lakh shares

custodian sold the shares less than the market price to the appollo management instead of inviting them after the final bid giving an opportunity- – bid was set aside as it is arbitrary- Harshd Mehatha case= the Special Court Act which is a special statute, is a complete code in itself. The purpose and object for which it was enacted was not only to punish the persons who were involved in the act of criminal misconduct by defrauding the banks and financial institutions but also to see that the properties, moveable or immovable or both, belonging to the persons notified by the Custodian were appropriated and disposed of for discharge of liabilities to the banks and financial institutions, specified government dues and any other liability. Therefore, a notified party has an intrinsic interest in the realisations, on the disposal of any attached property because it would have a direct bearing on the discharge of his liabilities in terms of Section 11 of the Special Court Act. It is also clear that the Custodian has to deal with the attached properties only in such manner as the Special Court may direct. The Custodian is required to assist in the attachment of the notified person’s property and to manage the same thereafter. The properties of the notified persons, whether attached or not, do not at any point of time, vest in him, unlike a Receiver under the Civil Procedure Code or an official Receiver under the Provincial Insolvency Act or official Assignee under the Presidency Insolvency Act (See : B.O.I. Finance Ltd. Vs. Custodian & Ors.13). The statute 13 (1997) 10 SCC 488 2

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4263 OF 2003 ASHIWIN S. MEHTA & ANR. — APPELLANTS VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS — RESPONDENTS J U D G M E N T D.K. JAIN, J.: 1. This appeal under Section 10 of the Special Court (Trial of Offences … Continue reading →