Holding

The Special Court has jurisdiction over all properties of a notified person, can be approached by the notified party, the Custodian, or suo motu, and the Limitation Act does not apply to its proceedings; therefore, the orders directing repayment with interest stand.

Summary

The Supreme Court considered appeals by L.S. Synthtics Ltd. against orders of the Special Court under the Special Courts (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992, which had directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs 34,99,900.68 with interest to the Custodian on behalf of the notified party, Fairgrowth Financial Services Ltd. The appellant argued that the transaction did not arise out of securities, that Section 9A should be read down, that the Limitation Act, 1963 barred the claim, and that the Special Court lacked jurisdiction to order interest. The Court held that the Special Court’s jurisdiction is not confined to illegal securities transactions; it may entertain proceedings initiated by the notified party, the Custodian, or suo motu, and all properties of a notified person are subject to attachment under Section 3(3). It further held that the Limitation Act does not apply to proceedings under the 1992 Act, and that the Court may order interest as restitution for the use of attached funds. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.

Issues considered

The scope of jurisdiction of the Special Court under Section 9A of the 1992 Act, especially where the transaction is not a securities transaction.
Whether the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to proceedings before the Special Court.
Who has locus standi to initiate proceedings before the Special Court – the notified party, the Custodian, or the Court suo motu.
Whether the Special Court can direct payment of interest in the absence of an explicit agreement.
Whether Section 9A should be read down to limit the Court’s jurisdiction.

Legislation cited

Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 3
Limitation Act, 1963s. 29(2)
Special Courts (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992s. 11, s. 13, s. 3(2), s. 3(3), s. 9A

Subjects

Special Court jurisdictionStatutory attachmentNotified personLimitation ActSection 9AInterest restitutionSecurities transactionNon obstante clause

Judgment

L.S. SYNTHETICS LTD.
v.
FAIRGROWTH FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. AND ANR.

SEPTEMBER 6, 2004

[N. SANTOSH HEGDE, S.B. SINHA AND A.K. MATHUR, JJ.] B

Special Courts Trial of Offences relating to Transactions in Securities
Act, 1992-Sec 9A-Jurisdiction of-For recovery of sums due to notified
party-Held, not confined to securities and illegal transactions alone-Held,
further proceedings can be initiated at the instance of Notified Person- .
c
Section 3(2)-Rule 2 of the Rules 1992-Held, all properties belonging
to the notified person shall be subject to attachment.

Limitation Act, 1963-Section 29(2)-Provisions of-Held not applicable
for transactions under the Act of 1992. D
A notification was issued by the Custodian notifying Respondent
No.l as a notified party in terms of the provisions of the Special Courts
(Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992.

Appellant had obtained short term loans amounting to Rs. 14.25
E
lakhs from the notified party during the period 1.4.1991 to 6.6.1992 as
specified in the said Act. The Custodian called upon the Appellant herein
to furnish particulars of the said loans pursuant to or in furtherance
whereof the Appellant herein accepted the same to be outstanding as on
30.6.1992 in the books of Respondent No. l payable to him. On the said
amount of loan, interest at the rate of 21 % per annum was payable. F
Appellant was directed to deposit the principal amount by the
Custodian which was not complied with. The concerned Chartered
Accountant, however, gave a cert~ficate to the effect that a sum of Rs.
14.25 lakhs was advanced as loan to the appellantby respondent no.1
with interest at 21 % per annum and that the total sum outstanding was
Rs. 34,98,967.04. Respondent No. 1 initiated a proceeding before the
Special Court praying for a direction to the Appellant to pay to the
Custodian a sum of Rs. 34,99,900.68 on its behalf.

Appellant contended before the Special Court that the claim is H
109
;L
I IO SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A barred by limitation and there is no provision in the Act to recover time
barred debts, and that the transaction in question having not arisen out j
of transactions in securities, the Special Court had no jurisdiction to.
deal with the matter and that therefore Section 9A of the Act should be ..--
•'read down. The Special Court rejected the contention· and held that
once a property is found to be owned by a notified party, all claims
B relating thereto must be adjudicated upon by the Srecial Court. It also
held that the provisions of the Limitation Act have no application to the
proceedings under the Act.

