SMT. RASILA S. MEHTA versus CUSTODIAN, NARIMAN BHAVAN, MUMBAI

SMT. RASILA S. MEHTA versus CUSTODIAN, NARIMAN BHAVAN, MUMBAI

Notification and attachment of properties under section 3(2) of the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 is lawful even if the appellants are not charged with any offence, provided there is material showing involvement or diversion of funds; absence of a pre-decisional...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Smt. Rasila S. Mehta; Respondent: Custodian, Nariman Bhavan, Mumbai; Appellant: Smt. RM (sister-in-law of HSM); Appellants: Smt. Jyoti H. Mehta and six other family members of late Harshad S. Mehta; Complainant: Canbank Financial Services Ltd. (Canfina)
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
06 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Disposition
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Attachment of Properties, Securities Scam, Natural Justice, Purposive Interpretation, Maintenance and Repair Charges
Financial Law Criminal Law Statutory Interpretation Attachment of Properties Securities Scam Natural Justice Purposive Interpretation Maintenance and Repair Charges

Source-derived case record

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Smt. Rasila S. Mehta

Appellant

Custodian, Nariman Bhavan, Mumbai

Respondent

Smt. RM (sister-in-law of HSM)

Appellant

Smt. Jyoti H. Mehta and six other family members of late Harshad S. Mehta

Appellants

Canbank Financial Services Ltd. (Canfina)

Complainant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Disposition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether notification and attachment of properties under Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 was lawful
  2. 2 Whether appellants were entitled to de-notification
  3. 3 Interpretation of 'involved in the offence' under s.3(2) of the Act

Ratio Decidendi

Notification and attachment of properties under section 3(2) of the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 is lawful even if the appellants are not charged with any offence, provided there is material showing involvement or diversion of funds; absence of a pre-decisional hearing does not violate principles of natural justice as s.4(2) provides for post-decisional hearing; all properties belonging to notified persons are liable for attachment and distribution irrespective of source of acquisition; Custodian is entitled to claim maintenance and repair charges but not penalty or interest on arrears from attached properties.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Civil Appeal Nos. 2924 of 2008 and 2915 of 2008 dismissed
  • Civil Appeal Nos. 3377 of 2009 and 4764 of 2010 disposed of, relief granted to extent Custodian not entitled to collect interest and penalty charges on arrears of maintenance and repair charges