LexM/S NEELDEEP INVESTMENTS (P) LTD. versus THE CUSTODIAN & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008) 5 S.C.R. 87 \ MIS NEELDEEP INVESTMENTS (P) LTD. A v. THE CUSTODIAN & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 1528 of 2005) MARCH 13, 2008 B ., [C.K. THAKKER AND ALTAMAS KABIR, JJ.] Special Courts (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 - s. 10 - Recovery petition by Custodian on behalf of Notified party from Judgment debtor - c Notified Party and his son-noticee majority shareholder of judgment debtor - Decree against judgment debtor - Garnishee notices - Noticee repeatedly creating difficulties in way of Court and Custodian passing decree and its execution - Noticee sentenced to 3 month simple D imprisonment and fine - Challenge to - On appeal held: -i' Parties agreed that payment would be made in three instalments - However, in view of application by Custodian for modification in the order correcting decretal amount, the decretal amount amended - Judgment debtor directed to pay E the balance decretal amount in three equal instalments by the given date - Garnishee notices before Special Court stayed - In case of default in payment, order under challenge would revive. Under the Special Courts (Trial of Offences relating F to Transaction in Securities) Act, 1992, BO-father of r· notieee MD, was declared a Notified party. The Notified Party is majority shareholder of judgment debtor- appellant Company, along with noticee MD. The Custodian under the Act filed petition on behalf of Notified G party-BO for recovery of Rs. 1,42,65,0001- with interest from the appellant Company. The Special Court passed a decree. Meanwhile, the Custodian issued a public notice ~ calling upon the parties to disclose if they owed any 87 H 88 SUPREME COUR:T REPORTS [2008) 5 S.C.R. A money to the Notified Party. Despite that the judgment debtor did not disclose that they owed huge amount to the Notified Party. The Notified Party came to know about it from the Income Tax Department. The Custodian filed a petition. The judgment debtor admitted the said liability B and on basis thereof, the Special Judge passed a decree against the judgment debtor. Thereafter, in the Misc Application to execute the decree, interim order was passed restraining the judgment debtor and its director from disposing of or transferring their properties. The C noticee filed an affidavit: that the judgment debtor had to recover substantial amounts from six parties. The Custodian took out £1arnishee notices. Thereafter, garnishees appeared and filed affidavits that they owed amounts to judgment debtor, which were adjusted on 0 acceptance of shares of different companies by the judgment debtor. Thernafter, the Special Judge passed an order that the noticeE! was to be tried for not complying with the order restraining judgment debtor and its directors from disposing of the properties. E The misc application was filed. Show cause notice was issued. The Speciial Judge held that the appellant through noticee MD, son of notified party, BO repeatedly created difficulties in the way of Court and Custodian passing decree and its execution. The noticee MD was F sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months with fine of Rs. 2,000/- The Special Court suspended the order. Meanwhile, appellant filed appl!al u/s 10 of the Act befom this Court. The stay granted was extended. The matter was adjourned to enable the G appellant to consider whether the entire decretal due of Rs. 1,42,56, 000/- could be paid. Thereafter, the parties agreed that the amount would be paid in three instalments. The appellant paid two instalments and the third one was to be paid. The matte!r was adjourned repeatedly. The Custodian then filed application for modification of the H MIS NEELDEEP INVESTMENTS (P) LTD. v. 89 THE CUSTODIAN & ORS. ~ order in the appeal by correcting the principal amount in A the decree as Rs. 1, 74, 79,500/- minus Rs. 15, 75,000/- which had already been recovered by custodian. Disposing of the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 The fact that two separate decrees were B passed for the sum of Rs.1,42,65,000/- and Rs.32, 14,500/- is not disputed, though, an attempt was made to establish that the two were separate and would have to be dealt with separately. The submission that the order dated 20th January, 2006, had been fully implemented as the entire c decretal amount of Rs.1,42,65,000/- had been paid in three instalments, and it is only thereafter that an attempt was made
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.