TMI Blog2008 (8) TMI 558X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave not altered any other part of the order dated 13-3-2008. However, the other application filed on behalf of the appellant for extension of time to pay the third instalment in terms of our order dated 13-3-2008, is taken on Board and is allowed and time for deposit of the said instalment is extended till 18-8-2008. - IA NOS. 3 AND 4 OF 2008 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1528 OF 2005 - - - Dated:- 4-8-2008 - C.K. THAKKER AND ALTAMAS KABIR, JJ. ORDER 1. Interlocutory Application No. 3 of 2008 has been filed in Civil Appeal No. 1528 of 2005, which had been disposed of on 13-3-2005, with certain directions. 2. The Custodian under the Special Courts (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992, took out Mis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order dated 24-11-1999. Upon hearing the matter extensively, the Special Court came to the conclusion that the noticee/applicant herein had committed criminal contempt of court and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and also directed him to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000. The said order was suspended for a period of 12 weeks, within which period the applicant filed Civil Appeal No. 1528 of 2005. 5. In the appeal a suggestion was mooted on behalf of the appellant/ applicant that he would pay the amount of Rs. 1,26,25,000, being the balance decretal amount of Rs. 1,42,00,000 in three instalments, of which the first instalment would be paid on 3-4-2006, the second on 10-7-2006 and the third by 4-12-2006 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt would cease to be operative and the order appealed against would revive. 7. Now a fresh application, being I.A. No. 3 of 2008, has been filed in the Appeal once again agitating that the decretal amount should be Rs. 1,42,65,000 less Rs. 15,00,000, instead of the amount of Rs. 1,59,04,500, together with interest, as indicated in our order of 13-3-2008. However, when the application was taken up for consideration, it was submitted by Mr. Nageshwar Rao, learned senior counsel, that he was not pressing the said prayer in the application, but he was seeking a modification of the directions contained in our order of 13-3-2008, where in Paragraph 15 we had indicated while allowing the application filed by the Custodian that the decretal amo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
