Custodian vs Acharya Arun Dev on 18 January, 2019

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Custodian vs Acharya Arun Dev on 18 January, 2019

Bench: A.K. Menon

                                                                9.spmp-92.96.odt



      IN THE SPECIAL COURT (TRIAL OF OFFENCES RELATING TO
        TRANSACTIONS IN SECURITIES) ACT, 1992 AT BOMBAY


                 MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.92 OF 1996


The Custodian                                       ... Petitioner
      v/s.
Acharya Arun Dev & Ors.                             ... Respondents

WITH MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.418 OF 2003 WITH MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.80 OF 2004 WITH MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.8 OF 2018 Mr. Hormaz Daruwalla a/w Ms. Shilpa Bhate I/b. M/s. Leena Adhvaryu Associate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ravi Goenka and Narendra Devansh I/b. Goenka & Associates for respondent nos.1(a), (b) and (c). Mr. Ajay Panicker a/w Amit Kakri I/b. Ajay Law Associates for respondent nos.9, 14 and 25.

Mr. Ashwin Mehta a/w Sanjay Naukudkar for respondent nos.23(a), (b),

Ms. Niyathi Kalra a/w Ms. Rutuja Patil I/b. Ms. Negandhi Shah & Himayatullah for respondent no.16.

CORAM : A.K. MENON JUDGE, SPECIAL COURT DATE : 18TH JANUARY, 2019.

1/3 ::: Uploaded on - 19/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/01/2019 01:52:16 :::

9.spmp-92.96.odt P.C. :

1. The learned counsel for respondent no.1(a), (b) and (c) points out that in the order dated 19th October, 2018, there are typographical errors. The same are corrected as follows:-

(i) In paragraph 2 line no.13, reference to "Sr. No.1" shall be corrected to read as "Sr. No.11".

(ii) In paragraph 4 reference to "Sr. No.3" in the opening sentence shall be corrected to read as "Sr. No.2".

2. The learned counsel for respondent nos.1(a) to (c) also points out that as far as document at Sr.No.3 of the compilation is concerned, the said respondents had relied upon a photocopy of an order passed in Suit No.711- A/89 on the file of the High Court of Delhi which came to be marked "X-1"

for identification but he has now tendered a copy of the reported judgment. In view of the fact that the reported judgment is now tendered is marked Exhibit R-6.

3. Furthermore, it appears that as far as Sr.No.7 of the compilation is concerned, the learned counsel submits that it has not been marked though the original award has been tendered as part of the compilation. Mr. Daruwalla has no objection if said is to be marked. The original award is now on file accordingly, the document at Sr.No.7 shall now be marked as Exhibit R-7.

2/3 ::: Uploaded on - 19/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/01/2019 01:52:16 :::

9.spmp-92.96.odt

4. The original order shall be corrected and the corrected order shall be uploaded on the server.

5. Today the cross examination of Mr. Amit Parwal remains incomplete.

6. Stand over to 1st February, 2019 for further cross examination.

(A.K. MENON, J.) wadhwa 3/3 ::: Uploaded on - 19/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/01/2019 01:52:16 :::

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Bombay High Court