Special Court Trial Of Offences Relating To Trnsactions In Securities Act 1992 Section 9a Jurisdiction Powers Authority And Procedure Of Special Court In Civil Matters - Judgment Search Results
Home > Cases Phrase: special court trial of offences relating to trnsactions in securities act 1992 section 9a jurisdiction powers authority and procedure of special court in civil matters Page 1 of about 703,573 results (0.709 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
of the Special Court Act and Section 3(3) of the Special Court Act, the challenge to the constitutional validity of Section required of the Company Court for commencing such proceedings. This Court, however, went on to observe, (in paragraph 18) "We have with a sitting Judge of a High Court for speedy trial of offences relating to transactions in securities and disposal of Court in respect of prosecution of offences is confined to offences referred to in Section 3(2) i.e. during the statutory period. the orders of Tax Authorities, Tribunals or Courts. The claims relating to tax liabilities of a notified person are, along with of persons involved in any offence relating to transactions in securities after the 1st day of April, 1991 and on or the Special Court (Trial ofOffences Relating to Transactionsin Securities) Amendment Act, 1994,the Special Court shall exerciseall such jurisdiction powers andauthority as Special Court (Trial of Offenders Relating Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 is a special Act with its own special problems. The are taxes which have to be taken into account under Section 11(2)(a) while distributing the property of the notified person. Taxes the Special Court completes the examination of claims under Section 9A. It on that date, any tax liability for the statutory introduced by the Amending Act 24 or 1994, deals with jurisdiction, powers, authority and procedure of the Special Court in civil Both Section 2 and 4, therefore, deal with the Custodian's powers relating to transactions in securities entered into during a very of the Special Court, under Section 11(2)(c) or the taxing authority may recover the same from any subsequently acquired property of Act 24 or 1994, deals with jurisdiction, powers, authority and procedure of the Special Court in civil matters. Under sub-section (1) party,broker, intermediary or in othermanner.(2)...................(3)...................(4)...................(5)...................Jurisdiction of the Special Court in civil matters is, therefore, in respect of any matter or claim Court in arbitration matters is also with reference to those matters or claims which are covered by Section 9-A (1). Therefore,
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
ORDER1. Special leave granted.2. This appeal is filed against an order of authority:(b) xxx xxx xxx4. It is clear that the Special Court has no power to sit in appeal over or overrule provide for the establishment of a Special Court for the trial of offences relating to transactions in securities and for matters of offences under the said Act, that is to say, offences relating to transactions in securities after 1st April, 1991 and upon the property under attachment shall be paid. The claims relating to the tax liabilities of a notified person are, along the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating To Transaction in Securities) Act, 1992. The appellant, an Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, subject to appeal to the higher hierarchy under the Income-tax Act. There are also provisions for reference to the High Court after 1st April, 1991 and on or before 6th June, 1992, By reason of the amendment of the said Act and the amendment of the said Act and the inclusion of sections 9A and 9B, the Special Court is invested with civil amendment of the said Act and the inclusion of sections 9A and 9B, the Special Court is invested with civil jurisdiction as the Special Court may direct The Special Court has jurisdiction, under Section 7 of the Act, exclusively to hear and starting consequences as investing the winding up court with the powers of an Income-tax Officer conferred on him by the Income-tax of the tax liability of a notified person by the authority or tribunal or court authorised to perform that function by Court said:The income-tax Act is, in our opinion, a complete code and it is particularly so with respect to the assessment sections 9A and 9B, the Special Court is invested with civil jurisdiction in regard to such transactions. Section 11 is relevant trial of offences relating to transactions in securities and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The Act requires the appointment
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
civil matters. (1) On and from the commencement of the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Amendment arisen after such commencement, within the jurisdiction of the Special Court under Sub-section (1), shall stand transferred on such commencement to receipt of the records of such suit, claim or other legal proceeding proceed to deal with it, so far as may out the relevant provisions of the Special Courts (Trial Of Offences Relating To Transactions In Securities) Act, 1992 which have a of Section 13 of the Special Courts (Trial Of Offences Relating To Transactions In Securities) Act, 1992 and Section 32 of the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Amendment Act, 1994, being a suit, claim or proceeding, the Special Courts (Trial Of Offences Relating To Transactions In Securities) Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the Special Courts Act) against Courts (Trial of Offences Relating To Transactions In Securities) Act, 1992.4. Dr. R.G. Padia, learned senior counsel for the appellant, has other modes of recovery are specified in Section 226. Sub- section (4) of Section 226 provides that the Income-tax Officer may in such manner as the Special Court may direct. Section 9A deals with the jurisdiction, powers, authority and procedure of Special Special Court shall have, or be entitled to exercise, any jurisdiction, power or authority in relation to any matter or claim 102/95, 188/95, 103/95, 251/95 and 252/95. 2. The custodian exercising powers under Section 3(2) of the Special Courts Act published the the Special Court shall exercise all such jurisdiction, powers and authority as were exercisable, immediately before such commencement, by any civil direct. Section 9A deals with the jurisdiction, powers, authority and procedure of Special Court in civil matters. Clause (a) of Sub-section the jurisdiction, powers, authority and procedure of Special Court in civil matters. Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 9A provides Jurisdiction, powers, authority and procedure of Special Court in civil matters. (1) On and from the commencement of the Special Court
