TMI Blog1994 (7) TMI 362X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992, Andhra Bank Financial Services Ltd. and Standard Chartered Bank. Shri Hiten P. Dalai has acted as broker in the transaction stated above. M/s. Andhra Bank Financial Services Ltd., the transferor of these bonds and the Standard Chartered Bank is another claimant of title to these bonds, besides the Can Bank Mutual Fund. 2. The above case was heard by us on different dates and certain interim orders were also passed including for the deposit of half-yearly interest in fixed deposit accounts. While the proceedings were continuing, it was brought to our notice that an Ordinance has been promulgated on January 25, 1994, namely, the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Amendment Ordinance, 1994, which subsequently has become an Act on receipt of the assent of the President on March 28, 1994. It was argued before us in yet another similar case relating to securities that by virtue of this Ordinance, the jurisdiction of the Company Law Board, in relation to any matter arising out of the transactions in securities entered into after April 1, 1991, and on or b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and hence exempted. He also drew our attention to letter 335/CUS/ANZ/CLB/ Pt 3126, dated January 20, 1994, of the custodian appointed under the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992. In his letter addressed to the Company Law Board, in reply to a reference made to him in another case, he has expressed a view that since a notified person is involved, the matter falls within the jurisdiction of the Special Court. He further added that the Company Law Board has already taken a decision to transfer its proceedings in that case, viz., in ANZ Grindlays Bank v. National Hydro Electric Power Corporation Ltd. [1995] 82 Comp Gas 747 (CLB), to the Special Court after considering the provisions of the Ordinance. Accordingly, the same ratio should be applied in this case as well, he stressed. 4. Arguments were submitted by Shri K. S. Cooper, senior advocate, on behalf of the Standard Chartered Bank to the effect that the Ordinance has no applicability to the Company Law Board. He pointedly drew our attention to Section 9A(1) of the Ordinance *See [1994] 79 Comp Cas (St.) 105, 106. which reads as follows : 9A. (1) On and from the commencemen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... He explained the purpose of the Ordinance in the background of the Special Court Act, 1992, and stated that the Special Court is already vested with the powers of a criminal court. However, in order to expedite the disposal of cases relating to notified persons, it was considered necessary to clothe the Special Court with the powers of a civil court also and as such the Ordinance took away the jurisdiction of civil courts in respect of those transactions which are spelt out in Section 9A(1). The purpose of this Ordinance is only to transfer cases pending before civil courts relating to security transactions by notified persons, but other matters pending before any other court will not be transferred to the Special Court. Sub-section (4)(d) of Section 10E of the Companies Act further makes the position very conclusive by the use of the words with regard to the Company Law Board every Bench shall be deemed to be a civil court . Sub-section (5) further makes it clear that natural justice shall prevail . This need not be stated specifically in the case of a court. Moreover, in the case of a civil court, the Civil Procedure Code will apply whereas in the case of the Company Law Board ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 94), as assented to on March 28, 1994. The words court or civil court have not been generally defined in the judicial dictionary or in any enactment. The characteristic features of a court are also not clearly spelt out specifically anywhere. However, the pronouncement of a distinctive judgment is considered an essential sine qua non for a court and unless and until a binding and authoritative judgment can be pronounced by a person or body of persons it cannot be pronounced that he or they constitute a court. Justice Venkatarama Iyer in Virindar Kumar Satyawadi v. State of Punjab, AIR 1956 SC 153, 157, after setting out a catena of judgments by the Privy Council, etc., has pronounced it may be stated broadly that what distinguishes a court from a quasi-judicial tribunal is that it is charged with a duty to decide disputes in a judicial manner and declare the rights of parties in a definitive judgment . The Supreme Court again in Dr. Bali Ram Woman Hiray v. Justice B. Lentin, AIR 1988 SC 2267 ; [1989] 176 ITR 1, has cited the same court's judgment in Jagannath Prasad v. State of U.P., AIR 1963 SC 416 ; [1963] 14 STC 536, which merely enumerates some negative propositions su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to agree to the proposition that the Company Law Board is a civil court. 9. We also observe that the objective of the Amendment Ordinance appears to be in consonance with the objective of the Special Court Act of 1992, namely, expeditious disposal in respect of civil matters wherever notified persons were involved. We also find that as at present the Company Law Board has parallel jurisdiction with the civil courts in respect of matters relating to companies by which the option is available to litigants either to go to the civil court in a suit or to come to the Company Law Board, under the specific provisions of the Companies Act. It appears that due to the unavoidable pendency of cases in civil courts involving a long waiting period the Legislature has considered it appropriate to amend the Special Courts Act to clothe the Special Court with the powers of a civil court with the objective of expeditious disposal especially in matters where notified persons were involved. The Amendment Act, however, does not intend to disturb the proceedings before the Company Law Board as it will not in any way in conflict with the objective of amendment. We, therefore, hold that the Special ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
