Calcutta High Court
Chandra Sekhar Samanta And Etc. Etc. vs Commissioner, Sanchaita Investments on 28 July, 1997
Equivalent citations: AIR1998CAL70, AIR 1998 CALCUTTA 70, (1998) 1 CAL WN 226
JUDGMENT Dibyendu Bhusan Dutta, J.
1. These three matters were heard analogously in view of the fact that they involve common questions of facts and law.
2. These three matters arise out of objections filed against an attachment effected by the Commissioner, Sanchaita Investments, in Case No. 163 of 1992, in exercise of the powers conferred by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by its orders dated 4-5-83 and 27-9-83, passed in Writ Petitions Nos. 638 and 757 to 800 and 1113 of 1983. By order dated 4-5-83, the Commissioner was empowered to lake charge of all the assets, documents and papers of the firm called Sanchaita Investments and of its agents, Sub-agents, transferees and benamdars. By order dated 27-9-83, the Commissioner was empowered to attach such assets and properties which, in his prima facie opinion, arc of the ownership of the firm Sanchaita Investments or of the ownershipof any of its partners, agents, Sub-agents, transferees and benamdars and also to put such assets and properties to sale if no objection against the attachment is received within a month from the date of attachment. If, on the other hand, objections are received against the attachment, the Commissioner is to forward them to the Special Division Bench which has been constituted under orders of the Supreme Court for adjudication.
3. The Commissioner, Sanchaita Investments by his order dated 14-9-92, attached a three-storeyed building at premises No. 17, Colonel Biswas Road, Calcutta, along with the land measuring three kattas underneath and all other appurtenances attaehed thereto, being of the prima facie opinion that the said property was of the ownership of the firm Sanchaita Investments and/ or its partnes, agents, Sub-agents, transferees and benamdars. The Commissioner served this order of attachment upon five persons namely, Chandra Sekhar Samanta. his wife Kalpana Samanta, his son Ananta Narayan Samanta and Dr. M.S. Ghosh and his wife Dr. (Mrs.) Ghosh, inviting objections from them.
4. Pursuant to this notice, three written objections were filed against the attachment on 30-11-92 --- one by Chandra Sekhar Samanta, one by his wife and son namely Kalpana Samanta and Ananta Samanta respectively and one by Dr. M. S. Ghosh and Dr. (Mrs.) M. S. Ghosh. These threeobjections have been registered respectively as Matters Nos. 260 to 262 of 1992.
5. The objections are more or less on the same lines.
Chandra Sekhar Samanta did not claim any right, title or interest in the attaehed property.
Dr. M.S. Ghosh and his wife Mrs. Ghosh claimed beneficial ownership over the entire first floor of the attached premises. They claimed to have acquired right, title and interest in respect of the said portion of the attached property by virtue of a registered deed of sale dated 29-7-92 for a price of Rupees three lacs, paid by seven instalments by cheques between 26-7-89 and 29-11-90, following an agreement which they entered into with Kalpana Samanta and Ananta Samanta on 26-7-89. According to them, they paid the consideration out of their own independent income and earning and they had nothing to do with the Sanchaita Investments or its partners, agents, Sub-agents, transferees and benamdars. They also claimed to be bona fide purchasers for value without notice. The first floor of the building concerned was not of the ownership of Sanchaita Investments or its partners, agents etc. and was owned by them and as such is liable to be released from attachment.
The case made out by Kalpana Samanta and his son Ananta Sainanta is that they jointly acquired the land comprised within the premises No. 17, Colonel Biswas Road, for a consideration of Rs. 80,000/- on 17-6-81 and got the premises mutated in their names on 11-12-81. They got building plan sanctioned by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation on 4-8-82 and made the construction of the three-storeyed building which commenced in the year 1986-87 and was completed in the year 1990-91. They constructed the building with their own independent fund and sold the first floor of the building for Rupees three lacs to Dr. M. S. Ghosh and his wife Dr. (Mrs.) Ghosh. prior to the attachment, by a deed of conveyance dated 29-/- 92 as alleged by Dr. Ghosh and his wife Mrs. Ghosh. They (Kalpana and Ananta) are the beneficial owners of the ground and the second floors of the building together with the land underneath comprised in the premises under attachment Chandra Sekhar Samanta is not, in any way, concerned with any part of the property under attachment. This property is also not of the ownership of Sanchaita Investments or its partners, agents, Sub-agents, transferees and bemanders and was not liable to be attached. The property is thus liable to be released from attachment.
Chandra Sekhar Samanta has supported the versions of his wife Kalpana and son Ananta and also their transferees Dr. Ghosh and Mrs. Ghosh.
In each of the written objections, the objectors annexed the same set of documents, namely (1) a copy of the conveyance by virtue of which Kalpana and Ananta are alleged to have acquired the land comprised within the attached premises, (ii) a copy of the assessment book of Calcutta Corporation in support of the mutation in the names of Kalpana and Ananta, and (iii) a copy of the conveyance dated 29-7-92 whereby the Ghosh couple are alleged to have acquired the first floor of the attached premises.
6. The Commissioner of Sanchaita Investment filed affidavit-in-opposition on 20-4-93 against each of the three objections filed against the attachment.
