Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The question arose in these circumstances. The Canara Bank (the appellant) had made an application before the CLB under Section III of the Companies Act seeking relief against the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. (the first respondent), which had refused to register in its books in the name of the Canara Bank bonds of the Nuclear Power Corporation purchased by the Canara Bank. The Stan-

dard Chartered Bank (the fourth respondent) had also claimed ownership of the said bonds. The Canara Bank alleged that it had acquired the said bonds from the Andhra Bank Financial Services Ltd. (the third respondent) through one Hiten P. Dalal, (the second respondent) who had acted as a broker. Hiten P. Dalal is a person notified under the provisions of Section 3(2) of the Special Court Act and was, as the application of the Canara Bank before the CLB showed, involved as a broker in the transaction relating to the said bonds. The application of the Canara Bank was pending disposal before the CLB when, on 25th January, 1994, the Special Court Act was amended by the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Amendment Ordinance, 1994, and Section 9-A was introduced. The Canara Bank and the Nuclear Power Corporation took the stand that the application of the Canara Bank stood transferred to the Special Court by virtue of the provisions of Section 9-A(2) of the Special Court Act. The Standard Chartered Bank (Stanchart) contended that the CLB retained the jurisdiction to deal with the application. The CLB held that it was not a court within the meaning of the Companies Act nor was it a civil court. Its jurisdiction was, therefore, unaffected by the provisions of Section 9-A (2) of the Special Court Act. The Special Court Act.

ficial Gazette under the provisions of this Act or that other law.

Reference to the provisions of Section 105 has already been made.

20.It is to be noted that the CLB performs functions which are administrative, as under Sections 224 and 269, and curial, as under Section 111.

Contentions.

21.Mr. Salve, learned counsel for the Canara Bank, who was supported by Mr. J.C. Seth, learned counsel for the Nuclear Power Corporation, submitted that Section 9-A(1) conferred upon the Special Court the jurisdiction of a civil court "in the wider sense", as including courts exercising powers conferred upon civil courts. The word 'civil' was used in Section 9A(1) to contrast the provisions thereof with those of Section 9(2), whereunder the Special Court was given all the powers of a Court of Session. The jurisdiction of the Special Court, until the coming into force of the Amendment Ordinance, under Sections 7,8 and 9 of the Special Court Act was in respect of criminal matters and the powers of a Court of Session had, therefore, been conferred upon it. It was found necessary to confer upon the Special Court the powers of a civil court to deal with the civil matters set out in Section 9-A(1). Such an interpretation of Section 9A was in accord with the legislative intent, which was to exclude from the jurisdiction of all courts save the Special Court the matter described in Section 9-A(1). A clear indication of this was provided by Section 9B by reason of which even matters in court relating to arbitration proceedings concerning causes of action arising out of the matters specified in Section 9-A(1) were confined to the Special Court. The legislative intent was to place all cases arising out of such causes of action before the Special Court so that a court having knowledge of all the cases would decide all matters provided for in the Special Court Act. A purposive interpretation ought, therefore, to be placed upon the provisions of Section 9-A. Emphasis was laid upon the fact that, by reason of Section II 1(7) of the Companies Act, the CLB had the power to decide the title of the securities in question before it; the jurisdiction in this behalf conflicted with the jurisdiction exclusively conferred upon the Special Court by Section 9-A.

22.Mr. Nariman, learned counsel for Stanchart, submitted that the relevant question was whether the CLB was a 'civil court'. In his submission it was not. Mr. Nariman drew attention to the provisions of Section 13 of the Special Court Act, which stated that the provisions of the Special Court Act would have effect notwithstanding anything contained, inter alia, "in any decree or order of any court, tribunal or other authority", and emphasised the distinction made by Parliament between court, tribunal and other authority. The CLB was not intended to be covered by the provisions of Section 9-A(1), for those provisions did not exclude the jurisdiction of a tribunal or authority but only of a court. Secondly, the jurisdiction of the Special Court was in regard to matters arising out of transactions in securities entered into between the stated dates in which a person notified was involved as a broker, intermediary or in any other manner. It would be very difficult for an intending litigant to know whether a person notified had been involved in a transaction relating to securities which he had purchased and which were not being registered in his name, as a broker or intermediary or in any other manner at any time between the stated dates. It was, therefore, inappropriate to hold that such a litigant was bound to take recourse to the law before the Special Court and not before the CLB under Section 111 of the Companies Act, par- ticularly when, by reason of the provisions of the latter provision, he had to move ,within a specified time limit.The interpretation suggested on behalf of the Canara Bank was not really a purposive interpretation. Attention was drawn to the provisions of Section 4 whereunder the Custodian was entitled, if satisfied after such inquiry as be thought fit that any contract or agreement entered into between the stated dates in relation to any property of a person notified under Section 3(2) had been entered into fraudulently or to defeat the provisions of the Special Court Act, to cancel such contract or agreement whereupon such property stood attached. Even if the CLB under the provisions of Section 111 of the Companies Act made any order ,with regard to any securities, that order would stand at naught if an order relating to the same securities was made under Section 4 of the Special Court Act by reason of the fact that, under Section 13 of the Special Court Act, the Special Court Act had effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any decree or order of any court, tribunal or other authority. In any event, an appeal did not stand transferred to the Special Court under the provisions of Section 9A(2), and what was filed before the CLB under Sec- tion III of the Companies Act was an Appeal. Discussion.

35. For all these reasons, the appeal must succeed. Noorder on the transfer petition is now called for.

36. The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of the CLB under appeal is set aside. The application of the Canara Bank pending before the CLB shall stand transferred to the Special Court constituted under the provisions of the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992.

37. the Transfer Petition is dismissed.

38. There shall be no order as to costs.