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTBhupen Dalal Vs. A.K. Menon
Court: Mumbai
Reported in: 1996(3)BomCR429; [1997]89CompCas121(Bom)
High Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the Special Court is situated with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 10. Section 10 of the Special Court Act provides for appeal. It reads thus : 'Appeal. - the Special Court Act. A Special Court is established for trial of offences relating to transactions in securities and matters connected either as a principal, conspirator or abettor and all other offences and empowers joint trial also. In so far as procedures 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 In other words, the reference in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to the High Court has been substituted by the Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992, in Suo Motu Contempt Notice No. 1 of 1995 by it or transferred to it as provided in the Act. Section 8 provides jurisdiction to the Special Court to try any single judge of the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt under section 19(1)(a) of the Contempt empowers joint trial also. In so far as procedures and powers of the Special Court are concerned, they are spoken to Court shall have, and exercise, the same jurisdiction, powers and authority in respect of contempt of itself as a High Court of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Code of Civil Procedure and the Arbitration Act, 1940, are concerned. He urged that under the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Code of Civil Procedure or the Arbitration Act, or that when a person appeals to the Supreme Court only when such appeals or matters arise under the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Code
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
assignee after adjudicating the validity of the agreement. That, the Special Court was an Executing Court and, therefore, it had the in civil matters. Under Section 9-A, the jurisdiction of this Court in civil matters is in respect of transactions during the Act, 1992. The Special Court was set up for speedy trial of offences relating to transactions in securities. Under Section 3(3) The Special Court was set up for speedy trial of offences relating to transactions in securities. Under Section 3(3) of the for a specific purpose. The Special Court can entertain claims relating to property attached under Section 3(2) or claims arising out and that such claims shall arise out of transactions in securities entered into after 1-4-1991 and upto 6-6-1992. It was further period. Moreover, under Sub-section (4) of Section 9A of the Act, it is laid down that the Special Court is not therefore, it was ordered that Misc. Petition No. 9 of 1992 should be placed before the Court at the time of the Custodian raised a preliminary objection. He submitted that under Section 9-A of the Special Court (TORTS) Act 1992, this Court outside the statutory period. Moreover, under Sub-section (4) of Section 9A of the Act, it is laid down that the Special Government Company did not fall within the purview of the jurisdiction of the Special Court. Being aggrieved, the Government Company went the Code of Civil Procedure. We are concerned with the powers of the Special Court under Section 9-A. Therefore, those Judgments No. 24 of 1994. Section 9-A deals with jurisdiction, power, authority and procedure of Special Court in civil matters. Under Section that the Special Court is empowered to regulate it's own procedure. It was pointed out by the Custodian that in the place of Murablack (India) Limited under Order XXII, Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code. ARGUMENTS :3. When the present application No. 453 jurisdiction, power, authority and procedure of Special Court in civil matters. Under Section 9-A, the jurisdiction of this Court in civil
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)
Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Special Courts Act'). According, to Parekh, he is not liable to provides that where an application has been made to a court, then that court alone would have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings the Special Courts Act provides for notifying a person for trial under the Act. Sections 3(1) and (2) read as follows is a notified party under the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to received that any person has been involved in any offence relating to transactions in securities after April 1, 1991, and on the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Amendment Act, 1994, shall stand transferred on that date to does not.15. A comparison of Section 31(4) of the Arbitration Act, 1940, with Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Special Courts Act'). According, to be made in that court and in no other court.'16. Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 reads as matter or claim referred to in Sub-section (1) of Section 9A pending before any court and governed by the Arbitration Act, Parekh is a notified person. Section 7 which deals with jurisdiction of the special courts reads as follows :'7. Jurisdiction of is a special court alone which has the jurisdiction and powers of the court conferred under the Arbitration Act, 1940, to any decree or order of any court, Tribunal or other authority.'24. In this view of the matter, it is not necessary of Parliament in making the Special Courts Act a self-contained code. Section 13 of the Special Courts Act reads as follows includes the High Court in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction, having jurisdiction to decide the questions forming the subject as follows :'9B. Powers of the special court in arbitration matters.--(1) The special court shall have the jurisdiction and powers of
