LexFAIRGROWTH INVESTMENTS LTD. versus THE CUSTODIAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
FAIRGROWTH INVESTMENTS LTD.
A
v.
THE CUSTODIAN
OCTOBER 14, 2004
[RUMA PAL AND ARUN KUMAR, JJ.]
B
Special Courts (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities)
Act, 1992/Limitation Act, 1963-Section 4(2)/ Sections 5 and 29(2)-Petition
u/s 4(2)-Beyond the limitation period-Condonation of delay-Permissibility
of-Held: The delay in filing the petition cannot be condoned-The limitation C
period is mandatory-The provision for condoning delay is not provided in
the statute, nor can it be condoned u/s 5 of Limitation Act by virtue of
applicability of Section 29(2) of Limitation Act-Section 29(2) does not
apply to the statute as the statute had excluded application of Limitation Act.
Judicial Propriety-Judicial pronouncement-Two views-One by D
Division Bench another by larger Bench-Held: Reliance should be placed
on the view expressed b; 1 larger Bench-Precedent.
Words and Phrases:
'Exclusion '-Meaning of
E
Appellant was notified u/s 3(2) of Special Courts (Trial of Offences
Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992. Appellant filed petifon of
objection to the notification u/s 4(2) of the Act, but beyond the period of
limitation prescribed under the Section. Special Court rejected the same on
the ground of limitation.
F
In appeal to this Court appellant contended that the notified person could
not be deprived of the right merely on the ground of limitation; that provision
prescribing a period of limitation in Section 4(2) was directory and not
mandatory; that Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 would automa!ically
be applicable to all Special Acts; that the provisions of Limitation Act had not G
been excluded either expressly or by necessary implication; that by virtue of
applicability of Section 29(2), Section 5 of Limitation Act would be applicable
to the petitions u/s 4(2) of the Act and hence the delay could be condoned
thereunder.
505
H
506
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A
Respondent-Custodian contended that period of limitation prescribed u/
u/s 4(2) could not be said to be merely directory; that Section 29(2) of
Limitation Act would have no application to the Act; and that conferment of
power to condone delay provided expressly in connection with appeal u/s 10 of
the Act, necessarily implied the exclusion of such power in the Court u/s
B 4(2).
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1. Since the appellant's petition of objection had been filed
much beyond the period prescribed under Section 4(2) of Special Courts {Trial
C of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992, the Special
Court was right in rejecting the petition in limine. [Sl9-B]
D
E
L.S. Synthetics Ltd. v. Fairgrowth Financial Services Ltd and Anr.,
(2004) 7 SCALE 427 and Hukumdev Narayan Yadav v. L.N. Mishra, (1974) 2
sec 133, relied on.
1.2 The period for filing a~ objection under Section 4(2) is a mandatory
provision given the language of the Section and having regard to the objects
sought to be served by the Act. The period prescribed cannot be extended by
the Court under any inherent jurisdiction of the Special Court.
[Sl2-C; SIS-CJ
Dr. J.J. Merchant v. Shrinath Chaturvedi, (2002) 6 SCC 63S, followed.
Topline Shoes Ltd v. Corporation Bank, [2002) 2 SCC 33, referred to.
1.3. The mere use of the word "may" in Sections 4(2) of the Act does
F not indicate that the period prescribed under the Section is merely directory.
The word 'may' merely enables or empowers the objector to file an objection.
[SI3-A-BI
Mangu Ram v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, [1976) I SCC 392,
relied on.
G
1.4. The words of Section 4(2) are unequivocal and unqualified and there
is no scope for reading in a power of Court to dispense with the time limit on
the basis of any principle of interpretation of statutory provisions. [Sl2-F)
R. Rudraiah v. State of Karnataka, [1998[ 3 SCC 23, relied on.
H
l.S. It is not for the Courts to determine whether the period of30 days
,,..
FAIRGROWTH INVESTMENTS LTD. v. THE CUSTODIAN
507
is too short to take into account the various misfortunes that may be faced by A
notified persons who wish to file objections under Section 4(2) of the Act nor
can the Section be held to be directory because of such alleged inadequacy of
time. (513-G)
Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal, Kotah Bhurey Lal Baya, [1955] 2
SCR 1 and Syndicate Bank v. Prabha D. Naik and Anr., (20011 4 SCC 713 B
and C. Beepathumma and Ors. v. KudambalitExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.