Jn appeal to this Court the Appellant contended that the advances
c made by the Respondent being not transactions of the nature specified
in the Act, an application filed by the notified party was not maintainable;
that the provisions of the said Act and in particular those contained in
Section 9A must be read down so as to uphold the constitutionality of
.",

the said Act; that by reason of the provisions of the said Act, the plea
of limitation which could have been taken by the appellant had a suit
D been filed by the Respondent No. 1 against it, would still be available as
the transaction is of civil nature; that only because a statutory attachment
comes into force by reason of Section 3(3) of the Act, the property of the
notified does party not vest in the Custodian; that the notified party had
no locus to initiate the proceedings before the Special Court; that in the
E alternative there being no agreement to pay interest, the Special Court
erred in directing such payment of interest without arriving at a finding
that any demand in relation thereto was made in terms of the provisions
of the Interest Act.

Respondent contended that as all properties stood attached in terms
F of the said notification on 22.7.1991 and all amount recovered are ,_
required to be utilized towards the dues of the notified person, an .._
j
application at the instance of the notified person was maintainable; that
the Special Court could initiate a suo motu proceeding and as it has a \

duty to issue direction(s) as regards the attached property and in that
view of the matter, the provisions of the Limitation Act will have no
G application. -I
Dismissing the Appeals, the Court

HELD: 1. The jurisdiction of the Special Court, is not confined only
'."'
to the illegal transactions in· securities and properties acquired by the
H
L.S. SYNTHETICS LTD. v. FAIRGROWTH FIN. SERVICES LTD. 111

notified person out of the same. Once the properties are attached under A
Sub-section (3) of Section 3, the Custodian has no other option but to apply
the same in such a manner as the Special Court may direct. [117-H; 118-A]

2. The said Act does not specify as to who can initiate a proceeding
before the Special Court. The Special Court is entitled to direct the
Custodian as regard application of _any property which stands attached. B
It may, therefore, do so at the instance of the notified person apart from
the Custodian. It can also initiate a proceeding suo motu once attachment
of any property belonging to a notified person is brought to his notice.
[118-B-C]

3. Once a statutory attachment conies into force, although the c
properties in question unlike the provisions of some other Acts do not
vest in the Custodian but the same evidently remain under the control
of the Special Court. There is no basis to hold that only those properties
belonging to the notified person which are subject matter of the
transactions in securities stand attached and for that purpose Section D
9A of the said Act is not required to be read down. [119-C)

Kudremukh Iron Ore Co. Ltd v. Fairgrowth Financial Service Ltd
and Another, [1994) 4 SCC 246, distinguished.

Hai-shad Shanti/al Mehta v. Custodian and Others, [1998) 5 SCC 1
and Canara Bank v. Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. and Ors., E
(1995} Supp 3 SCC 81, referred to.

4. The Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable only in relation to certain
applications and not all applications despite the fact that the words
"other proceedings" were added in the long title of the Act in 1963. The
provisions of the said Act are not applicable to the proceedings before
F,
bodies other than courts, such as quasi - judicial tribunal or even an
exec;utive authority. The Act primarily applies to the civil proceedings
or some special criminal proceedings. (121-F-G)

A.K Menon, Custodian v. Modern Chemical Corporation & Or~., {2002) G
1 All M.R. 1980, Relied on. Nityananda M Joshi and Another v. The Life
insurance Corporation of India and Others, AIR (1970) SC 209; Hindustan
Times. Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors., (1998) 2 SCC 242 and
Mt. Laxmibai v. Tukaram, AIR (1930) Nag 206, referred to.

5. The provisions of the Limitation Act would inter alia apply only H
112 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A when a suit is filed or a proceeding is initiated for recovery of an amount
and not where a property is required to be applied towards the claims
pending before the tribunal for the purpose of discharge of the liabilities
of the notified person in terms of Section 11 of the said Act. A Special
Court having regard to its nature and functions may be a court within
the meaning of Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 or Section 3
B of the Limitation Act, 1963 but having regard· to its scope and subject
and in particular the fact that it is a complete code in itself, the period
of limitation provided in the schedule appenderl to the Limitation Act
1963, will have no application. [123-E; F; G]

c by a6.court
In relation to the duties and functions required to be performed
of law, no period of limitation need be prescribed.
Furthermore, Section 13 of the .said Act provides for a non-obstante
clause which has been used as a devise to modify the ambit of provisions
of law mentioned therein or to override the same in the specified .
circumstances. The said Act doe~ not provide for any period of limitation,
D the reasons wherefor have been noticed hereinbefore and in that view of
the matter, Articles 19, 28 and 55 providing fo·r period of limitation
prescribed would have no application. Sectfon 13 of the said Act provides
for a non obstante clause which is of wide amplitude. In a case of conflict
between the said Act and any other Act, the provisions of the former
E shall prevail. (124-C, D, E]