7. The Commissioner case, in a nutshell, may be stated as follows.
Sanchaita Investments was incorporated in July, 1975 by three partners. The business of the firm was to accept deposits from general public against payment of interest at high rate. Very soon the business attracted general public. The firm used to appoint agents and those agents were authorised to appoint Sub-agents for the purpose of acquiring the business of the firm. Agents and Sub-agents were all recruited from amongst friends, relatives and associates of the partners, the object being to keep the administration of the business confined to a close circle. Each agent was assigned distinct code number. The firm used to invest its funds in acquiring properties and assets, both movable and i mmovable, in the names of its agents, Sub-agents, transferees and benamdars. who are close to the partners. Such a policy of acquiring properties in the names of agents, Sub-agents, transferees and benamdars of the partners was adopted from the very beginning. Te motive was to defraud the depositors and creditors of the firm. By adopting the aforesaid policies, innumerable movable and immovable properties of substantial value were acquired by the said firm with its funds in the names of its agents, Sub-agents, transferees and benamdars, Chandra Sekhar Samanla was an agent of the firm with Code No. C-033 (new) and C-3 (old). He was working in railways and obtained voluntary retirement from his service after working for about 23 years. At the time of retirement, his salary was only Rs. 1600/-. He was to maintain his family and to meet the educational expenses of his son, Ananta. It was quite impossible for him to acquire any property of substantial value with such meagre income. Being a prominent agent of the firm it was not difficult for him to receive finance from the firm in acquiring properties in the names of his wife and son. In fact, the funds of the said firm had been diverted through him in acquiring properties in the names of the objectors so that the creditors and depositors of the firm would not be able to lay their hands in the properties of the firm in the names of its benamdars. Bureau of Investigation, Government of West Bengal, conducted raid, search and seizure in the office of the firm in December, 1980. Criminal proceedings were instituted against the partners of the firm including Chandra Sekhar Samanta. His residential house was also raided and searched by the police on 16 September, 1983. The property under attachment was acquired by the objectors with the fund received from Sanchaila Investments. They are not the true and real owners of the property. It belonged to and formed the assets of Sanchaita Investments. The attachment is valid and is liable to be made absolute. The Commissioner has also denied all the material allegations of the objectors including the allegation that the property was acquired by Kalpana Samanta and his son Ananta with their own fund. Kalpana and Atlanta having no right, title and interest in the property, Dr. Ghosh and his wife could not acquire any title and they are also not bona fide purchasers for value without notice.
8. Against the affidavit-in-opposition affirmed by the Commissioner. Sanchaita Investments, the objectors affirmed affidavits-in-reply.
Chandra Sekhar Samanta affirmed the affidavit-in-reply on 22-11-94 denying all the material averments made by the Commissioner in his affidavit-in-opposition. He has even denied theallegation that he was connected with Sanchaila Investments as its agent.
Dr. Ghosh affirmed the affidavit-in-reply for himself as well as his wife on 22-11 -94 reiterating their assertion that they acted in good faith in purchasing the first floor of the premisesconcerned and that they acquired valid title in respect thereof by purchase from Kalpana Samanta and Ananta.
Kalpana affirmed the affidavit-in-reply on 13-2-96 for and on behalf of herself as well as her son and disclosed in details the particulars of the different modes of acquisition of funds for herself as well as Ananta in support of their alleged acquisition of the attached property and annexed copies of several documents in support thereof.
9. Mr. P. K. Mullick with Mr. Samrat Sen representing all the objectors made the following points.
First, it is contended that the order of attachment is illegal since it is not in conformity with the order of the Apex Court conferring the power of attachment upon the Commissioner. According to the Supreme Court's order, the Commissioner was empowered to attach any property which, in his prima facie opinion, is of the ownership of Sanchaita Investments or of the ownership of its partners or agents or Sub-agents or transferees or benamdars. The Commissioner acted without jurisdiction in attaching the premises without precisely specifying, in the order of attachment, as to whether the property was of the ownership of Sanchaita Investments or of the ownership of its partners orof its agents or Sub-agents or transferees or benamdars. The Commissioner has also not made it clear in his affidavit-in-opposition. From the trend of the averments made in the affidavit-in-opposition, it would appear that the Commissioner's case is that the property in question was acquired by Chandra Sekhar Samanta, an agent of Sanchaita Investmcnts, with the fund of Sanchaita Investments, in the benami of his wife Kalpana and his son Ananta. If that be so, it would follow that the attachment was effected by the Commissioner on the footing that the property was of the ownership of the benamdars of an agent of Sanchaita Investments and not of the ownership of the benamdars of Sanchaita Investments itself, as contemplated in the Supreme Court order. According to Mr. Mullick, viewed from this angle, the order of attachment would be outside the scope and purview of the order of the Supreme Court which vested the powers in the Commissioner to effect the attachment and as such, the attachment would not be legally sustainable.
Secondly, Mr. Mullick's contention is that the order of attachment being based on the question of benami is hit by the mischief of the prohibition contained in Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988.
Thirdly, it is contended that even if the question of benami is not hit by the mischief of Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. the materials on record are sufficient to warrant a conclusion that the real owners of the property were Kalpana Samanta and her son Ananta Samanta and their transferees, Dr. Ghosh and his wife Mrs. Ghosh and as such, the order of attachment is not sustainable.
Lastly, it iscontended that even if it be assumed for the sake of argument that Kalpana Samanta and Ananta Samanta were not the real owners of the attached property, the attachment so far as it relates to the first floor of the premises concerned, is liable to be vacated in view of the fact that Dr. Ghosh and Mrs. Ghosh were bona fide purchasers thereof for value without notice.
10. Mr. Anindo Mitro with Mr. Samar Basu and Mr. Ashim Banerjee, appearing for the Commissioner of Sanchaita Investment, on the other hand, sought to refute all the contentions raised by Mr. Mullick.
The Supreme Court's order conferring extraordinary powers of attachment was meant to enure to the benefit of the depositors and creditors of Sanchaita Investments by roping in properties which were really the properties and assets of Sanchaita Investments, having been acquired with the funds of Sanchaita Investments, but which were sought to be secreted with a view to defrauding the depositors and creditors of Sanchaita Investments by means of acquiring them in the names of its partners, agents, Sub-agents, transferees and benamdars. The Commissioner, being an officer of the Supreme Court, appointed for the purpose of looking after the interest of the depositors and creditors of Sanchaita Investments, attached the disputed property, in view of his prima facie satisfaction that the said property was the property of Sanchaita Investments having been acquired with its funds which were diverted through its agent, Chandra Sekhar Samanta. This being the substantial case of the Commissioner, the contention thai the order of attachment was outside the scope and purview of the Supreme Court's order is devoid of any substance and should be negatived accordingly, Next, it is contended on behalf of the Commissioner that the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act does not affect the right of a third party to raise the question of benami and the Commissioner being a third party is not precluded from raising this question.
Thirdly, it is contended that the question of benami raised by the Commissioner is also protected by Section 6 of Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act.
The next contention on behalf of the Commissioner is that the materials placed on behalf of the objectors Kalpana and Ananta are not at all sufficient to substantiate their case that they had sufficient funds of their own to acquire the property under attachment.
