Attached assets and legal fees: already incurred advocates' fees must await statutory distribution, not ex post facto release.

Sections 3(4) and 11(1) of the Special Court Act permit release of attached monies only for expenditure necessary to preserve, protect or augment attached assets. Advocates' fees already incurred without prior judicial sanction do not meet that test; once services have been rendered, the claim is treated as a liability to be certified and satisfied in the statutory order of priority under section 11(2)(c). A notified party cannot create a fait accompli and seek ex post facto approval for payment from attached property. Although the right to legal representation of choice is recognised, it is limited by the available assets, and where liabilities exceed assets, present release for already incurred legal fees must await distribution.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Special Court has power under sections 3(4) and 11(1) of the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 to release monies from attached property for expenses incurred for preservation, protection or augmentation of attached assets, including advocates' fees already incurred. (ii) Whether a notified party whose liabilities exceed available assets can insist on release of monies for legal fees on the basis of a right to legal representation of choice, including in criminal matters.

Issue (i): Whether the Special Court has power under sections 3(4) and 11(1) of the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 to release monies from attached property for expenses incurred for preservation, protection or augmentation of attached assets, including advocates' fees already incurred.

Analysis: Sections 3(4) and 11(1) empower the Court to issue directions regarding attached property and to release monies where the expenditure is necessary for preservation, protection or augmentation of the assets. That power is distinct from section 11(2), which governs distribution of liabilities. However, where the expenses have already been incurred without prior judicial sanction and the services have already been rendered, no further direction is needed for preservation or augmentation. In such a case the claim becomes a liability to be certified and paid in the statutory order of priority under section 11(2)(c). The Court cannot allow a notified party to create a fait accompli and then seek ex post facto approval for payment out of attachment.

Conclusion: Advocates' fees already incurred fall under section 11(2)(c) and cannot be released under sections 3(4) or 11(1) at that stage.

Issue (ii): Whether a notified party whose liabilities exceed available assets can insist on release of monies for legal fees on the basis of a right to legal representation of choice, including in criminal matters.

Analysis: The Court accepted that a notified party has a right to legal representation of choice, and that the Act cannot be interpreted so as to render that right constitutionally vulnerable. At the same time, the right is limited by financial reality. Where assets are insufficient to meet liabilities, the property in substance remains earmarked for distribution and cannot be used for private defence. In such cases the notified party stands in no better position than an indigent litigant, and the right to engage costly counsel becomes illusory unless funds are available. For future cases requiring prior sanction, the Court indicated that it may consider limited release on a case-by-case basis; but for the present petitions, which related to fees already incurred, payment had to await distribution under section 11(2).

Conclusion: A notified party cannot demand present release of attached funds for already incurred legal fees when assets are insufficient; such claims are to be dealt with at distribution, though the right to legal representation itself is not denied.

Final Conclusion: The Court held that the pending applications for advocates' fees could not be granted at this stage and had to await distribution under the statutory scheme, while leaving open only a limited, case-specific approach for prospective legal expenses in appropriate matters.

Ratio Decidendi: Expenditure from attached assets is permissible only when prior judicial sanction is necessary for preservation, protection or augmentation of the property and the claim is not one that must be dealt with as a liability in the statutory order of distribution under section 11(2).

---