Special Court Trial Of Offences Relating To Trnsactions In Securities Act 1992 Preamble 1 Special Court Trial Of Offences Relating To Transactions Insecurities Act 1992 - Judgment Search Results
Home > Cases Phrase: special court trial of offences relating to trnsactions in securities act 1992 preamble 1 special court trial of offences relating to transactions insecurities act 1992 Page 1 of about 703,573 results (0.717 seconds)Harshad Shantilal Mehta Vs. Custodian and ors
Court: Supreme Court of India
Reported in: 1998VAD(SC)82; AIR1998SC2291; 1998(3)ALLMR(SC)659; II(1999)BC418(SC); [1998]92CompCas936(SC); [1998]231ITR871(SC); JT1998(4)SC23; RLW1998(2)SC353; 1998(3)SCALE556; (1998)5S
was not intended to secure taxes and, therefore, if the Special Court finds that the tax liabilities are such, and their interest can be imposed on the notified person. The Special Court is required to consider this question only from the point with a sitting Judge of a High Court for speedy trial of offences relating to transactions in securities and disposal of is a special Act with its own special problems. The offences it deals with involve amounts of unusual magnitude procured by to notify the names of persons involved in any offence relating to transactions in securities after the 1st day of April, property not having any nexus with the illegal dealings in securities can be released from attachment by the Special Court in SCC 200) held that the Special Court under the present Act has no power to sit in appeal over the orders Special Court (Trial of Offenders Relating Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 is a special Act with its own special problems. The quite clear. The words, "in order as under" in Section 11(2) lay down the properties for distribution. In fact, it has therefore, as the Special Court is empowered to examine all transactions in securities during the period 1.4.1991 to 6.61992, as also
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTAssistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. A.K. Menon and ors.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Reported in: AIR1995SC2322; (1995)127CTR(SC)263; [1995]215ITR364(SC); JT1997(10)SC541; 1995(4)SCALE525; (1995)5SCC200; [1995]Supp2SCR181
of the Special Court appointed under the provisions of the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating To Transaction in Securities) Act, from the decisions of the High Court to the Supreme Court and then there are provisions for revision by the Commissioner provide for the establishment of a Special Court for the trial of offences relating to transactions in securities and for matters the establishment of a Special Court for the trial of offences relating to transactions in securities and for matters connected therewith upon the property under attachment shall be paid. The claims relating to the tax liabilities of a notified person are, along Court for the trial of offences relating to transactions in securities and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The Act realisation from a company in liquidation is governed by the Act because the income-tax payable also being a debt has to Court (Trial of Offences Relating To Transaction in Securities) Act, 1992. The appellant, an Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, sought release invested with civil jurisdiction in regard to such transactions. Section 11 is relevant for our purpose. Sub-section (1) states that the Court is invested with civil jurisdiction in regard to such transactions. Section 11 is relevant for our purpose. Sub-section (1) states
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTTax Recovery Officer, Central Range-1 Vs. Custodian the Special Court ...
Court: Supreme Court of India
Reported in: AIR2007SC2935; IV(2007)BC229(SC); 2007(2)BLJR2484; (2007)5CompLJ11(SC); (2007)211CTR(SC)369; [2007]293ITR369(SC); JT2007(10)SC188; 2007(10)SCALE81; [2008]82SCL3(SC); 2007AIRSCW5333
or from any earlier stage or de novo as the Special Court may deem fit. (3) On and from the commencement belonging to the notified party stands attached to the Special Court. Thus, the assets of M/s. Dhanraj Mills Pvt. Ltd. stood in any other manner. (2) Every suit, claim or other legal proceeding (other than an appeal) pending before any court immediately Range-1, under Section 10 of the Special Courts (Trial Of Offences Relating To Transactions In Securities) Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to from the commencement of the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Amendment Act, 1994, no court other the Special Courts (Trial Of Offences Relating To Transactions In Securities) Amendment Act, 1994, the Special Court shall exercise all such Acts and in such an event it is the later Act, namely, the Special Courts (Trial Of Offences Relating To Transactions Courts (Trial of Offences Relating To Transactions In Securities) Act, 1992.4. Dr. R.G. Padia, learned senior counsel for the appellant, has law except the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 and the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. In 13 of the Special Courts (Trial Of Offences Relating To Transactions In Securities) Act, 1992 and Section 32 of the Sick
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTBhupen Dalal Vs. A.K. Menon
Court: Mumbai
Reported in: 1996(3)BomCR429; [1997]89CompCas121(Bom)
Court. 6. He then says that section 10 of the Special Court Act will have to be read along with section Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the Special Court is situated with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of conspirator or abettor and all other offences and empowers joint trial also. In so far as procedures and powers of the Court Act. A Special Court is established for trial of offences relating to transactions in securities and matters connected therewith or Act. A Special Court is established for trial of offences relating to transactions in securities and matters connected therewith or incidental is established for trial of offences relating to transactions in securities and matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Section 2(d) defines committed by a person punishable under the Contempt of Courts Act, would be an order passed by the Special Court constituted Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992, in Suo Motu Contempt Notice No. 1 of 1995 by Procedure, the Code of Civil Procedure and the Arbitration Act, 1940, are concerned. He urged that the Contempt of Courts Act, Court under the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992, in Suo Motu Contempt Notice No.