T.R. Thandu v. VO/ & Ors., [1996) 3 SCC 690 (para 8) and Solidwre
India Ltd. v. Fair growth Financial Services Ltd. & Ors., {2001) 2 SCALE·
1, referred to~

F 7. A special statute providing for special or no period of limitation
must receive a liberal and broader construction and not a rigid or a
narrow one. The intent and purport of the Parliament enacting the said
Act furthermore must be given its full effect. The Court is of the opinion
that the provisions of the Limitation Act have no application, so far as
directions required to be issued by the Special Court relating to the
G
disposal of attached property are concerned. Only in the event, all the
claims as provided for under Section 11 of the said Act are fully satisfied,·
the amou.nt belonging to the notifiecl person can be directed to be. released
in his favo_ur or in favour of any other person. (125-B, C, D]

H 8. There is no merit in the contention that the Special Court had
_L.S. SYNTHETICS LTD. v. FAIRGROWTH FIN. SERVICES LTD. [SINHA. J.] 113

no jurisdiction to issue any direction for payment of interest. The said A
direction could have been issued having regard to the fact that the
attached amount was being utilized by the Appellants; assuming that
there existed no agreement in relation thereto. As the attached property
remained in the hands of the Appellant and they had applied the same
for their own benefit, the Special Court was entitled to grant interest by B
way of restitution. [125-F, G)

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4268 of2003.

From the Judgment and Order dated 21.3.2003 of the Special Court
(Trial of Offences Relating to Transaction in Securities) Act, 1992 at Bombay C
in M.P. No. 71 of 1990.

WITH

C.A. Nos. 4269 and 4270 of 2003.
D
G.L. Sanghi, Ms. Vibhabar Sawant, Ms. Ranjana Lad, Rajiv Nanda, Ms.
Rammi Taneja, Jitheesh Thilak and Mukesh Tyagi for the Appellants.

Subramonium Prasad for the Respondents.
E
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

S.B. SINHA, J: These appeals arising out of the judgments and orders
dated 2 I st March 2003 passed by the Special Court at Bombay in Miscellaneous
Petition Nos. 71, 72 and 99 of 1999 involving similar questions of law and
fact were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this F,
common judgment.

FACTS:

The fact of the matter, however, is being noticed from Civil Appeal No. G,
4268 of 2003.

A notification was issued on 2.7.1992 by the Custodian notifying the
Respondent No. 1 as a notified party in terms of the provisions of the Special
Courts (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992
(for short "the said Act"). H
114 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A The Appellant herein obtained short term Joans amounting to Rs. 14.25
lakhs from the notified party during the period 1.4.1991 to 6.6.1992 as
specified in the said Act. The Custodian called upon the Appellant herein
to furnish particulars of the said loans pursuant to or, in furtherance whereof
the Appellant herein accepted the same to be outstanding as on 30.6.1992
in the books of Respondent No. 1 payable to him. On the said amount of
B loan, interest at the rate of 21 % per annum was payable.

The Appellant herein was directed to deposit the principal amount by
the Custodian which was not complied with. The concerned Chartered
Accountant, however, gave a certificate to the effect t~at a sum of Rs. 14.25
c lakhs was advanced as loan to the Appellant by the Respondent No. 1 with
interest at 21 % per annum and that the total sum outstanding was Rs.
34,98,967.04. The Respondent No. I thereafter initiated a proceeding before
the Special Court praying for a direction ~pon the Appellant herein to pay
to the Custodian a sum of Rs. 34,99,900.68 on behalf of his behalf.

D The contentions of the Appellant before the Special Court were that it
having furnished full details of the amount in question to the Custodian in
1993, the claim was barred by limitation nd the said Act did not enable the
Respondent herein to recover any time barred debts from it. It was further
urged that the transaction in question having not arisen out of transactions
in securities, the Special Court had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter.
E
It was also contended that in that view of the m_atter Section 9A of the said
Act must be read down.

JUDGMENT:

F By reason of the impugned judgment, the Special Court, however,
rejected the said contentions holding that once a property is found to be
owned by a notified party, all claims relating thereto must be adjudicated
upon by the Special Court.