Lastly, it is contended on behalf of the Commissioner that Dr. Ghosh and his wife Mrs. Ghosh were not bona fide transferees for value without notice and as such were not entitled to any exemption from this attachment, even if the transfer in their favour was genuine.
11. The point for our decision would be whether the subject-matter of the attachment or any part thereof is liable to be released from attachment.
12. Sanchaita Investment is a partnership firm floated with a small capital by three partners in or around 1975. Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act (43 of 1978) came into force on December 13, 1978. and, on the expiry of two years' period of grace allowed by the Act, an FIR was lodged against the firm on December 13, 1980. On that day, the office of the firm at Fancy Lane, Calcutta was searched by the police in course of which huge amount of cash was recovered. On that day, a search was also carried out in the residence of one of the partners and it led to the recovery of a pass-book in the name of a fictitious name showing a credit balance of Rs. 28,00,00,000/- (sic) as also huge amount of cash. Certain lists of agents were seized during investigation which showed that the Code numbers were assigned to at least 84 of them. The agents have acquired large properties at various places consisting of lands, apartments, cars etc. Staggering revelations came to light as a result of the searches at the office of the firm. The firm was holding deposits to the tune of more than 73 crores as on September 1, 1980. These deposits were received from all parts of the country. Several offices and concerns in Bombay were searched by the police and interesting discoveries were made. The Income-tax returns of one of the partners of the firm revealed that he had shown a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- as prizes received from Delhi Lotteries in 1979 and that the firm has not filed any income-tax return since June 30, 1977.
All these facts are available from the recitals in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal v. Swapan Kumar, .
13. In the Writ Petitions Nos. 638, 757 to 800 and 1113 of 1983, the Supreme Court appointed the Commissioner to assume charge of all assets and properties of Sanchaita Investments in order that the liabilities of Sanchaita Investments could be met from out of those assets. The whole purpose behind conferment of extraordinary powers upon the Commissioner for attachment and sale of properties of Sanchaitalnvestments was to benefit the depositors and creditors of the firm so that the properties which were acquired by the firm by means of diversion of its funds in the names of its partners, agents, Sub-agents, or friends or relatives, in whom they had confidence, i n order to defraud the depositors and creditors, could be unearthed and sold and out of the sale proceeds, dues of the depositors and other creditors could be paid.
14. The objections against the attachment should be examined in the light of the above background.
15. The pith and substance of the Commissioner's case as may be gathered from the averments made in the affidavit-in-opposition as a whole, is that the subject-matter of this attachment was in essence, an asset of Sanchaita Investments having been acquired with the funds of Sanchaita Investments, diverted through Chandra Sekhar Samanta, one of its prominent agents. As such, the point raised by Mr. Mullick that the order of attachment was vague and did not, strictly speaking, fall within the scope and purview of the Supreme Court's order in terms of which the order of attachment was effected is too hyper-technical to merit any consideration. The Commissioner was competent to attach any property i f he is prima facie satisfied that the said property is of the ownership of Sanchaita Investments or of the ownership of its partners or agents or Sub-agents or transferees or benamdars and it is for the objectors to establish that they were the real owners of the properties having acquired the properties with their own funds and not with the funds of Sanchaita Investments.
16. The disputed property extensively stands in the names of Kalpana Samanta and her son Ananta Samanta and also in the names of their transferees viz. Dr. Ghosh and Mrs. Ghosh and not in the name of Sanchaita Investments, or any of its partners or agents or Sub-agents. The Commissioner has attached this property on the plea that Sanchaitais the real ownerof the property and the property is held by Sanchaita Investments in the benami of the objectors.
17. The question is whether such a plea is hit by the mischief of Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, as suggested on behalf of the objectors.
Section 4 came into force retrospectively with effect from May 19, 1988. According to subsection (1)of Section 4 of the Act, no suit, claim or action to enforce any right in respect of any property held benami against the person in whose name the property is held or against any other person shall lie by and on behalf of the person claiming to be the real owner of such property. Sub-section (2) of Section 4 provides that no defence based on any right in respect of any property held benami, whether against the person in whose name the property is held or against any other person, shall be allowed in any suit, claim or action by and on behalf of the person claiming to be the real owner of such property.
18. It is urged on behalf of the Commissioner that the question of benami is not being raised in this proceeding by the Commissioner on behalf of the Sanchaita Investments. Sachaita Investments acquired the property in order to secrete it from the reach of the depositors and the Commissioner is looking after the interests of the depositors. He is raising this question of benami so that the property is made available for realisation of the dues of the depositors or creditors of Sanchaita Investments. In other words, according to the Commissioner, he is a third party whose right is not at all affected by Section 4 of the Act.
Reliance has been placed in this regard on a Division Bench decision of Orissa High Court, : Gopal Bariha v. Satyanarayan Das and an unreported case of Dilip Kumar Dhar v. Commissioner, Sanchaita Investments (Case No. 134 of 1988) decided on 22-9-92 by an earlier Sanchaita Bench of our High Court (comprising S. K. Mukherjee, J. and A.M. Sinha, J. as His Lordships then was), constituted in terms of the Supreme Court's orders for adjudication of objections against the attachments made by the Commissioner, Sanchaita Investments.
In the Orissa case, a member of the Scheduled Tribe had in a writ petition assailed the order of the revisional authority arising out of a proceeding under Section 23 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act. The opposite party No. 2 is a member of the Scheduled Tribe and had purchased the disputed properly. According to the petitioner, though the sale deed stands in the name of opposite party No. 2, the real transferee was opposite party No. 1 who belongs to a Non-Scheduled Tribe. On these allegations, the petitioner prayed for restoration of possession under Section 23 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act. According to the opposite parties 1 and 2, opposite party No. 2 was the real purchaser and the transfer, being from one Scheduled Tribe member to another Scheduled Tribe member, did not require any permission. On enquiry, the Revenue Officer held that the real transferee was opposite party No. 1 and to play fraud on the prohibition under Section 22 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, the sale deed had been executed in favour of opposite party No. 2. The order of the Revenue Officer was confirmed by the appellate Court. The opposite parties 1 and 2 preferred revision and the revisional authority allowed the revision and rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the Court has no jurisdiction under Section 23 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act to decide as to who is the real transferee when the sale deed stands in the name of opposite party No. 2. It was this order of the revisional authority that was assailed in the writ application. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the authorities under the Orissa Land Reforms Act had the jurisdiction to decide the question of Benami character of the sale and as such the revisional authority was required under law to give finding on fact as to whether the document which purported to transfer the interest of the petitioner to opposite party No. 2 was a real transfer to opposite parly No. 1. On behalf of the State, it was contended that in view of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, the Court could no more go into the question as to whether opposite party No. 1 was the real transferee. The Court negatived the contentions of the State and held that under Section 4(1), the real owner cannot file any suit, claim or action to enforce his right as the real owner on the plea that the ostensible owner is a Benamdar and that Section 4(1) of the Act prohibits the right of the real owner to enforce the same through Court against the Benamdar, while Section 4(2) destroys the right of defence of the owner to claim that he is the real transferee when the Benamdar files his suit to enforce his right. In other words, according to this decision, Section 4 takes into its ambit the right of a real owner vis-a-vis the ostensible owner and the prohibition under Section 4 (1) and (2) does not affect the right of a third party to get such a declaration.