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTMurablack (India) Limited Vs. Fairgrowth Financial Services Ltd. and a ...
Court: Mumbai
Reported in: 2003(2)ALLMR1043; 2003(2)BomCR422; (2003)2BOMLR527; 2003(1)MhLj694
done only by the ordinary Court and not by the Special Court. In the circumstances, it is not necessary for this the Order of distribution. On 2nd May 2002, the Special Court declared interim dividend of 25% to various decree holders in Act, 1992. The Special Court was set up for speedy trial of offences relating to transactions in securities. Under Section 3(3) distribution under Section 11 of the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992. The learned Judge Special Court was set up for speedy trial of offences relating to transactions in securities. Under Section 3(3) of the Act, entire operation of the Act revolves around the transaction in securities during the statutory period (see para 9 of the Judgment under the provisions of Section 11(2)(c) of the Special Courts Act, 1992. By this application, Growth Techno Projects Limited of which to the facts of the present case.FINDINGS :5. From June 1992, the Special Court has been functioning under Special Court (TORTS) the Revenue and to Banks and Financial Institutions under Section 11(2). Therefore, in the present case, this Court has no jurisdiction other creditors. But those liabilities should accrue out of security transactions during the statutory period and in relation to the attached
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTGanjam Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Panther Investrade Ltd. and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Reported in: 2003(1)BomCR330; [2004]119CompCas766(Bom)
of 1940). Immediately before the date of commencement of the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Amendment proceedings and applications would have to be made to that court and no other court.22. This submission, is fully supported by the Special Courts Act provides for notifying a person for trial under the Act. Sections 3(1) and (2) read as follows the date of commencement of the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Amendment Act, 1994, shall stand decide any question forming the subject matter of the reference relating to any matter of claim mentioned in Sub-section (1) of the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Amendment Act, 1994, shall stand transferred on that date to to the special court.'12. Section 9B of the Special Courts Act with which this court is primarily concerned in this case, Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Special Courts Act'). According, to and powers of the court conferred under the Arbitration Act, 1940, to decide any question forming the subject matter of the any person has been involved in any offence relating to transactions in securities after April 1, 1991, and on and before
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTS.R. Ramaraj Vs. Special Court, Bombay
Court: Supreme Court of India
Reported in: AIR2003SC3039; 2003(2)ALD(Cri)780; [2004]120CompCas150(SC); 2003CriLJ3863; 2003(6)SCALE508; (2003)7SCC175; [2003]46SCL763(SC); 2004(1)LC207(SC)
that there is no 'squaring off as pleaded' . The Special Court after adverting to various portions of the evidence further of the Indian Penal Code and another for contempt of court -, however, no action was taken pursuant to the notice the same and sought to persist with it at the trial. Two show cause notices were issued - one under Sections no action was taken pursuant to the notice issued for offences under the Indian Penal Code and these proceedings stood dropped.3. under Section 10(1) of the Special Court (Trial of Offences relating to Transaction in Securities) Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the Ist defendant with a request to purchase the said securities on behalf of the plaintiffs. In all the aforesaid three crores from the Bank of Karad Ltd. Hiten Dalal had acted as a broker in this transaction. The said Bank of written statement were -(a) Mr. Acharya's letter dated 16th June, 1992; (b) Plaint in Suit No. 31 of 1934; (c) Jankiraman's forms with two SGL transfer forms, one dated 19th December 1991 for Rs. 58.59 crores and another dated 15th December, 1991 plaintiffs SGL account. (l) In the aforesaid circumstances, the aforesaid transactions between the Ist defendant and Bank of Karad Ltd. and
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTAsea Brown Boveri Ltd. Vs. Industrial Finance Corporation of India and ...