Following its earlier decision of the Tribunal in A.K. Menon, Custodian
G v. Modern Chemical Corporation & Ors., [2002] l All M.R. 180, the Special
Court held that the provisions of the Limitation Act would have no
application to the proceedings under the said Act. It was consequently
ordered:

"(a) I hereby direct Respondent No. 1 to pay to the Custodian on
H
L.S. SYNTHETICS LTD. v. FAIRGROWTH FIN. SERVICES LTD. [SINHA, J.] 115

behalf of FFSL Rs. 14.25 lacs with interest at 15% per annum from A
the date on which the loan(s) have been advanced upto payment."

SUBMISSIONS:

Mr. G.L. Sanghi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
Appellant would contend that the advances made by the Respondent being B
not transactions of the nature specified in the Act, an application filed by the
notified party was not maintainable. It was submitted that the provisions of
the said Act and in particular those contained in Section 9A must be read
down so as to uphold the constitutionality of the said Act. Strong reliance
in this connection has been placed on Harshad Shanti/al Mehta v. Custodian
and Others, [1998] 5 SCC 1 and Canara Bank v. Nuclear Power Corporation
of India Ltd. and Others, [ 1995] Supp 3 SCC 81.

The learned counsel would further submit that by reason of the
provisions of the said Act, the plea oflimitation which could have been taken
by the Appellant, had a suit been filed by the Respondent No. I against it,
would still be available as the transaction is of civil nature. It was argued
that only because a statutory attachment comes into force by reason of
Section 3(3) of the Act, the property of the notified party does not vest in
the Custodian. In any event, Mr. Sanghi would argue that the notified party
had no locus to initiate the proceedings before the Special Court.
E
The learned counsel would, in the alternative, submit with refrrence to
Civil Appeal Nos. 4269 and 4270 of 2003 that there being no agreement to
pay interest, the Special Court erred in directing such payment of interest
without arriving at a finding that any demand in relation thereto was made
in terms of the provisions of the Interest Act. F
Mr. Subramonium Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Respondent, on the other hand, would argue that as all properties stood
attached in terms of the said notification on 22.7.1991 and all amount
recovered are required to be utilized towards the dues of the notified person;
an application at the instance of the notified person was maintainable.

The learned counsel would submit that the Special Court could initiate
a suo motu proceeding and as it has a duty to issue direction(s) as regards
the attached property and in that view of the matter, the provisions of the
Limitation Act will have no application. Strong reliance in this connection H
116 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2004) SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A has been placed on Mt. Laxmibai v. Tukaram, AIR (1930) Nagpur 206.

ATTACHMENT:

It is not in dispute that the Respondent No. 1 herein has advanced loan
to the Appellant by, different cheques amounting to Rs. 14.25 lakhs which
B were to be repaid at the interest rate of 21 % per annum, the details whereof
are as under:

"Cheque No. Date Amount

234285 28.01.92 1,50,000
c 244746 27.04.92 3,50,000
244825 06.05.92 ·1,00,000
246029 25.05.92 1,00,000
246038 25.05.92 75,000
246159 09.06.92 6,50,000"
D
The said Act was enacted to provide for the establishment of~ Special
Court for the trial of offences relating to transactions in securitie~ and for
matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. A Special :Court is
establishe~ under Sub-Section (l) of Section 5 of the said Act. No~ only all
prosecutiqns relating to offences committed under the said Act ~re to be
E initiated before the Special Court in terms of Section 7 of the Act, by reason
of Section 9A thereof which was inserted by Act 24 of 1994 with eff~ct from
25th January, 1994, the Special Court is empowered to exercise all such
jurisdiction, powers and authority as were exercisable imm~diately 1 before
such c<;>mmencement by any Civil Court in relation to any matter o~ claim
F inter alia relating to any property standing attached under Su.b-section (3)
of Section 3 thereof.

In terms of the provisions of the said Act, the Custodian has three
functions to perform:

G (i) to notify a person in the Official Gazette, on being satisfied on
information received that he has been involved in any offence
relating to transactions in securities during the period specified
therefor;

.H (ii) He has the authority to cancel any contract or agreement relating
LS. SYNTHETICS LTD. v. FAIRGROWTH FIN. SERVICES LTD. (SINHA, J,j 117

to the properties of the notified persons which, in his opinion, has A
been entered into fraudulently or for the purpose of defeating the
provisions of the Act as specified in Section 4.

