Bombay High Court
The Custodian vs Acharya Arun Dev on 21 September, 2018
Author: A.K. Menon
Bench: A.K. Menon
11-spmp-92-1996
rrpillai IN THE SPECIAL COURT (TRIAL OF OFFENCES RELATING TO
TRANSACTIONS IN SECURITIES) ACT, 1992
MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 92 OF 1996
WITH
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 418 OF 2003
WITH
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 8 OF 2018
The Custodian ... Petitioner
vs.
Acharya Arun Dev & Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 80 OF 2004
Devang Vyas ... Applicants
vs.
The Custodian ... Respondents
Mr. Hormaz Daruwalla a/w. Ms.Shilpa Bhate i/b. M/s.Leena Adhvaryu & Associates
for the Petitioner.
MS. Mamta Sadh a/w. Mr. Asim Naphde i/b. Goenka & Associates for Respondent
nos. 1(a), (b) and (c).
Mr. Ajay Panicker a/w. Mr. Amit Kakri i/b. Ajay Law Associates for Respondent nos.
9, 14 and 25.
Mr. Ashwin Mehta for Respondent nos. 23(a), (b), (c) and 24.
Ms. Niyathi Kalra a/w. Ms. Rujuta Patil i/b. M/s. Negandhi Shah & Himayatullah for
Respondent no. 16.
CORAM : A.K. MENON, J.
Judge, Special Court Date : 21 st SEPTEMBER, 2018.
P.C. :
1. At the hearing of this application on 12 th January, 2018 the matter came to be adjourned for final hearing since it was stated to be wrongly shown under the caption for framing issues. Thereafter on 15 th January, 11-spmp-92-1996 2018 the counsel for the respondents nos. 1(a) to (c) sought time to file affidavit. Time was accordingly granted, extension was sought on 6 th April, 2018 and thereafter time to file rejoinder on behalf of respondent nos. 23 and 24 was also extended.
2. On 7th June, 2018 time was granted to respondent no. 23 and 24 as well. Thereafter the matter was taken up for hearing on 5 th July, 2018 and on 26th July, 2018 the matter remained part heard and was thereafter adjourned for convenience of the Counsel.
3. Apropos the aspect of proof that shares forming subject matter of this petition order are the same as the subject matter of MA/282/1993 and as dealt with in the order dated 16 th October, 1996 in that matter, counsel for respondent nos. 1(a) to (c) states on instructions of respondent 1(d) that they would like to consider whether or not to lead oral evidence in the matter especially in view of the order dated 10 th July, 2003 passed in this petition which has since become final upon dismissal of the SLP preferred by the original late respondent no.1 during his life time.
4. In view of the difficulty expressed on behalf of the heirs viz respondents 1(a) to 1(c) in obtaining particulars, I find appropriate that the some time may be granted.
5. Stand over to 27th September, 2018 to enable the counsel to make an appropriate statement.
(A.K. MENON, J.)
Digitally signed
Rajeshwari by Rajeshwari
Ramesh Ramesh Pillai
Date: 2018.09.24
Pillai 11:07:13 +0530