CANARA BANK FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED Vs. CUSTODIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal, one of the points which arises for consideration is whether, at the instance of the appellant, respondent No. 2, namely, Ashwin Mehta had received Rs.2.90 crores as the sale consideration of the appellant's shares of the Reliance Petro-Chemicals Ltd. Further question is as to when, if at all, the said amount of Rs. 2.90 crores was received and how it was deployed.

(2.) In the affidavit which has been filed by Ashwin Mehta before the Special Court, in paragraph 4, it has been stated that M/s. Canbank Financial Services Ltd. owes substantial sums of money to M/s. Harshad S. Mehta (a broking firm of Shri Harshad Mehta). In this affidavit, it is further stated that the detailed particulars of the transactions were not immediately available to Ashwin Mehta on account of the fact that his records and the records of Mr. Harshad Mehta were under seizure by the income-tax authorities and the C.B.I. On this affidavit, he further states that he could not confirm the date on which the payment of the sale proceeds of shares of Reliance Petro-Chemicals Ltd. was received. He again reiterates that he is not liable to pay the sum of Rs.2.90 crores to the appellant, inasmuch as large amounts of money were receivable from the appellant by M/s. Harshad S. Mehta which had not been repaid.

(3.) While Mr. Harish N. Salve, the learned Solicitor General appearing for the appellant-Canbank Financial Services Ltd. does not dispute the balances in the various accounts of Ashwin Mehta as on the date he was notified under the Special Court Act and as set out in the impugned judgment, but in order to decide the legal issues it is essential to find out more facts with regard to receipt or non-receipt of Rs. 2.90 crores and about amounts stated to be due to Mr. Harshad Mehta from Canbank Financial Services Ltd. against which Ashwin Mehta claims a set-off.