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)
appellant before affirming the written statement and tendering evidence.2. The Special Court held that taking up a false defence as pleaded regarded as committing contempt, but an attempt to deceive the court by disguising the nature of a claim is contempt. iF 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 Special Court (Trial of Offences relating to Transaction in Securities) Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). A suit Code and another for contempt of court -, however, no action was taken pursuant to the notice issued for offences under that time and he submitted a note on 27th May, 1992. Further stand of the appellant was that he had been Rajendra Babu, J.1. This appeal is filed under Section 10(1) of the Special Court (Trial of Offences relating to Court had gone far beyond the scope of the contempt jurisdiction, particularly when the Court held that on the basis of to the first Defendant issued its combined SGL transfer form authorising the Reserve Bank of India to operate its SGL account 192, 193, 199, 200 and 209 of the Indian Penal Code and another for contempt of court -, however, no action courts and thus produce mischievous consequences to the administration of civil and criminal justice. A person is under a legal obligation appellant tried to explain his position in regard to these matters, to which we have adverted to earlier, the same were
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
dealt with by the custodian in such manner as the Special Court may direct. A person is liable to be notified 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 is liable to be notified by reference to transaction in securities between 1.4.1991 and 6.6.1992. Any contract or agreement entered into the provisions of the Act. Analysing the provisions of the Act, it was held in B.O.I. Finance Ltd. v. Custodian and Courts (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 (hereinafter 'the Act', for short), feeling aggrieved by an order Fair growth became a notified party under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act due to certain illegal transactions covering The features of the financial lease, according to the learned author are as under :'1. The asset is use-specific and is of the cars to the appellant which was only a matter of formality necessarily flowing from the obligation of respondent No.
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)
controversy was no longer relevant for determining whether such a special or local Act excluded the provisions of the Limitation Act of the Limitation Act provides:'4. Expiry of prescribed period when court is closed:- Where the prescribed period for any suit, appeal proceedings even after the passing of an order that the trial should be proceeded with ex-parte. Both the cases i.e. Syndicate the Special Court constituted under The Special Courts (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to in the same statute in respect of various other provisions relating to filing of appeals and revisions, specific provisions are made The Special Courts (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has power Act The contention is that Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 would be automatically applicable to all Special Acts such Courts (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities), Act 1992. Since the appellant's petition of objection had been filed much out that the Act was not a complete code since Sections 4(2) and 10(3) did provide for a period of Limitation.8. Special Court or transferred to the Special Court under Section 9A(2) would attract the provisions of Sections 4 to 24 of prescribed cannot be extended by the Court under any inherent jurisdiction of the Special Court. Prescribed periods for initiating or taking unqualified and there is no scope for reading in a power of Court to dispense with the time limit on the any decree or order of any Court, tribunal or other authority.'20. The decision in Competent Authority Tarana v. Vijay Gupta; no of Peoples Act, 1951 directed the Tribunal to follow the procedure prescribed for trials under the Civil Procedure Code. It was of the Act. It has the same jurisdiction as a Civil Court inter alia in relation to any matter relating to rule of limitation was a procedural requirement and like all matters of procedure should serve to further the ends of justice
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)
same rate of interest which had been granted by the Special Court, while decreeing the Suit No. 1 of 1995. We by this Court as this Court is not the executing Court. This I.A. is also dismissed reserving liberty with the applicant 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 and Anr.,, submitted that this Court did not have the jurisdiction to order restitution. According to him, it is the trial and Anr.,, submitted that this Court did not have the jurisdiction to order restitution. According to him, it is the trial Standard Chartered Bank (hereinafter referred to as the 'SCB') in Civil Appeal No. 7426 of 1996 seeking clarification in the judgment the SCB that Citibank was unjustly enriched is misplaced. In Civil Appeal No. 7426 of 19% which arises from Suit No.
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT- << Prev.
- Next >>