S.B.SINHA, J. - (1.) THESE appeals arising out of the judgments and orders dated 21st March 2003 passed by the special court at Bombay in miscellaneous petition nos. 71, 72 and 99 of 1999 involving similar questions of law and fact were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. FACTS:
(2.) THE fact of the matter, however, is being noticed from civil appeal no. 4268 of 2003. A notification was issued on 2.7.1992 by the custodian notifying the respondent no. 1 as a notified party in terms of the provisions of the Special Courts (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 (for short "the said Act"). The appellant herein obtained short term loans amounting to Rs. 14.25 lacs from the notified party during the period 1.4.1991 to 6.6.1992 as specified in the said Act. The custodian called upon the appellant herein to furnish particulars of the said loans pursuant to or in furtherance whereof the appellant herein accepted the same to be outstanding as on 30.6.1992 in the books of respondent no. 1 payable to him. On the said amount of loan, interest at the rate of 21% per annum was payable.
(3.) THE appellant herein was directed to deposit the principal amount by the custodian which was not complied with. THE concerned chartered accountant, however, gave a certificate to the effect that a sum of Rs. 14.25 lacs was advanced as loan to the appellant by the respondent no. 1 with interest at 21 % per annum and that the total sum outstanding was Rs. 34,98,967.04/-. THE respondent no. 1 thereafter initiated a proceeding before the special court praying for a direction upon the appellant herein to pay to the custodian a sum of Rs. 34, 99,900.68/- on his behalf. The contentions of the appellant before the special court were that it having furnished full details of the amount in question to the custodian in 1993, the claim was barred by limitation and the said Act did not enable the respondent herein to recover any time barred debts from it. It was further urged that the transaction in question having not arisen out of transactions in securities, the special court had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. It was also contended that in that view of the matter section 9A of the said Act must be read down. JUDGMENT:;