(iii) He is required to deal with the properties in the manner as directed
by the Special Court.
B
By reason of Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act, the Custodian who
may be appointed under Sub-section (1) thereof is entitled to notify a person
on satisfying himself that he is involved in any offence relating to transactions
in securities, wherefor he may rely upon the information received from any
of the sources specified in Rule 2 of 1992 Rules. Sub-section (3) of Section c
3 provides for a non-obstante clause in tem1s whereof any property movable
or immovable belonging to the notified person shall stand attached
simultaneously with the issue of the notification.

JURISDICTION OF THE SPECIAL COURT:
D
The jurisdiction of the Special Court is of wide amplitude. Subject to
a decision in appeal therefrom, its decision is final.

In this case, the notified person himself had disclosed that a sum of Rs.
14.25 lakhs is owing and due to it from the Appellant. The debt at the hands E
of the Appellant payable to the Respondent being admitted, we have no
hesitation to hold that the same would be subject matter of attachmc>nt.

The debt in question is capable of being attached being a property
belonging to the notified party and upon such attachment the consequences
provided therefrom wo1,1ld ensue and in that view of the matter the Special F
Court will have jurisdiction to pass an appropriate order in relation thereto
by issuing appropriate directions in terms of the provisions of the said Act.
As the Special Court had the requisite jurisdiction to deal with the attached
property, it is immaterial whether the factum of the statutory provisivns is
brought to its notice by the notified party himself or by the Custodian. The
Court has the requisite jurisdiction; nay a duty to apply itself to the said G
question once the matter is brought to its notice.

The jurisdiction of the Special Court, it is not correct to contend, is
confined only to the illegal transactions in securities and properties acquired
by the notified person out of the same. Once the properties are attached under H
l l8 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A Sub-section (3) of Section 3, the Custodian has no other option but to apply
the same in such a manner as the Special Court may direct.

LOCUS OF THE RESPONDENT: .

.The said Act does not specify as to who can initiate a proceeding before
B the Special Court. The Special Court, as would appear from the plain
wordings of the said Act, is entitled to direct the Custodian as regard
application of any property which stands attached. It may, therefore, do so
at the instance of the notified person apart from the Custodian. It can also
initiate a proceeding suo motu once attachment of any property belonging
c to a notified person is brought to his notice.

READING DOWN OF SECTION 9A OF THE ACT:

The primal question which, however, arises for consideration is whether
a statutory attachment in terms of Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the said
D Act would apply only in relation to a property which was the subject-matter
of the transactions in securities.

Application of all properties belonging to the notified person who,
according to the Custodian, might have committed an offence within the
meaning of the provisions thereof evidently for the purpose of discharge of
E
such liabilities is obviated by reason of Section 11 of the said Act which reads
as under:

"11. Discharge of liabilities. - (I) Nothwithstanding anything
contained in the Code and any other law for the time being in force,
F the Special Court may make such order as it may deem fit directing
the Custodian for the disposal of the property under attachment.

(2) The following liabilities shall be paid or discharged in full, as
far as may be,.in the order as under :

G (a) all revenues, taxes, cesses and rates due from the persons notified
by the Custodian under sub-section (2) of Section 3 to the Central
Government or any State Government or any local authority;

(b) all amounts due from the person so notified by the Custodian
H to any bank or financial institution or mutual fund; and
L.S. SYNTHETICS LTD. v. FAIRGROWTH FIN. SERVICES LTD. [SINHA. J.] 119

(c) any other liability as may be specified by the Special Court from A
time to time."

It is not a case where a third party right is involved as was the case in
Kudremukh Iron Ore Co. ltd. v. Fairgrowth Financial Services ltd. and
Another, [ 1994] 4 SCC 246. The purpose of the said Act is to discharge the
liabilities of the Government Banks, financial institutions, mutual funds, etc. B
and for the said purpose, the statute itself provides that all properties
belonging to the notified person shall stand attached. Once a statutory
,. attachment comes into force, although the properties in question unlike the
provisions of some other Acts do not vest in the Custodian but the same
evidently remain under the control of the Special Court. There is, in our c
considered opinion, no basis to hold, as has been urged by Mr. Sanghi, that
only those properties belonging to the notified person which are subject
matter of the transactions in securities would stand attached and for that
purpose Section 9A of the said Act is not required to be read down.

