Documentary evidence linking a vehicle transaction to a notified party justified recovery, while interest was reduced on appeal.

Documentary evidence showing that a vehicle was ordered in the appellant's name, financed by the notified company and delivered under that arrangement justified recovery under section 3 of the Special Court Act, as the transaction was connected with the notified party and the appellant was aware of it. The principal liability to pay the vehicle cost to the Custodian was therefore sustained. However, the interest component was interfered with on the facts, and the award was reduced from 18 per cent to 9 per cent per annum for the relevant period. The recovery direction otherwise remained intact.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant was liable to pay the vehicle cost to the Custodian under the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 on the basis that the vehicle was purchased through the notified party for the appellant. (ii) Whether the rate of interest awarded by the Special Court required reduction.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant was liable to pay the vehicle cost to the Custodian under the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 on the basis that the vehicle was purchased through the notified party for the appellant.

Analysis: The documentary record, including the office note, correspondence, temporary registration and delivery documents, showed that the vehicle was ordered in the appellant's name, that hire-purchase finance was sanctioned by the notified company, and that the vehicle was delivered as part of that arrangement. The materials further showed the appellant's awareness of the transaction and its connection with the notified party. On that basis, the statutory power under section 3 to deal with attached property belonging to or connected with the notified person was attracted.

Conclusion: The appellant remained liable for the vehicle amount and the Special Court's finding on the transaction was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the rate of interest awarded by the Special Court required reduction.

Analysis: Although the principal liability was sustained, the circumstances of the case justified interference with the interest component. The Court modified the interest award from 18 per cent to 9 per cent per annum for the relevant period.

Conclusion: The interest rate was reduced to 9 per cent per annum.

Final Conclusion: The challenge succeeded only to the limited extent of the interest component, while the principal liability and the underlying recovery direction were maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: Documentary evidence establishing that a transaction was authorised for and linked to the appellant through the notified party justified recovery under section 3, but the appellate court may modify the interest component on the facts of the case.

---