In the unreported case referred to above, the Orissa case was cited and it was urged on behalf of the Commissioner that the Court can lift the veil of any ostensible transaction in order to examine the real nature of transaction to determine if such transaction was entered into fraudulently to defeat the claim of a creditor and that the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act would not operate as a bar to such an examination. But no decision appears to have been specifically recorded on that question.
The Sanchaita Bench, however, approached and decided that question from, another angle, as will be evident from the following observations :
"In our views, we need not go into the question while entertaining the objection against the order of attachment passed by the Commissioner of Sanchaita Investment in terms of the directions of the Supreme Court. This Court has been exercising its jurisdiction in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court which has laid down a scheme for recovery of money of the depositors of Sanchaita Investments and which has provided in the said scheme that the Commissioner appointed under the scheme is authorised to examine the transaction entered into by the agents or Sub-agents of Sanchaita Investment for acquisition of any property out of the fund of Sanchaita Investment or out of the income drawn by the agent or Sub-agent of that organisation and to attach such property on being prima facie satisfied about the acquisition of the properties by agents or Sub-agents. It further lays down in the said scheme if any person objects to such attachment, the High Court of Calcutta will entertain such objection and decide the validity of such objection on consideration of the facts and circumstances of a particular case. The decisions of the Supreme Court is binding on all Courts in view of the provisions of Article 141 of the Constitution. The High Court in the present case has been conferred a special jurisdiction for deciding the objection according to scheme laid down by the Supreme Court for protecting the interest of unfortunate depositors who had suffered for the collapse of the organisation, namely, Sanchaita Investment. This Court, in our view, therefore, cannot go beyond the terms of this scheme of the Supreme Court which has specially empowered this High Court to entertain and decide the merits of any objection against the attachment made by the Commissioner in accordance with the scheme. It is for the Supreme Court to change or vary the scheme laid down by it."
The above observations would go to suggest that the earlier Sanchaita Bench felt that the question of benami could be gone into in terms of die scheme framed by the Supreme Court since that scheme constituted a law declared by the Supreme Court within the meaning of Article 141 of the Constitution and such law declared by the Supreme Court was binding on all Courts.
In the context of this unreported decision of the earlier Sanchaita Bench, Mr. Mullick contended before us that this law was declared by the Supreme Court within the meaning of Article 141 of the Constitution long before the coming into operation of Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act and the said law must be deemed to have been amended by Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act but since the effect of Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act vis-a-vis the law declared by the Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution was not at all considered by the Sanchaita Bench in the above unreported case, the said decision cannot be pressed into service.
We will record our views later on the effect of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act vis-avis the law declared by the Supreme Court in terms of the scheme referred to in the unreported decision, at the appropriate stage.
Thus relying on the Orissa decision in Go'pal Bariha's case (supra), it can be safely held that the plea of benami, having been raised by the Commissioner of Sanchaita Investments as a third party, cannot be hit by the mischief of Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988,
19. It is urged on behalf of the Commissioner that his plea of benami cannot also be hit by the mischief of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act by reason of the provisions of Section 6 of the Act. Section 6 provides that nothing in this Act shall affect the provisions of Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 or any law relating to transfers for an illegal purpose and the transactions in question are covered by Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act.
20. On (behalf of the objectors, it has been contended that benami purchase is not a 'transfer' within the meaning of Section 53 of Transfer of Property Act and as such, Section 6 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 would not come to the rescue of the Commissioner.
A single Bench decision of Bombay High Court, reported in AIR 1936 Bom 160, Jamnabai Gulabchand v. Dattatraya Ramchandra, has been cited on this point on behalf of the objectors. In that case, the defendant No. 2 who is the wife of the defendant No. 1 purchased a house in 1926. In 1927, the plaintiff obtained a decree against defendant No. 1 in the Small Cause Court at Poona and filed an application to recover the amount of his decree by sale of the house which had been purchased by the defendant No. 2, the contention of the plaintiff being that defendant No. 2 purchased the house us benamdar for her husband, defendant No. 1. In 1929, the house was attached, and defendant No. 2 objected to the attachment under Order 21, Rule 58, Civil Procedure Code. Thereupon the plaintiff withdraw the attachment, and the application was disposed of. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a suit for a declaration that the house in dispute is owned by defendant No. 1 and was purchased benami in the name of defendant No. 2 and that it is liable to attachment and sale in execution of the plaintiffs decree. Both the lower Courts held that the house was purchased in the name of defendant No. 2 as benamdar for defendant No. 1. In second appeal before the High Court, the concurrent findings of fact of the lower Courts were not interfered with. Both the lower Courts agreed that the suit docs not fall within Order 21, Rule 63, Civil Procedure Code. The High Court held that the said rule would have applied if the plaintiff had not withdrawn his attachment and the order had been made against him dismissing his attachment. Since that course was not adopted, the High Court held that the case did not fall within Order 21, Rule 63 of Civil Procedure Code. The trial Judge, however, held that the case fell within S. 53 of T. P. Act, while the lower appellate Court was of the view that the said section is not applicable because there was no transfer of property from defendant No. 1 to defendant No. 2. The High Court only agreed with this view of the lower appellate Court without, however, assigning any further reasons.