Court: Supreme Court of India
Reported in: AIR2005SC17; 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)129; 2005(3)BomCR392; [2005]126CompCas332(SC); (2004)4CompLJ433(SC); JT2004(9)SC258; 2004(9)SCALE99; (2004)12SCC570; [2004]56SCL21(SC); (2005)1
calculation sheet prepared by a Chartered Accountant appointed by the Special Court and, according to his calculation, an amount of Rs. A perusal of the detailed order passed by the Special Court shows that the Special Court refused to treat the transaction passed on to the lessee. The lessor only remains the legal owner of the asset.3. Therefore, the lessee bears the risk appeal under Section 10 of the Special Courts (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 (hereinafter 'the Act', under Section 10 of the Special Courts (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 (hereinafter 'the Act', for the Special Courts (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 (hereinafter 'the Act', for short), feeling aggrieved by at all attract the applicability of the provisions of the Act in view of Sub-section (2) of Section 3 thereof. The was paid by the appellant to Fair growth till December, 1992. An amount of Rs. 44,61,273/- was paid by the appellant to be notified by reference to transaction in securities between 1.4.1991 and 6.6.1992. Any contract or agreement entered into between 1.4.1991 of Section 3 of the Act due to certain illegal transactions covering the period between 1.4.1991 and 6.6.1992. The transaction entered
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTFairgrowth Investments Ltd. Vs. the Custodian
Court: Supreme Court of India
Reported in: 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)708; [2004]122CompCas683(SC); (2004)4CompLJ233(SC); JT2004(9)SC124; 2004(8)SCALE817; (2004)11SCC472; [2004]56SCL507(SC); 2005(1)LC251(SC)
the Limitation Act, 1963 would be automatically applicable to all Special Acts such as the Act in question, since the Act a factor relevant to the exercise of discretion by this Court under Section 10(3) of the Act. The exclusion of Sections proceedings even after the passing of an order that the trial should be proceeded with ex-parte. Both the cases i.e. Syndicate proceedings under Section 4(2) of the Special Courts (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities), Act 1992. Since the appellant's a Civil Court inter alia in relation to any matter relating to any property attached under Sub-section (3) of Section 3 created by large scale irregularities and malpractices in transactions in securities indulged in by some brokers in collusion with the employees not exclude the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. However, there is no reference to the provisions of the Courts (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has power to condone the provisions of Section 4 to Section 24 of the 1963 Act including Section 5, to any special or local law the situation created by large scale irregularities and malpractices in transactions in securities indulged in by some brokers in collusion with
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTCitibank N.A. Vs. Standard Chartered Bank
Court: Supreme Court of India
Reported in: AIR2005SC94; I(2005)BC53; 2005(2)BomCR791; [2005]126CompCas351(SC); (2004)4CompLJ452(SC); 2004(9)SCALE74; (2004)8SCC348; 2005(1)LC248(SC)
repayment and/or realization.4. The two suits were tried by the Special Judge appointed under the Special Courts (Trial of Offences Relating it by the Special Court. The decision taken by the Court was a conscious decision. The variation in the rate of jurisdiction to order restitution. According to him, it is the trial Court which could order restitution as per law laid down the Special Judge appointed under the Special Courts (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992, hereinafter referred to Special Judge appointed under the Special Courts (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992, hereinafter referred to as the Special Courts (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'.5. Suit filed Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'.5. Suit filed by the SCB being Suit No. 24 of Courts (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'.5. Suit filed by the ordered to pay to SCB in Suit No. 24 of 1994 and the market value of the said bonds on the appointed under the Special Courts (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'.5.
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT- << Prev.
- Next >>