Special Court jurisdiction over attached securities-scam assets prevails over debt recovery tribunal proceedings.

Attached property of a notified person under the Special Courts (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 remained under the Custodian's control and within the Special Court's exclusive civil jurisdiction after the 1994 insertion of section 9A. The Special Courts Act, enacted for the specific securities scam context, prevailed over the general recovery regime under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 to the extent of inconsistency. Although both statutes contained overriding clauses, claims by banks against the attached assets were to be pursued before the Special Court, including under section 11(2)(b), and not before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Special Courts (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 overrides the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 in relation to the attached properties of a notified person and whether the Debts Recovery Tribunal could exercise jurisdiction over such properties.

Analysis: The attachment of the notified person's property under section 3(3) of the Special Courts Act placed those properties under the control of the Custodian, to be dealt with as directed by the Special Court. Section 9A, inserted by the 1994 amendment, conferred exclusive civil jurisdiction on the Special Court in matters relating to properties standing attached under section 3(3) and excluded all other courts. The Special Courts Act was enacted for a special and specific purpose, namely to deal with the securities scam period identified in the statute, while the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 is a general recovery statute. Both enactments contain overriding clauses, but section 9A of the Special Courts Act operated later in point of time and specifically covered the attached property and related claims. The two statutes were also capable of being read harmoniously, because bank dues could be pursued before the Special Court under section 11(2)(b) for discharge from the attached assets.

Conclusion: The Special Courts Act prevailed over the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 in respect of the notified person's attached property, and the Debts Recovery Tribunal lacked jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: Where two special statutes contain non obstante clauses, the later and more specific enactment governs the field to the extent of inconsistency, and claims against attached property of a notified person must be worked out before the Special Court.

---