HARSHAD SHANT!lAl MEHTA:

Our attention has been drawn by Mr. Sanghi to paragraph 14 of Harshad
Shanti/al Mehta (supra) which reads as follows:

"14. It has also been submitted before us by one of the notified
parties (Dhanraj Mills v. Custodian) that properties belonging to E
notified persons which have no nexus with the transactions in
securities of the notified person during the "statutory period", also
cannot be attached under Section 3. Reliance is placed on
the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Hitesh
Shanti/al Mehta v. Union oflndia, (1992) 3 Born CR 716 (to which
one of us was a party) in this connection. Our attention is drawn to
the following passage in the High Court's judgment : (at p. 719)

"If the person ... approaches the Special Court and makes out, for
example, a case that the property which is attached has no nexus of
any sort with the illegal dealings in securities belonging to banks G
and financial institutions during the relevant period and/or that there
are no claims or liabilities which have to be satisfied by attachment
and sale of such property, in our view, the Special Court would have
the power to direct the Custodian to release such property from
attachment." H
120 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A Hence a property not having any nexus with the illegal dealings in
securities can be re~~ased from attachment jly the Special Court in
an appropriate case."

This Court in paragraph 14 was merely recording the submissions of
one of the notified parties. Even a question as to whether aH properties of
B
notified persons would be subject to the statutory attachment under Sub-
section (3) of Section 3 of the said Act or not did not arise for consideration
therein.

Therein indisputably this Court was referring to a judgment of the
c Bombay High Court but did not pronounce finally on the corre~tness or
otherwise thereof.

In Hitesh Shanti/al Mehta (supra) the Bombay High Court appears to
have merely held that in appropriate cases the Special Court wouid have the
power to direct the Custodian to release such property from attachment, in
D the event, it is found that the property which is attached has no nexus with
the illegal dealings in securities belonging to banks and financial institutions
during the relevant period and/ or there are no claims or liabilities which have
to be satisfied by attachment and sale of such property. Once it is held that
a debt can be subject matter of attachment, the provisions of Sub-section (3)
E of Section 3 of the said Act would squarely be applicable in view of the fact
that the same was the property belonging to a notified person. This position
in law is not disputed. Such attached property, thus, if necessary, for the
purpose of discharging the claims and liabilities of the notified person
indisputably would stand attached and can be applied for discharge of his
liabilities in terms of Section 11 of the said Act.
F
In Harshad Shanti/al Mehta (supra), it was , inter alia, opined : 28 ...
It was, therefore, expected that the available funds from attached assets woi.ild
be speedily restored to the banks and financial institutions. It was also
expected that even after the discharge of tax liabilities for the relevant period,
substantial funds would be left over for being paid to the banks and financial
G institutions concerned."

CANARA BANK.'.

In Canara Bank (supra) this Court was concerned with transfer of an
H application pending before the Company Law Board in terms of Sub-Section
L.S. SYNTHETICS LTD. v. FAIRGROWTH FIN. SERVICES LTD. [SINHA, J .] 121

(2) of Section 9-A of the Act and only in that context, it was observed: A
"IO. Sub~section (l) of Section 9-A is divisible into two parts. By
the first part, the Special Court is empowered to exercise, on and
from the commencement of the Amendment Ordinance, all such
jurisdiction, powers and authority as w.ere exercisable before such
commencement by any civil court. By the second part, the Special B
Court is empowered to exercise suchjurisdiction, powers or authority
in regard to the matters or claims therein specified, which include
matters or claims arising out.oftransactions in securities entered into
between the stated dates in which a notified person is involved. So
read, the Special Court has the jurisdiction, powers and authority of c
a civil court to exercise the same in regard to matters or claims
arising out of transaction in securities entered into between the stated
dates in which a notified person is involved. Sub-section (1) of
Section 9-A, therefore, invests the Special court with the jurisdiction,
powers and authority necessary for the purposes of entertaining
matters or claims of the nature specified therein. Sub-section (2) D .
provides for the transfer of such matters or claims pending in any
court to the Special Court on the commencement of the Amendment
Ordinance. And sub-section (3) expressly debars any court other
than the Special Court from exercising any jurisdiction, powers or
authority in relation to such matters or claims." E
LIM/TA TION:

The contention as regards the applicability of the Limitation Act must
be considered having regard to the foregoing findings
F
The Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable only in relation to certain
applications and not all applications despite the fact that the words "other
proceedings" were added in the long title of the Act in 1963. The provisions
of the said Act are not applicable to the proceedings before bodies other than
courts, such as quasi-judicial tribunal or even an executive authority. The
Act primarily applies to the civil proceedings or some special criminal G1
proceedings. Even in a Tribunal, where the Code of Civil Procedure or Code
of Criminal Procedure is applicable; the Limitation Act, 1963 per se may not
be applied to the proceedings before it. Even in relation to certain civil
proceedings, the Limitation Act may not have any application. As for
example, there is no bar of limitation for initiation of a final decree
H
122 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A proceedings or to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court under Section 151 of
the Code of Civil Procedure or for correction of accidental slip or omission
in judgments, orders or decrees; the reason being that these powers can be
exercised even suo motu by the Court and, thus, no question of any limitation
arises. [S.ee Nityananda, M Joshi and Another v. The Life Insurance
Corporation of India and Others, AIR ( 1970) SC 209 and Hindustan Times
B Ltd. v. Union of India and Others, (1998] 2 SCC 242 and Mt. Laxmibai
(supra)]

Even no period of limitation is prescribed in relation to a writ
proceeding.
c S.N. Variava, J. in A.K. Menon, Custodian (supra), whereupon the
learned Special Court has placed reliance, observed:

"19. It is thus that the said Act Jays down a responsibility on the
Court to recover the properties. So far as monies are concerned,
D undoubtedly the particular coin or particular currency note given to
a debtor would no longer be available. That however does not mean
that the lender does not have any right to monies. What is payable
is the loan i.e. the amount which has been lent. The right which
the creditor has is not a "right to recover" the money. The creditor
has the title/ right in the money itself. An equivalent amount is
E recoverable by him and the title in any equivalent amount remain
is the lender. Thus the property which a Notified Party would have
is not the right to recover but the "title in the money itself." Thus
under Section 3(3) what would stand attached would be the title/
right in the money itself. Of course what would be recoverable
F would be an equivalent of that money. Once the money stands
attached then no application is required io be made by any parties
for recovery of that money. It is then the duty of the Court to recover
the money. No period of limitation can apply to any Act to be done
by a Court. Therefore in all such Applications the only question
which remains is whether on the date of the Notification the right
G in the property existed. If the right, in the property existed then
irrespective of the fact that the right to recover may be barred by
limitation there would be a statutory attachment of that property.
Once there is a statutory attachment of that property the Court is
duty bound to recover it for the purposes of distribution. There can
H be no period oflimitation for acts which a Court is bound to perform.
L.S. SYNTHETICS LTD. v. FAIRGROWTH FIN. SERVICES LTD. [SINHA, J.] 123

In this case since the Court is compulsorily bound to recover the A
money there can be no limitation to recover the money, there can
be no limitation to such recovery proceedings. To be remembered
that Section 3(3) as well as Section 13 provide that provisions of
the said Act would prevail over any other law. This would include
the limitation Act."
B
-t We respectfully agree with the said view.

We may, however, add that the attachment of the properties of the
notified party being for specific purposes, i.e., for the purpose of discharging
his liabilities, the Special Court is bound to pass appropriate orders in relation c
thereto. A property once attached shall remain under attachment till an
appropriate order is passed. It is, therefore, idle to contend that even in
respect thereof the provisions of the Limitation Act would apply. The Court
while issuing directions to the Custodian in relation to the attached property
for the purpose of discharge of the liability of the notified person must pass
an appropriate order. So long the claims or other proceedings initiated before
D
the Special Court as regard discharge of liability of the notified person
continue, the attachment remains in force. A proceeding before the Special
Court is not a suit for recovery of an amount. The proceedings before the
Special Court are extraordinary in nature. Distribution of the assets of a
notified person may take a long time but it would bear repetition to state E
because all the claims filed before the Special Court are disposed of, the
property of the notified person stands attached. In other words, the provisions
of the Limitation Act would inter alia apply only when a suit is filed or a
proceeding is initiated for recovery of an amount and not where a property
is required to be applied towards the claims pending before the tribunal for
the purpose of discharge of the liabilities of the notified person in tenns of
F
Section 11 of the said Act.

.. A Special Court having regard to its nature and functions may be a
court within the meaning of Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
or Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963 but having regard to its scope and G
object and in particular the fact that it is a complete code in itself, in our
opinion, the period of limitation provided in the schedule appended to the
Limitation Act, 1963, will have no application. For the applicability of
Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, the following requirements must be

- satisfied by the Court invoking the said provision:
H
124 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A (I) There must be a provision for period of limitation under any
special or local· law in-·connection with any suit, appeal or
application.