21. As against this decision of the Bombay High Court, reliance was placed on behalf of the Commissioner on a decision of the Delhi High Court in P.N.B. Finance Ltd. v. Shital Prasad Jain, . It was a suit for recovery of loan, advanced to the defendant No. I by the plaintiff, payable with interest. The defendant No. i had represented that he would utilise that loan for purchase of immovable property and it was one of the terms that the loan would be secured by deposit of title deeds of the property as soon as it was purchased and registered in the name of defendant No. J. But no amount was repaid and the defendant No. 1 diverted the amount of loan to defendants Nos. 2 to 5 and defendants Nos. 3 to 5 purchased properties which were alleged to be held by them on behalf of the defendant No. 1 as the latter did not apply the loan directly for purchase of immovable properties in his name, in order to defraud the plaintiff, although loan has been given to him for the specific purpose, of purchasing immovable property. In this way, defendants Nos. 3 to 5 were sought to be made liable for repayment of loan and it was alleged that the plaintiffs allegations squarely fall within the definition of 'benami' transaction, and it was contended that there was complete bar to right of the real owner to recover property held benami, in view of Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. The Delhi High Court held that such a claim was protected by Section 6 of the Act from the applicability of Section 4. The Court observed: "When the allegations are of fraudulent transfer by one of the defendants in favour of the other defendants, it will, indeed, be too much if such transactions arc held to be protected underthccoverof the Act. The intention of the Act is to vest ownership rights in Benamdars as against the real owners. It is not the intention of the Act to protect such persons from the creditors who allege diversion of funds by such persons in fraudulent manner in order to escape their liability to creditors."
The Delhi High Court also relied on Rajmal v. Moti, AIR 1956 Bhopal 22 and Ah Foon v. Hoe. Lai Pat, AIR 1932 Rangoon 13. wherein it was held that the principles underlying Section 53 of. Transfer of Property Act ought to be applied in India to transactions relating to the transfer of moveablc property, upon the ground that those principles are in accordance with justice, equity and good conscience. Delhi High Court observed that even in the case of Chidambaram Chettiar, reported in AIR 1914 PC 137, Section 53 did not apply directly as the subject-matter of assignment f was not immoveable property but when the assignment was partly a device to defeat the creditors then the principle underlying it will apply to moveablc property also on the ground of equity, justice and good conscience.
Here also there is allegation of diversion of funds by Sanchaita Investments in fraudulent manners in order to escape its liability to its depositors and creditors.
Thus, applying the principles of law vis-a-vis Sections 4 and 6 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act and Section 53 of Transfer of Properly Act as laid down in M/s. P.N.B. Finance Ltd. (supra), with which we agree, it can be safely held that the acquisition of properties by Sanchaita Investments, if there be any, in the benami of others by diversion of its funds in order to defraud its depositors and other creditors will be hit by the mischief of Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act, even though such acquisitions do not constitute 'transfer' in the strict sense of the term, with the result that such transaction will be protected by Section 6 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988.
22. There is also another angle from which the matter can be looked at. By virtue of Section 6 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, not only Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act but also "any law relating to transfers for an illegal purpose" will be unaffected by the Act.
The orders passed by the Supreme Court from time to time in Writ Petitions Nos. 638.757 to 800 and 1113 of 1983, in terms of which the Supreme Court conferred extraordinary powers on the Commissioner of Sanchaita Investments for attachment and sale of properties of Sanchaita Investments on his mere prima facie satisfaction that the properties were of the ownership of Sanchaita Investments or of the ownership of its partners, agents, Sub-agents, transferees or benamdars and constituted a Special Bench and vested it with extraordinary jurisdiction for adjudication of the objections that may be raised against such attachments can, in our view, be construed not only as a law declared within the meaning of Article 141 of the Constitution but also as "a law relating to transfers for an illegal purpose" within the meaning of Section 6 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 and in such view of the matter, such a law can be said to have been duly protected by Section 6 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 from the operation of Section 4 of the Act.
23. It is now lime for us to focus our attention to the source of acquisition of the attached property as suggested on behalf of the objectors, Kalpana Samanta and her son Ananta Samanta.
The land covered by the attached premises is said to have been jointly purchased by Kalpana Samanta and her son Ananta by virtue of a registered deed of conveyance dated 17-6-81 for a consideration of Rs. 80,000/-. The consideration money is said to have been paid by a number of instalments during the period from 29-9-80 to 9-6-81.
Chandra Sekhar Samanta was a railway employee. He took his voluntary retirement from the Railways sometime in September, 1981 after putting in 23 years of service and according to the Commissioner, the monthly salary he was drawing at the time of his retirement was Rs. 1600/-. The said assertion of the Commissioner does not appear to have been seriously controverted by Chandra Sekhar Samanta.
It is significant to note that Ananta did his MBBS only in the year 1992 and was only aged about 14 years at the time of purchase of the land concerned.
It is the specific case of the Commissioner that Chandra Sekhar Samanta was a prominent agent of Sanchaita Investments. Even his old and new Code numbers have been disclosed in the affidavit-in-opposition. Chandra Sekhar Samanta, of course, gave a denial to this assertion in his affidavit-in-reply. But it is pertinent to point out that the Commissioner's averments in paragraph 8(xi) of the affidavit-in-opposition to the effect that criminal proceedings were instituted against the partners of Sanchaita Investments including Chandra Sekhar Samanta and that the residential house of Chandra Sekhar Samanta was raided and searched by the police on 16-9-83 -- do not appear to have been specifically denied by Chandra Sekhar Samanta in his affidavit-in-reply. After all, the Commissioner has been appointed by the Supreme Court only to look after the interest of the depositors and creditors of Sanchaita Investments and as such, it is difficult to hold that the Commissioner would be falsely alleging in his affidavit that Chandra Sekhar Samanta was a prominent agent of Sanchaita Investments and would go to the length of furnishing a false Code number, even if he was not an agent of the Sanchaita Investments.
The construction work of the building under attachment, according to the objectors, commenced during the year 1986-87 and was completed in the 1990-91. Even the consideration of Rupees three lacs which is said to have been paid by Dr. Ghosh and his wife for purchase of the entire first floor of the building from Kalpana Samanta and Ananta Samanta is said to have been utilised towards the cost of construction. The consideration of Rupees three lacs is said to have been paid by seven instalments during the periods from 26-7-1989 to 29-11-1990.
