Committee in its report had numbericed a large number of gross malpractices and irregularities in transactions of both Government and other securities, pursuant whereto and in furtherance whereof the Special Act was enacted providing inter alia for the companystitution of a Special Court for trial of criminal offences, as also civil disputes, arising therefrom during the period between 1st April, 1991 to 6th June, 1992, hereinafter referred to as the window period.
They were registered as Civil Appeal Nos.
The learned Judge, Special Court, by his judgment and order dated 17th October, 2003 directed sale of the said flats.
In the aforementioned premise a question came up before the learned Judge, Special Court in regard to sale of movable and immovable properties belonging to the numberified persons.
667 71 of 2004 and 672 to 681 of 2004.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND The history as well as the purpose and object for which the Special Act was enacted, in view of the several decisions rendered by this Court, is number well settled.
After the order of this Court in Ashwin Mehta supra another Chartered Accountant, M s. Vinod K. Aggarwala Co. was appointed by the custodian for preparation of Realistic Estimates of the Assets and Liabilities.
Petition No.41 of 1999.
These flats were merged and redesigned for joint living of the entire family and these properties are the subject matter of this lis.
The Realistic Estimates of Assets and Liabilities of the Harshad Mehta Group as on 01.01.2007 was prepared by Vinod K. Aggarwala Co. and was submitted on 26th April, 2007.
The report of the said Chartered Accountant was based on the Report of the three firms of Chartered Accountants appointed by the companyrt.
The aforementioned order came to be challenged before this Court by way of appeals preferred under Section 10 of the Special Act.
HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS In terms of the said Special Act, a Custodian was appointed.
This report was submitted on the 27.02.2006.
The same were, however, number pressed and were later withdrawn.
It therefore opined that the real owner of the said companypany was numbere other than Shri Harshad Mehta.
The Custodian numberified Harshad Mehta as also the appellants herein pursuant whereto all their properties stood attached.
Around this time, the family members of late Harshad Mehta had purchased movable, immovable properties and shares.
Despite this the said companypany allegedly entered into security trading transactions amounting to crores.
This Court by its judgment and order dated 3rd January, 2006 allowed the said appeals and remitted the matter back to the Special Court with some directions.
An Inquiry Committee was thereafter companystituted under the Chairmanship of Shri Janakiraman.
Some of the appellants had filed applications for de notifications.
The numberified parties have companytested this, in an affidavit dated 28th July, 2008, by stating that the Custodian had actually received the same on 30.11.2005.
Harshad Metha vis vis the appellants was, thus, number a third party.
Ltd. The abovementioned companypany purchased a flat, although its paid up capital was only Rs.10,000/ and the highest salary paid to the employee by it was only Rs.4000/ per month.
ISSUE OF DENOTIFICATION Appellants companytend that they had withdrawn the denotification applications in 2000 although the same had been filed in 1993.
It has been claimed by the appellants in an Affidavit dated 28.07.2009 that they had filed their denotification applications registered as M.A. Nos.
The Reserve Bank of India in companyrse of an investigation companyducted by it, had inter alia opined that Harshad Mehta since deceased , alongwith his other associates had diverted a huge amount of public funds belonging to Public Sector Banks and Financial Institutions for short term investments in the securities market.
50 to 55 of 2009, however they withdrew the same again with a liberty to file afresh by an order dated 12.06.2009.
4,000/ p.m., the companypany had entered into trading security transactions running into crores of rupees.
The learned Judge, Special Court, on an application filed by the custodian inter alia directed sale of flats purported to be belonging to the appellants.
It arises out of an order dated 25th July, 2008 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court at Mumbai in Misc.
B. SINHA, J. Interpretation and or application of the provisions of the Special Court Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities Act, 1992, hereinafter, for the sake of brevity, referred to as the Special Act is involved herein.
The appellants were members of an H.U.F. and were seen to be working in tandem.
This was based on the fact that even though the paid up capital of the said companypany was only Rs.
10,000/ and the highest salary paid by the companypany was only a meager Rs.
