CANBANK FINANCIAL SERVICES Vs. CUSTODIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Facts leading to this Appeal are as follows :

(2.) Special Court dismissed these prayers vide its order dated 14th September, 1993. Dismissal was on the reasoning that the appellants failed to show that the money was credited into or lying in any particular account. The Special Court further held that all that the appellant entitled is only to a charge on the estate of the respondent No. 2 for recovery of their money. But refused to release the money to appellant. This order is impugned herein. It is also the case of respondent No. 2 that the appellant is liable to pay about Rs. 3 crores to his brother and that he is entitled to set off the sum of Rs. 2.90 crores against the amount due to his brother Harshad Mehta.

(3.) Case put forwarded by the appellant is; that the respondent No. 2 merely acted as agent/broker on behalf of the appellant; that the amounts he received from the sale of their shares should have been handed over to them; that as long as the amounts are not handed over, the respondent No. 2 holds the same in trust for and on behalf of the appellant; that the same is not his property; that the respondent No. 1/custodian ought not to have attached the property since it is not property 'belonging to' respondent No. 2.