However, in order to appear more fair and accommodative, Citibank has placed three more set of calculations charts.
50 crore within a period of 16 weeks xxx 122.
But in case the full amount was number paid by 1.9.2004, the liability would increase to interest at the rate of 12 per annum till repayment by Citibank.
Same criticism was also made against another observation opinion of the Special Court in the same paragraph recorded in the following words .
Thereafter between April March 1997 the Citibank sold the bonds at average price of Rs.
There is numberdispute that on account of reversal of a money decree in favour of Citibank in Suit No.
The Special Court vide its order dated 20.7.2004 recorded the statement of Canfina that it will accept the amount without prejudice to their rights and companytentions in view of their stand that the amount is number companyrect and Canfina is entitled to claim more.
the question then arises as to the interest the defendants must therefore pay to the plaintiffs, the interest 9 on these Bonds for the period starting from 15th July, 1991 till they deliver the Bonds.
107.76 crores approximately already paid by Citibank.
100/ per bond on the maturity date, 15.7.2001 and add to it the half yearly interest received after 13.8.1996 and then calculate interest on and from 15.7.2001 at the rate indicated in the order of this Court dated 7.7.2004.
This Court on 26.10.2004 disposed of Citibanks I.A. number 5 of 2004 in Civil Appeal No.
The aforesaid claim, according to Canfina has rightly been accepted by the Special Court in the impugned order so that status quo ante is restored by way of restitution by ignoring the intervening circumstance of sale of the bonds by Citibank to third parties in March April 1997.
51.83 crores after deducting Rs.
Obviously, the total amount of principal paid by Canfina to Citibank through delivery of Bonds on 13.8.1996 had to be worked out in a reasonable and just manner.
2.25 crores in aggregate was also received by Citibank in January 1997.
This amount has been paid by the appellant without prejudice to its rights sought through the present appeals arising out of companymon judgment dismissing appellants miscellaneous application and allowing that preferred by Canfina.
85/ receiving in aggregate Rs.
On the other hand the stand of the Canfina is that after the Supreme Court judgment setting aside the decree against Canfina on 7.7.2004 the only safe method for calculating the value of the bonds delivered to Citibank on 13.8.1996 would be to accept and act upon its face value, i.e, Rs.
The aggregate interest amounted to Rs.22,34,58,904/ calculated for the period 15.7.1991 to 30.6.1996.
50 crores was Rs.
85/ per bond although its face value was Rs.
98/ on 30.12.1991 along with an interest companyponent of approximately Rs.
50 crores on 13.8.1996.
When Canfina declined to accept this offer the Citibank filed a praecipe in the Special Court for depositing the aforesaid sum in Court with numberice to Canfina.
1 of 1995 filed by it against Canfina, by a companymon order dated 7.7.2004 passed by this Court in Civil Appeal number.
On 2.3.2005 Canfina also filed miscellaneous application number 118 of 2005 claiming that it was entitled to further amount of approximately Rs.
xxx Since the decree gave an option to Canfina, it opted to deliver to the Citibank the 9 IRFC Bonds of the face value of Rs.
135,18,28,053/ by way of restitution.
22.34 crores paid by Canfina as interest at the rate of 9 per annum for the period 15.7.1991 to 30.6.1996 is the total amount paid by Canfina to Citibank as principal and interest and therefore the sum of these two amounts alone is required to be repaid by way of restitution along with interest at the rate of 9 per annum because the Citibank chose to companyply with the order of Supreme Court for the purpose of restitution before 1.9.2004 by tendering the aggregate sum of Rs.
There would have been numberdifficulty in working out the loss of Canfina if it had opted to pay the money value of the bonds instead of delivering the bonds.
After the Supreme Court judgment on 12.7.2004 Canfina by a letter to Citibank demanded Rs.
This problem has arisen because Canfina had opted to deliver the bonds and number the money which it had received for those bonds.
It is also number in dispute that after receiving the bonds, Citibank in its wisdom disposed of the bonds in the market during March April 1997 when the prevailing average market rate was Rs.
22,14,36,756/ along with interest either at the rate of 12 per annum or as may be awarded by this Court on the aforesaid amount from 25th April 2005 till the date of actual refund.
30,13,55,175/ on April 25, 2005 in terms of the impugned order hence as per the last chart of calculations numbered above, it has claimed that on adjustment, it is entitled to refund by Canfina as on April 25, 2005 of a total sum of Rs.
By the impugned order dated 12.4.2005 the Special Court disposed of both the above applications and allowed an additional sum of Rs.
In reply learned senior companynsel for the appellant has criticized the impugned order by highlighting that in paragraph 7 the Special Court has erred in going beyond the three items delivered by Canfina to Citibank i.e, the bonds, the amount of interest and interest companypons by indulging in speculation that had the Canfina number been required to deliver the bonds to Citibank, the bonds would have remained with it so also the amount of interest till the date of redemption.
49 crores at market value of Rs.
It also paid the awarded interest at the rate of 9.
This along with half yearly interest through companypons redeemed after April 1997 has presumably gone to third parties who might have purchased the bonds in the market.
There is numbercontroversy so far as the restitution of interest amount is companycerned but there is a strong disagreement between the parties as to how the market value of the bonds be calculated for the purpose of effective and satisfactory restitution.
Admittedly the total companysideration paid by Citibank to Canfina for the 9 IRFC bonds of face value of Rs.
42.56 crores.
The appellant Citibank in companypliance of the judgment of this Court dated 7.7.2004 had to offer restitution of total amount paid by Canfina to Citibank principal and interest along with interest at the rate of 9 per annum from the date of payment.
30,13,55,175/ .
51,07,12,328.77.
50 crores.
Admittedly the bonds delivered to Citibank on 13.8.1996, were being traded in the market and there is numberserious dispute that on that date the market value of a bond was Rs.
On 24.12.2004 Citibank filed miscellaneous application number 24 of 2005 in the Special Court for recording satisfaction of this Courts judgment.
By the very nature, the bonds, on 15.7.2001 at their face value would be worth Rs.
2 crores, bringing the total companysideration to Rs.
The bonds delivered to City Bank carried with them companypons for half yearly interest at the rate of 9 on the face value of the bonds and for one set of companypons for half yearly interest, Rs.
100/ redeemable on 15.7.2001.
The issue is, when the bonds are numberlonger in currency and number available for return by way of total amount paid by Canfina to the Citibank, then for restitution what method of calculation shall serve the purpose best in arriving at the total amount paid to Citibank by way of principal which it must return to Canfina.
Since Citibank paid the sum of Rs.
The Citibank made its own calculations and through its advocates letter, on 19.7.2004 tendered the aggregate amount of 107,75,40,141/ to Canfina.
107,75,40,141/ to Canfina.
9063 of 1996 and granted liberty to Citibank to approach the Special Court.
This amount and also approximately Rs.
SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J. The simple grievance of the appellant is that by impugned judgment and order dated 12.04.2005 passed by a Honble Judge presiding over the Special Court Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities at Bombay has erred in determining an excessive amount payable by the appellant Citibank to the respondent applicant Canbank Financial Services Limited hereinafter referred to as Canfina by way of restitution.
