LexBANK OF INDIA versus KETAN PAREKH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 9 S.C.R. 346 A BANK OF INDIA ;.. \ v. KETAN PAREKH & ORS. (Civil Appeal No.3652 of 2008) B MAY 16, 2008 [A.K. MATHUR AND ALTAMAS KABIR, JJ.] ~ Special Courts (Trial of Offences Relating to Transac- ... tions in Securities) Act, 1992 - s. 3(3), 7, 9-A and 11 - Juris- diction of Special Court - Attachment of property of Notified c Party on 6.10.2001 - Confirmed by Custodian under 1992 Act - Application by Notified Party for impleading Custodian as necessary party - Dismissed by ORT as also Appellate Tribunal - However, High Court holding that as property of Notified Party stood attached by Custodian under 1992 Act, D the Special Court would have jurisdiction regarding property 411 of Notified party and not Appellate Tribunal - Interference with ,._ - Held: Not called for - Act of 1992 has over-riding effect on Act of 1993 -Act of 1992 as amended to include s. 9-A in 1994 being a subsequent legislation would prevail over the Act of E 1993 - s. 9-A of 1992 Act specifically provided that only Spe- cial Court would have jurisdiction over the property of notified person attached u/s 3(3) of Act of 1992, pertaining to transac- tions in securities entered from 1.4.1991 to 6.6.1992 - Recov- ery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. F , Respondent No.1 was declared as a notified party ... on 6.10.2001 and all his movable and immovable proper- ties stood attached under the Special Courts (Trial of Of- fences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992. The Custodian confirmed the attachment. Bank filed origi- G nal application against the respondent No.1. The respon- dent No.1 filed application for impleading the Custodian as a party. Respondent No.1 contended that the Custo- ~ \ dian under the 1992 Act had to be joined as necessary party as the respondent No.1 had been declared as a no- H 346 BANK OF INDIA v. KETAN PAREKH & 347 ORS. • -l tified party under the said Act; and thats. 9-A of the 1992 A Act would be attracted. The Bank contended that the pro- visions of s. 9A of the Act of 1992 were not attracted as the respondent No.1 was being sued in his personal ca- pacity as guarantor and not as a mortgagor or pledger of the movable or immovable properties. ORT dismissed the B application. Aggrieved, respondent no. 1 challenged the "'I order on the ground that the property of the respondent .... no. 1 stood attached by the Custodian under the Act of 1992, thus, ORT had no jurisdiction. The Appellate Tribu- nal also dismissed the appeal holding that the provisions c of the Act of 1992 were not attracted. Meanwhile, in the application filed by the Bank before the ORT for recovery of its debts against respondent no. 1, temporary injunc- tion was granted to disclose the assets. Thereafter, writ petition was filed challenging the order of the Appellate D ,JI. Tribunal. The Division Bench of the High Court set aside J. the order of the Appellate Tribunal. It held that since the respondent No.1 was declared as a notified party all the properties stood attached pursuant to s. 3 of the Act of 1992 and considering s. 9A of the said Act, the Special E Court will have jurisdiction to grant a declaration that the properties of a notified person stood attached and not the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal. Hence, the present appeal. ~ Dismissing the appeai, the Court F ~ HELD: 1.1 The analysis of s. s. 3(3), 9-A, 11 and 13 of the Special Courts (Trial of Offences Relating to Transac- tions in Securities) A~t, 1992, clearly establishes that once the property of a no ified person is attached by the Cus- todian and the same having been notified then the prop- G erty of the notified person being movable or immovable t ~ shall be subject to the order passed by the Special Court and the manner in which properties for discharge of the liabilities would be dealt with has been mentioned in Sec- tion 11 of the Act of 1992 and lastly that the provisions of H 348 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 9 S.C.R A the Act will have the over-riding effect even on Tribunals ;... , is clearly and categorically mentioned in Section 13 of the Act of 1992. Therefore, in the scheme of things the Act has been given priority over all Acts. In the instant case, the property of the respondent stood attached under the B orders of the Special Court on 6.10.2001 when the respon- dent was declared a notified person under s. 3(3) of the Act of 1992. [Para 5] [35
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.