MANJIT SINGH SODHI versus THE CUSTODIAN & ORS.

MANJIT SINGH SODHI versus THE CUSTODIAN & ORS.

The Special Court's finding that the execution petition was not barred by limitation was a determination affecting parties' rights and liabilities and thus the order was not merely interlocutory; the appellate court will not interfere with the Special Court's directions for disclosure of assets issued under the Act of 1992, while preserving the Custodian's right to contend that the Limitation Act does not apply to the execution application in light of L S Synthetics.

Parties
Appellant: Manjit Singh Sodhi; First Respondent: The Custodian; Second Respondent: Fairgrowth Financial Services Ltd; Third Respondent: Raviraj Housing Corporation
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
04 August 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / On Appeal From Special Court Judgment Dated 06.03.2020
Outcome
Appeal disposed of.
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Order Vs Final Order, Acknowledgement of Liability Under Section 18 Limitation Act, Applicability of Limitation Act to Special Court Proceedings, Disclosure of Assets, Enforcement/execution of Decree
Limitation Act, 1963 Special Court (trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 Civil Procedure Execution Proceedings Interlocutory Order Vs Final Order Acknowledgement of Liability Under Section 18 Limitation Act Applicability of Limitation Act to Special Court Proceedings Disclosure of Assets +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Manjit Singh Sodhi

Appellant

The Custodian

First Respondent

Fairgrowth Financial Services Ltd

Second Respondent

Raviraj Housing Corporation

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / On Appeal From Special Court Judgment Dated 06.03.2020

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Special Court order was interlocutory and appealable under s.10 of the Act of 1992
  2. 2 Whether the appellant's letter dated 22 February 2018 amounted to an acknowledgement under s.18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 restarting limitation
  3. 3 Whether provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 apply to execution proceedings or to directions relating to attached property under the Act of 1992

Ratio Decidendi

The Special Court's finding that the execution petition was not barred by limitation was a determination affecting parties' rights and liabilities and thus the order was not merely interlocutory; the appellate court will not interfere with the Special Court's directions for disclosure of assets issued under the Act of 1992, while preserving the Custodian's right to contend that the Limitation Act does not apply to the execution application in light of L S Synthetics.

Court Disposition

Appeal disposed of.

Orders

  • Order directing the appellant to file disclosure of assets within four weeks
  • Disclosure to be subject to appellant's right to urge submissions in the execution application