HITEN DALAL Vs. THE CUSTODIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Review Petition is filed on behalf of respondent no.2 in MA/43/2019 by the notified party seeking review of the order dtd. 18/6/2021 passed on the Custodian's Report No.17 of 2019. Mr. Raikar and Mr. Beg opposed the review petition.

(2.) Mr. Desai appearing for the review petitioner has sought review of the order on the basis that the order contains errors apparent on the face of it since the property in question is the attached asset of his client - the notified party. He has invited my attention to MA/141/2012 filed by the respondent no.2-Standard Chartered Bank and a copy of which is annexed to the report. By that MA, SCB has sought a direction against itself to handover certain securities, which were admittedly pledged securities, pledged by the current review petitioner. In fact, there is no dispute as to the fact that the securities forming subject matter of MA/141/2012 and the Custodian's Report No.17 of 2019 are one and the same.

(3.) MA/141/2012 came to be filed since SCB was in possession of these pledged securities and by virtue of a judgment of the Special Court dtd. 24/12/1998 passed in Suit No.17 of 1994, in which it was clearly held that the securities in question were pledged in favour of SCB, Mr. Desai invites my attention to hold that these pledged securities were surrendered by SCB by making an application viz. MA/141/2012. He invites my attention to paragraph 7 and the prayers in MA/141/2012. He submits that by returning the securities, SCB has effectively surrendered the securities. He therefore states that the averment of SCB in paragraph 7 is misleading and there can be no doubt that SCB has surrendered the securities. Mr. Desai further submits that the moment the securities have been surrendered, they became attached assets of the notified parties and the Custodian therefore must hold on to them and to be dealt with in accordance with law.