(1.) MURABLACK (India) Limited, filed in this Court, Misc. Petition No. 9 of 1992 for recovery of an amount of Rs. 2 crores with interest at 24% p. a. from 16-4-1992 and 19-5-1992 till payment from Fairgrowth Financial Services Limited (F. F. S. L.)
(2.) F. F. S. L. was notified around 2-7-1992. On 26-7-1993, Miscellaneous Petition No. 9 of 1992 came before Variava, J. , (as he then was) when the petition was adjourned sine die. The office was directed to place the matter before the Special Court at the time of final distribution under section 11 of the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992. The learned Judge further directed that the exact amount to be paid was to be decided after taking into consideration the available assets and liabilities of F. F. S. L. Ultimately, this Court, on 2-5-1992, heard and disposed of Miscellaneous Application No. 222 of 1996 made by the custodian for distribution of the assets of F. F. S. L. under section 11 (2 ). Consequently, on 2-5-1992, Misc. Petition No. 9 of 1992 came to be disposed of by this Court directing 25% of the claim amount, amounting to Rs. 50 lakhs, to be paid on behalf of F. F. S. L. to Murablack (India) Limited-petitioners in Misc. Petition No. 9 of 1992. This order came to be passed on 2-5-1992 in view of the fact that the Chartered Accountants appointed by the Court gave their report pursuant to which, interim dividend came to be declared by this Court. No sooner the interim dividend came to be declared, the applicant moved before this Court, Misc. Application No. 453 of 2002, inter alia, stating that they were the assignees of Murablack (India) Limited (the petitioner in Misc. Petition No. 9 of 1992 ). In other words Murablack (India) Limited were the decree holders in whose favour the interim dividend came to be declared under the provisions of section 11 (2) (c) of the Special Courts Act, 1992. By this application, Growth Techno Projects Limited of which Acharya Arun Dev is a director, applied to this Court for substitution of their name in place of Murablack (India) Limited under Order XXII, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code (C. P. C. ). Accordingly, Misc. Application No. 453 of 2002 has come before this Court. According to this application under Order XXI, Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code, Growth Techno Projects Limited had entered into an agreement of assignment dated 27-6-1995 under which Murablack (India) Limited assigned the monies due and payable by F. F. S. L. to Murablack (India) Limited in favour of Growth Techno Projects Limited. Therefore, by the present application, Growth Techno Projects Limited has submitted that they be brought on record and monies payable by F. F. S. L. to Murablack (India) Limited be paid to Growth Techno Projects Limited as assignees. This application, for being brought on record, was made on 26-7-2002 i. e. after this Court distributed 25% dividend in favour of Murablack (India) Limited. It is the case of Growth Techno Projects Limited that at the time of execution of the Agreement of Assignment on 27-6-1995, Murablack (India) Limited took three post-dated cheques on the understanding that Murablack (India) Limited will deposit the same only on instructions from Growth Techno Projects Limited. That, however, Murablack (India) Limited demanded security for instalments in the form of shares valued at Rs. 2. 83 crores and further recorded that in case of default, Murablack (India) shall dispose of the shares and adjust the sale proceeds against the outstandings of Growth Techno Projects Limited. That, accordingly, Acharya Arun Dev the Director of Growth Techno Projects Limited, delivered to Murablack (India) Limited, 263000 shares in Growth Techno Projects Limited valued at Rs. 3. 47 crores. However, the post dated cheques given to Murablack (India) Limited were replaced by pay orders on the accounts of Acharya Arun Dev. In short, an amount of Rs. 2 crores was paid by Growth Techno Projects Limited on the date of execution of the agreement of assignment dated 27-6-1995 to Murablack (India) Limited and further credit was given by Murablack (India) Limited to Growth Techno Projects Limited for an amount of Rs. 1. 76 crores. In short, an amount of Rs. 3. 76 crores were paid to Murablack (India) Limited out of Rs. 4. 63 crores by Growth Techno Projects Limited leaving a balance of Rs. 87. 89 lakhs. In short, this is the case of Growth Techno Projects Limited who seek to substitute its name in place of Murablack (India) Limited under Order XXII, Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code. RGUMENTS :
(3.) WHEN the present Application No. 453 of 2002 came before this Court, the custodian raised a preliminary objection. He submitted that under section 9-A of the Special Court (TORTS) Act, 1992, this Court has been set up to entertain claims relating to any property standing attached under section 3 (3) and that such claims shall arise out of transactions in securities entered into after 1-4-1991 and upto 6-6-1992. It was further submitted that in view of section 9-A (4), the procedure laid down under the Civil Procedure Code is not applicable and that the Special Court was guided by the principles of natural justice and that the Special Court is empowered to regulate its own procedure. It was pointed out by the custodian that in the present case, there is a dispute between Growth Techno Projects Limited and Murablack (India) Limited as to the validity of the agreement to assign dated 27-6-1995. He invited my attention to a pending suit on the Original Side of the High Court, being suit No. 50 of 1999 for specific performance of the agreement of assignment dated 27-6-1995 filed by Murablack (India) Limited against Growth Techno Projects Limited. It was further submitted on behalf of the custodian that the present application has been moved by the alleged assignee only after the decree came to be passed on 2-5-2002. That, under the orders passed by Variava, J. , on 28-10-1999, it was recorded that the amount of Rs. 2 crores shall be treated as a simple loan to the decree holder Murablack (India) Limited and that the amount shall be determined and paid only at the time of distribution. It was pointed out by the custodian that on 2-5-2002, this Court has declared dividend of Rs. 50 lakhs to be paid to Murablack (India) Limited as and by way of interim dividend under section 11 (2) (c ). That, from 27-6-1995 upto 25-7-2002, the alleged assignee has not moved the Special Court. That, the present application is made only after distribution of dividend on 2-5-2002 and after the decree came to be passed on 2-5-2002 and, therefore, the provisions of Order XXII, Rule 10 had no application. This was the preliminary objection raised by the custodian.