OSWAL AGRO MILLS LTD Vs. CUSTODIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a group of 32 petitions filed by different parties most of which are Banks or financial institutions. However, there are also few private parties. The petitioners in all the petitions impugn order passed by the Custodian under Section 4 (1) of the Special Courts (TORTS) Act, (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"), cancelling the contract and calling upon the petitioners to pay a particular sum of money with interest to the Custodian representing that notified party by making payment in the attached account of the notified party and in all these petitions the only one notified party included is Hiten P. Dalai.

(2.) ALL these petitions were heard as a group on certain common points of law, by consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, with a view to decide common points of law first and thereafter, if necessary, to hear each of the petition separately on facts. Facts in almost all the petitions are similar although not common and give rise to similar questions of law. In order to appreciate the points of law involved and the controversies, it would be necessary to refer to facts of one or two matters at least.

(3.) PETITION No. 28 of 2002 is filed by Standard Chartered Grindlays Bank. As the show cause notices issued in all the above proceedings are common, it would be worthwhile to refer in detail to the show-cause notice issued in the matter of Standard Chartered and Grindlays Bank. Show-cause notice dated 17. 1. 2002 in substance is as below: Whereas Mr. Hiten P. Dalai (HPD) is a person notified by the Custodian on 8th June, 1992 under the provisions of the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992; the following information has come to the notice of the undersigned :