Neither the cost of construction of the three storied building within the attached premises nor the progress made in the construction work from time to time has at all been disclosed. No breakup of the cost, either floorwise or yearwise, has also been disclosed. Not a scrap of paper is forthcoming in support of the day-to-day expenses incurred in relation to the construction work.
Kalpana Samanta and Ananta Samanta made a detailed disclosure of the modes of acquisition of their respective funds in their affidavit-in-reply affirmed on 13-2-96. The break-ups of their individual and joint funds are given below.
Kalpana's Fund Ananta's Fund SI.
Source Date of Acquisition Amount (Rs.) SI.
Source Date of Acquisition Amount (Rs.)
1. Sale of Burdwan Property 18-6-76 33,000/-
2. Lotteries
i) U. P. 27-12-80 1,13,920/-
1. Lotteries
ii) Bhutan 25-02-81 1,19,815/-
i) Bhutan 1-1-81 1,19,81
ii) Tripura
-do-
62,190/-
3. LIC Policy Maturity :
i) Sept. 1982 10,062/-
ii) July, 1987 10,000/-
iii) July, 1992 64,880/-
4. Peerless Policy Maturity ...
20,500/-
5. Sale of shares ...
51,694/-
6. Gift from Chandra Sckhar Samanta
2. Gift from Chandra Sckhar Samanta
i) 15-6-87 20,000/-
i) 8-5-86 20,000/-
ii) 10-1-92 15,000/-
ii) 17-5-90 20,000/-
7. Loan from AM ROY 23-07-90 25,000/-
8. Rent of the ground floor of the premises April, 91 to March, 92 12,000/-
9. Sale of gold ornaments
i) 31-10-90 25,560/-
ii) 07-11-90 26,220/-
Joint Fund of Kalpana and Ananta SI.
Source Date Amount
1. Loan from Bank 19-3-87 Rs. 1,57,000/-
2. Consideration for sale of first floor of the attached premises 26-7-89 to 29-11-90 3,00,000/-
24. Let us now proceed to examine the genuineness or otherwise of the claims that have been made by Kalpana Samanta and her son Ananta Samanta in support of acquisition of their funds itemwise.
25. Regarding the item No. 1 of Kalpana's Fund, she claims to have acquired this fund by sale of a Burdwan property on 18-6-76. This Burdwan property is said to have been purchased by her on 8-1-65 for a sum of Rs. 20,504/- out of money gifted to her at the time of her marriage. A copy of an assessment order dated 13-5-82 appears to have been annexed with the affidavit in reply dated 13-2-96 to show that the acquisition of the Burdwan property and the sale thereof were shown in the return that was filed by Kalpana Samanta on 25-6-81 for the assessment year 1980-81. There is virtually no good ground for disbelieving this part of Kalpana's claim.
26. As regards the item No. 2 of Kalpana's Fund, the averments in paragraph 8(2)(a) of her written objection dated 30-11-92 are to the effect that Kalpana won two State Lotteries--one from U. P. for a sum of rupees two lacs on 11-7-80 and the other from Bhutan for a sum of rupees one lac twenty thousand on 9-11-80. As against the U. P. lottery, she claims to have received the net amount of Rs. 1,13,920/- by means of account-payee bank draft after deductions of agent's commission and the income-tax at source and the said net amount is said to have been credited to her bank account on 27-12-80, while as against the Bhutan Lottery of Rs. 1,20,000/-, she claims to have received the net amount of Rs. 1,19,815/- and this net amount is said to have been credited to her bank account on 25-2-81. The numbers of the two lottery tickets or the dates of their purchase have not at all been disclosed. No document is forthcoming in support of the fact that on the relevant dates she won the said lotteries. No document is also forthcoming to show that the net amounts were credited to her bank account on the relevant dates. There is no disclosure as to how much was deducted towards commission and how much towards the income-tax at source in relation to the U. P. Lottery. No document is also forthcoming in support of the alleged deduction of the agent's commission or of income-tax at source. As against the Bhutan Lottery, the net amount which is claimed to have been received by Kalpana fell short of the gross amount only by a sum of Rs. 185/- and this difference between the gross amount and the net amount has also, not been accounted for. Then again, the gross amounts of the two lotteries total Rs. 3,20,000/-, while the net amounts work out to 2,33,735/-. But, curiously enough, in paragraph 3(h), it is claimed that Kalpana won two State Lotteries for a total sum of Rs. 2,97,815/-. How this figure "2,97,815" was arrived at is not clear and its basis remains a mystery. Copy of an income-tax assessment order dated 2-3-84 against the return filed on 27-8-82 by Kalpana Samanta for the assessment year 1981-82 goes to suggest as if she claimed to have earned an income of Rs. 2,97,815/- from lotteries. In the said assessment order, credit for TDS to the tune of Rs. 64,080/- appears to have been allowed by the 1TO and it is not the case of Kalpana Samanta that the said amount represented the amount that was deducted towards income-tax at source against the U. P. Lottery won by her.
The story of winning lotteries by Kalpana Samanta is thus full of gross anomalies and discrepancies which cannot at all be explained. The conclusion, therefore, is irresistible that the stories of winning two lotteries as alleged by Kalpana Samanta is a myth and has been fabricated in support of this objection.
