Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act 1992 – ss. 3(2), 4(2), 10, 11 – Limitation Act, 1963 – ss. 18, 29(2) – Directions for disclosure of assets – Third respondentcorporation, had availed a short term loan of 25 lakhs from FFSL (Second respondent) and agreed to pay it after 180 days with 20% interest – Central Government appointed first respondent as custodian under the provisions of Act of 1992 – FFSL instituted Miscellaneous petition against the third respondent for the recovery of an amount of Rs. 25 lakh, together with interest – On 28.03.2003, the Special Court directed the third respondent to pay to FFSL a sum of Rs 63.86 lakhs, together with interest – FFSL issued two notices to third respondent for the payment of decretal amount on 28.04.2003 and 16.12.2011, respectively – By communication dated 22.02.2018, the appellant offered to pay the principal amount of Rs. 25 lakhs and sought a waiver of the interest and pursuant to his offer, appellant paid an amount of one lakh – The first respondent moved execution application before the Special Court – Appellant contested that said application on the ground that it was barred by limitation
The
Special
Court
passed
an
ad-interim order directing the disclosure of assets of the appellant and the third respondent – It further held that the appellant clearly acknowledge the liability, hence, the claim of the first respondent is not barred by the limitation – On appeal, held: Based on the decision of Supreme Court in L S Synthetics Ltd, the ultimate directions which were issued by the Special Court cannot be interfered with – The observations contained in the impugned order were for the purpose of issuing the directions for a disclosure of assets and would not preclude the custodian (first respondent) from urging that the Act of 1963 had no application to the Execution application which was filed for enforcement of the decree dated 28.02.2003 – Appellant directed to file his disclosure of assets subject to his right to urge his submissions in Execution application.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. An “interlocutory order” denotes an interim or temporary order which does not decide the important rights or liabilities of the parties. The Special Court in its order dated 6 March 2020 has conclusively held that the execution petition is not barred by limitation. The determination of the issue of limitation affects the rights and liabilities of the parties. Thus, the argument of the first appellant that the appeal is not maintainable in view of Section 10 of the Act of 1992 is rejected. [Para 13][173-D-E]
2. Section 18 of the Act of 1963 stipulates that if an acknowledgment of liability in writing is made before the expiration of the prescribed period for a suit or application in respect of any right, a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the acknowledgment was signed. Explanation
(c) to Section 18 states that an application for the execution of a decree or order shall not be deemed to be an application in respect of any property or right. In the present case, the Special Court has proceeded on the basis that there was an acknowledgement of liability by the letter of the appellant dated
22 February 2018. That finding is sought to be assailed by the appellant by urging that the acknowledgement of liability under Section 18 of the Act of 1963 has to be within the period of limitation and in the present case this test is not satisfied. On the other hand, it has been urged on behalf of the first respondent that the premise of the judgment of the Special Court that the Act of 1963 would stand attracted would run contrary to the decision of this Court in L S Synthetics Ltd. Based on the decision of this Court in L S Synthetics Ltd, the ultimate directions which have been issued by the Special Court cannot be interfered with. The observations contained in the impugned order were for the purpose of issuing the directions for a disclosure of assets and would not preclude the Custodian from urging that the Act of 1963 had no application to the Execution Application which was filed for enforcement of the decree dated 28 February 2003. The directions for the disclosure of assets and other consequential directions which have been issued are not interfered with in this appeal. The appellant is granted four weeks to file his disclosure of assets subject to his right to urge his submissions in the execution application. In the meantime, the Court has been apprised of the fact that an application has been filed for the arrest of the appellant. Conditional on the appellant making the disclosure of assets within four weeks as directed above, the application for arrest shall not be pursued until the Execution Application is decide. [Paras 17-20][176-F-H; 177-A-E]
Mohan Lal Magan Lal Thacker v. State of Gujarat AIR 1968 SC 733 : [1968] SCR 685 - followed.
L S Synthetics Ltd v. Fairgrowth Financial Services Ltd and Another (2004) 11 SCC 456 : [2004] 4 Suppl. SCR
109 - relied on.
Fairgrowth Investments Ltd v. Custodian (2004) 11 SCC
472 : [2004] 5 Suppl. SCR 505; Amar Nath v. State of Haryana, (1977) 4 SCC 137 : [1978] 1 SCR 222referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.