(2) Such prescription of the period of limitation under such special
or local law should be different from the period of limitation
B prescribed by the Schedule to the Limitation r\ct, 1963.

In tenns of the provisions of the said Act, no period of limitation is
prescribed, evidently because the Parliament thought it to be wholly
unnecessary. Once the statutory operation relating to the attachment of the
c property belonging to a notified person comes into being, the duties and
functions of the Special Court start. In relation to the duties and functions
required to be perfonned by a court of law, no period of limitation need be
prescribed. Furthermore, Section 13 of the said Act provides for a non-
obstante clause which has been used as a devise to modify the ambit of
provisions of law mentioned therein or to override the same in the specified
D circumstances. [See T.R. Thandur v. Union of India and Others, [1996] 3
SCC 690 para 8]. The said Act does not provide for any period oflimitation,
the reasons wherefor have been noticed herein before and in that view of the
matter, in our considered opinion, Articles I 9, 28 and 55 providing for period
of limitation prescribed would have no application. Section 13 of the said
Act provides for a non obstante clause which is.ofwide amplitude. In a case
E
of conflict between the said Act and any other Act, the provisions of the
former shall prevail.

In Solidaire India Ltd v. Fairgrowth Financial Services Ltd. & Ors.,
[lOO I J 2 SCALE 1, this Court held :
F
"10 ... The Legislature being aware of the provisions of Section 22
under the 1985 Act still empowered only the Special Court under
the 1992 Act to give directions to recover and to distribute the assets
of the notified persons in the manner set down under section 11 (2)
of the 1992 Act. This can only mean that the Legislature wanted
G the provisions of Section 11 (2) of the 1992 Act to prevail over the
provisions of any other law including those of the Sick Industrial
Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. It is a settled rule of
interpretation that if one construction (sic constructions) leads to a
conflict, whereas on. another construction, two Acts can be
H harmoniously constructed then the latter must be adopted. If an
L.S. SYNTHETICS LTD. v. FAIRGROWTH FIN. SERVICES LTD. [SINHA, J.] 125

interpretation is given that the Sick Industrial Companies (Special A
Provisions) Act, 1985, is to prevail then there would be a clear
conflict if it is held that the 1992 Act is to prevail."

A statute oflimitation bars a remedy and not a right. Although a remedy
is barred, a defence can be raised. In construing a special statute providing
B
for limitation, consideration of plea of hardship is irrelevant. A special statute
providing for special or no period of limitation must receive a liberal and
broader construction and not a rigid or a narrow one. The intent and purport
of the Parliament enacting the said Act furthermore must be given its full
effect. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the provisions of the Limitation
Act have no application, so far as directions required to be issued by the c
Special Court relating to the disposal of attached property, are concerned.

Only in the event, all the claims as provided for under Section 11 of
the said Act are fully satisfied, the amount belonging to the notified person
can be directed to be released in his favour or in favour of any other person. D

INTEREST:

It does not appear from the judgment of the Special Court that any
argument was advanced before it that there did not exist any agreement as
regard payment of interest. No such contention has even been raised in the E
Memorandum of Appeal or in the Affidavit filed before the Special Court.
In fact, it is admitted that the Custodian and the Appellant exchanged certain
correspondences in this behalf in the year 1992.
'

We do not find any merit in the contention of Mr. Sanghi that the F
Special Court had no jurisdiction to issue any direction for payment of
interest. The said direction, in our opinion, could have been issued having
regard to the fact that the attached amount was being utilized by the
Appellants; assuming that there existed no agreement in relation thereto. As
the attached property remained in the hands of the Appellant and they had
applied the same for their own benefit, the Special Court was entitled to grant G
interest by way of restitution.

CONCLUSION:

We, therefore, hold: H
126 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A (i) A notified party has the requisite locus to bring the fact to the
notice of the Special Court that certain sum is owing and due to
him from a third party whereupon a proceeding can be initiated
for recovery thereof by the Custodian and consequent application
thereof in discharge of the liability of the notified person.

B (ii) Sub-section (3) of Section 3 should be literally construed nnd so
construed all properties belonging to the notified person shall be
subject to attachment which may, consequently, be applied for
discharge of his liabilities in terms of Section 11 of the said Act.

C (iii) The provisions of Limitation Act, 1963 have no application in
relation to the proceedings under the said Act.

For the reasons aforementioned, we do not find any merit in these
appeals which are dismissed accordingly. l':Jo costs.

D V.M. Appeals dismissed ..