27. Before I deal with other items of Kalpana's Fund, I now take up the claim of Ananta Samanta regarding the income from lotteries that is so say, item No. 1 of Ananta's Fund. As per paragraph 8(2)(b) of the written objection, Ananta won two lotteries -- one for Rs. 1,20,000/- from Bhutan on 3-8-80 and another for Rs. 3,00,000/- from Tripura on 28-10-80. The net amounts alleged to have been received as against the said two Lotteries arc said to be respectively Rs. 1,19,815 and Rs. 62,190/- and both these amounts are said to have been credited to his bank account on 1-1-81. The numbers of the two lottery tickets and the dates of their purchase have not been disclosed. Not a single scrap of paper is forthcoming in connexion with the Bhutan Lottery. No paper is also forthcoming in support of the fact that he won the Bhutan Lottery on 3-8-80 and the net amount was credited to her bank account on 1-1-81. Here also no explanation is forthcoming as to why against the gross amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- (Bhutan Lottery) the net amount fell short by a sum of Rs. 185/- only. So far as the Tripura Lottery is concerned, it is alleged that the net amount was paid after deduction of Rs. 10,000/- towards agent's commission and also Rs. 27,810/- towards income-tax at source. A certificate of deduction of tax in relation to the Tripura Lottery appears to have been banked upon and annexed at pages 29 and 30 of the affidavit-in-reply filed on 13-2-96. This certificate does not at all inspire any confidence. It neither bears any date nor any signature of the authority by which it purports to have been issued. Moreover, it goes to suggest as if the amount won in this lottery was Rs. 90,000/ - and not Rs. 1,00,000/-, as alleged in paragraph 8(2)(b) of the written objection. Then again, at page 44 of the affidavit-in-reply, an assessment order dated 16-6-81 appears to have been annexed to show that the income from the Tripura as well as Bhutan Lottery was included by Ahanta Samanta in the return that he filed on 4-6-81 for the assessment year 1981-82. It also shows that credit for TDS for a sum of Rs. 27,810/- was given to the assessee. The income from Tripura Lottery is also stated, in this order to be Rs. 90,000/- as against Rs. 1,00,000/- specified in paragraph 8(2)(b). Moreover, as per written objection, the gross total of the two lotteries won by Ananta amounts to Rs. 2,20,000/- and the net amounts received by him total Rs. 1,82,005/-. But, curiously enough, in paragraph 4(d) of the affidavit-in-reply, it is claimed that he won two state lotteries for a total sum of Rs. 2,10,000/-.
Thus, on a scrutiny of the story of winning of lotteries by Ananta Samanta in the light of the materials on record, it appears to be full of irreconcilable anomalies and discrepancies which only go to suggest that the story is a myth.
28. I now take up the third item of the Fund of Kalpana Samanta, that is, her income from LIC policy. The relevant case is sought to be made out in paragraph 3(b) of the affidavit-in-reply dated 13-2-96. On a scrutiny of the averments in the said paragraph, it will appear that she claims to have received the amounton maturity of certain policies. Apparently, it suggests as if she received three different amounts such as Rs. 10,062.50, Rs. 10,000.00 and Rs. 64,880.00 on three different occasions such as September, 1982, July 1987, and July 1992 respectively against three different policies, but a closer scrutiny will at once reveal that the last two payments were received by her against one and the same policy namely policy No. 33460913. Annexures B9, B10 and B11 are relied upon as the documents to substantiate the claim regarding the income from LIC Policies. These documents purport to be letters dated 20-8-82, 23-7-87 and 1-7-92 issued by the LICI enclosingchequesforRs. 10,062.50, Rs. 10,000.00 and Rs. 64,880.00 in favour of Kalpana Samanta, the first being in her individual capacity and the other two being in the capacity of a trustee. A closer scrutiny of these letters would at once bring to light that they all relate to one and the same policy that is to say policy No. 33460931. They further show that the said policy was on the life of Chandra Sekhar Samanta, the husband of Kalpana Samanta and that it matured on three different dates such as 15-7-82, 15-7-87 and 15-7-92. It is really not clear either from the case made out in the affidavit-in-reply dt. 13-2-96 or from these letters how the said policy could mature thrice --first on 15-7-82 for a sum of Rs. 10,062.80, next on 15-7-87 for a sum of Rs. 10,000,00 and again on 15-7-92 for a sum of Rs. 64,880.00.
Be that as it may. Of the three payments, it can at once be said that the last payment that is the payment of Rs. 64,880/- in July, 1992 does not at all merit any consideration whatsoever in view of specific case of the objectors that the construction work of the attached building had already been fully accomplished at most by the end of the year 1990-91. Then again, the policy being one on the life of Chandra Sekhar Samanta, it was he who can be said to have financed the policy and as such the amounts that are said to have been received against that policy on 20-8-82 and 23-7-87 cannot enure to the benefit of Kalpana Samanta so as to constitute her own independent fund.
29. As regards the item No. 4 of Kalpana's Fund, the relevant disclosures appeal to have been made in paragraph 3(1), Two a/c payee cheques are said to have been issued by the Peerless Finance Corporation Ltd. in payment of two sums of Rs. 19,000/- and Rs. 1,5000/- aggregating Rs. 20,5000/-. The date or dates on which the amounts were received have not at all been disclosed nor a scrap of paper is forthcoming to substantiate the alleged receipts. As such, it is difficult to accept the story, on this point.
30. Regarding the next, item that is income from sale of 'shares (item No. 5 of Kalpana's Fund), the disclosure is made in the paragraph 3(g) of the affidavit-in-reply dated 13-2-96. The amounts at which the shares are alleged to have been sold by her during the period from September, 1984 to January, 1985 total Rs. 51,694/-. There is hardly any convincing document in support of the acquisition of the alleged shares and their sales. As the materials on record stand, we must say that the story of income from shares is far from being proved.
31. The next item of Kalpana's Fund (item No. 6) consists of two gifts of cash dt. 15-6-87 and 10-1-92 from her husband, Chandra Sekhar Samanta and even a certificate issued by Chandra Sekhar Samanta has been filed in support of one of the gifts that is alleged to have been made on 15-6-87. The story of acquisition of fund by gift from husband is hardly convincing in the facts and circumstances of the case.
32. The item No. 7 is a loan of Rs. 25,000/-alleged to have been advanced on 23-7-90 by one A.M. Roy on interest at the rate of Re 1/- per cent per annum. Copy of a declaration by Kalpana Samanta on the letterhead of the alleged lender confirmed by the lender has been filed in support of the alleged loan. The story of loan hardly inspires confidence.
33. Regarding the item of rental income (item No. 8), copies of some counter foils of rent receipts have been filed to show realisation of rent @ Rupees one thousand per month in respect of the ground floor of the attached premises during the period from April, 1991 to March, 1992. The construction of the building is alleged to have been completed in the year 1990-91. As such, the income that might have accrued to Kalpana and Ananta after the expiry of the financial year 1990-91 deserves no consideration.
