Sale of attached shares may proceed after judicial approval, though the Disposal Committee must reassess timing when circumstances change.

Sale of attached shares under the Special Courts Act was treated as implementable once the attachment followed notification and the sale scheme had already been judicially approved; unresolved individual liabilities and withdrawn denotification applications did not bar the sale. The Court also held that objections that the sale was premature, arbitrary, or likely to cause loss could not override the earlier approval of the sale scheme. However, because considerable time had passed and the Special Court had required further procedural steps and fresh expert advice, the Disposal Committee was required to reassess the timing and manner of sale before any further action.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the sale of attached shares could be halted on the ground that individual liabilities of the notified persons had not yet been separately determined and that denotification applications were pending; (ii) whether the earlier directions approving sale of shares bound the parties notwithstanding the objection that the sale was premature or would cause loss; (iii) whether the lapse of time required the Disposal Committee to reassess the timing and manner of sale before further steps could be taken.

Issue (i): Whether the sale of attached shares could be halted on the ground that individual liabilities of the notified persons had not yet been separately determined and that denotification applications were pending.

Analysis: The attachment under the Act operates upon notification, and the confirmed scheme for sale of shares proceeds on the basis that the properties of notified persons stand attached. The earlier judgment had already upheld the sale of shares, and the question of separately determining individual liabilities was not a pre-condition to the sale of shares. The record also showed that the denotification applications had already been withdrawn and were not pending.

Conclusion: The objection was rejected and the sale could not be stalled on these grounds, in favour of the respondent.

Issue (ii): Whether the earlier directions approving sale of shares bound the parties notwithstanding the objection that the sale was premature or would cause loss.

Analysis: The Court treated the earlier decision approving the sale scheme as conclusive on the propriety of selling the shares. It distinguished the observations relied upon by the appellants as relating to other assets and not to the already-finalized scheme for sale of shares. The claim that the proposed sale was arbitrary, procedurally unsound, or financially destructive was not accepted, particularly when the sale process had been structured through the Disposal Committee and had earlier been judicially approved.

Conclusion: The earlier approval of the sale scheme remained binding and the challenge to the sale as premature or harmful failed, in favour of the respondent.

Issue (iii): Whether the lapse of time required the Disposal Committee to reassess the timing and manner of sale before further steps could be taken.

Analysis: Because considerable time had elapsed after the impugned sale process and because the Special Court had itself required further procedural steps and fresh expert and legal advice, the existing sale process could not simply be carried forward unchanged. The market position and related factors had to be reconsidered by the expert body entrusted with that function.

Conclusion: A fresh decision by the Disposal Committee was required before further action, though this did not assist the appellants on the merits.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed, the impugned directions were substantially sustained, and the matter was sent back only for a fresh decision on the sale process in light of the elapsed time and the Court's directions.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the sale of attached property under the Special Courts Act has already been judicially approved, subsequent objections based on unresolved inter se liabilities or withdrawn denotification applications cannot prevent implementation of the sale, though the expert body may reassess the timing and manner of sale if circumstances materially change.

---