34. Regarding the item of income by sale of gold ornaments (i.e. the last item of Kalpana's Fund), copies of vouchers, purchase memos and cheques have been filed to suggest that Kalpana Samanta received a sum of Rs. 51,780/- by sale of gold ornaments on 31-10-90 and 7-12-90 but they do not appear to be convincing.
35. We now come to the joint fund of Kalpana and Ananta. The first item comprises a loan of Rs. 1,57,000/- which Kalpana and her son Ananta are alleged to have jointly taken from a bank on 19-3-87. No connecting document worth the name is forthcoming to substantiate the genuineness of the claim.
36. We now come to the last item of the statement of joint income of Kalpana and Ananta. It represents the consideration money said to have been paid by the objectors Dr. Ghosh and his wife Dr. (Mrs.) Ghosh in 7 instalments between 26-7-89 and 29-11-90 for purchase of the first floor of the attached premises. There is nothing on record to indicate any collusion between the objectors Dr. Ghosh and his wife on one side and the remaining objectors constituting the family of Chandra Sekhar Samanta on the other. It is not the case of the Commissioner that Dr. Ghosh and his wife had no means to pay the consideration amount of rupees three lacs. There is also nothing on record to indicate that Dr. Ghosh and his wife were directly or indirectly connected with the business of Sanchaita investments. Passing of consideration under the registered deed of conveyance dated 29-7-92 which was executed by Kalpana Samanta arid her son Ananta for sale of the entire first floor of the attached premises has also not been seriously challenged on behalf of the Commissioner. As such, it can be said to have been proved that Dr. Ghosh and his wife paid the consideration for purchase of the first floor of the premises concerned.
37. On a careful analysis of the claims that have been made by Kalpana and Ananta in support of their independent source of funds, individual and joint, as tabulated above, in the light of the materials on record, we find that barring the item No. 1 of Kalpana's fund which consists of income said to have been received by sale of Burdwan property in the year 1996 and the item No. 2 of the joint fund of Kalpana and Ananta consisting of the consideration money for the sale of first floor of the premises, the claims of Kalpana and Ananta having independent funds of their own are not at all acceptable.
38. There is practically no cogent and convincing material worth the name on record to warrant a conclusion that the item No. 2 of the joint fund of Kalpana and Ananta was ever utilised in the construction work of the attached building or in acquisition of any part of the attached property.
39. Thus, having anxiously considered all the facts and attending circumstances revealed from the materials on record and taking all the probabilities into account, we are on the whole, convinced that the attached property was acquired with the funds of Sanchaita Investments diverted through its agent Chandra Sekhar Samanta with view to defrauding depositors and creditors of Sanchaita Investments, and not with any independent fund of Kalpana and Ananta.
It is true that we found no good ground to reject Kalpana's claim of acquisition of an independent fund of her own to the extent of Rs. 33,000/- in June, 1976 by sale of Burdwan property by reason of which she could at best be entitled to claim set off for the said amount of Rs. 33,000/- as against the value of the attached property but then in view of the fact that Kalpana and her son had received a sum of Rupees 3 lacs as the price for sale of the first floor of the premises to Dr. Ghosh and his wife, the qpestion of Kalpana's entitlement to a set-off to the tune of Rs. 33,000/- against the total value of the attached property would not arise.
40. So far as the case of Dr. Ghosh and Mrs. Ghosh is concerned, the Commissioner could not place anything on record to establish any connexion between them and the Sanchaita Investments. The conveyance dated 29-7-92 executed by Kalpana and Ananta in favour of Dr. Ghosh and his wife Mrs. Ghosh in respect of the first floor of the premises recites the passing of consideration to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/- between 26-7-89 and 29-11-90 in 7 instalments from Dr. Ghosh and his wife to Kalpana and Ananta and there is virtually no cogent reason to doubt the genuineness of the recitals pertaining to passing of consideration. The only question that would arise for our determination in connexion with the objection of the Ghosh couple is whether they were bona fide transferees with notice. There was a registered deed of conveyance dated 17-6-81 in respect of the land covered by the concerned premises standing in the names of Kalpana and Ananta. The said land also stood mutated on 11-12-81 in the names of Kalpana and Ananta. The building plan sanctioned by the Calcutta Corporation on 4-8-82 stood in the names of Kalpana and Ananta and it is not disputed that the said plan was renewed from time to time up to the date of conveyance in favour of Dr. Ghosh and his wife. Mr. Ghosh and his wife were not supposed to know that Chandra Sekhar Samanta was a prominent agent of Sanchaita Investments or, for that matter, that there was diversion of funds of Sanchaita Investments through Chandra Sekhar Samanta for the purpose of acquisition of the property comprising the premises No. 17, Colonel Biswas Road in the names of Kalpana and Ananta. In the circumstances, we feel inclined to hold that the objectors Dr. Ghosh and his wife were bona fide purchasers for value without notice.
41. In view of our findings recorded above, it would necessarily follow that the objections of Chandra Sekhar Samanta, his wife, Kalpana Samanta and son Ananta Samanta wquld fail, while the objections of pr. M. S. Ghosh and his wife Dr. (Mrs.) Ghosh would succeed.
42. In the result, the objections filed by Chandra Sekhar Samanta, Kalpana Samanta and Ananta Samanta which are registered as Matters Nos. 260 and 261 of 1993 are hereby dismissed, without cost. The objections filed by Dr. (Ghosh and his wife Dr. (Mrs.) Ghosh and registered as Matter No. 262 of 1993 are hereby allowed without costs.
The entire first floor of the premise's No. 17, Colonel Biswa Road which forms the subject-matter of attachment effected by the Commissioner by his order dated 14-9-92 passed in case No. 163 of 1992 is hereby released from the attachment.
The attachment in respect of the remaining part of the attached premises is hereby affirmed and made absolute.
The Commissioner is directed to put to sale through public auction the property in respect of which the attachment is hereby affirmed and to deliver vacant possession thereof to the purchasers by removing all persons in unauthorised occupation thereof in execution of this order, if necessary, with the police help. The sale proceeds be utilised in repayment of the dues of the depositors. All the three matters stand disposed of accordingly.
Gitesh Ranjan Bhattacharjee, J.
43. I agree.
The verbal prayer for stay of the operation of this order is considered and rejected.