Tracing and restitution principles upheld; interlocutory attachments maintained and deposit requirement preserved to protect secured creditor rights.

Tracing and restitution principles were applied to uphold prior prima facie findings that funds remitted by a subsidiary were credited to the company for purported services and that subsequent transfers raised doubt as to bonafides; the defence of change of position was considered but found insufficient to erode the substratum of earlier orders. Consequently interlocutory attachment and restraint directions against specified entities remain in force, and the earlier direction to deposit the stipulated sum with Canara Bank is necessary to protect secured creditor rights; the appeal is dismissed and no modification is warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Company Court rightly refused to modify its earlier orders (including directions for remittance of Rs.78,45,50,000/- to Canara Bank and consequential attachment/restraint orders) and whether the interlocutory directions attaching bank accounts and assets of CEPL, CHPL, SPIL and KCPAHPL should remain in force.

Analysis: The Court analysed the factual matrix including the receipt of US$17 million by Data Access India Ltd.'s account with ABN Amro from its subsidiary Data Access America Inc., contemporaneous correspondence and shareholder documents, prior orders (including the Company Judge's order dated 18.11.2005 and the Division Bench's appellate dismissal dated 20.11.2009), and subsequent proceedings before income tax authorities, the Company Law Board and other forums. The legal framework relied upon includes principles of trust, tracing and restitution, and the defence of change of position; the Court accepted the prior prima facie findings that the remittance was credited to the company's account by the subsidiary towards services rendered and that the transfers thereafter raised serious doubts as to bonafides. The Court found that the materials now relied upon (income-tax orders and CLB proceedings) were available earlier or did not demonstrate an erosion of the substratum of the earlier judgment and therefore did not justify modification. The Court also noted that the Division Bench had already rejected challenges to the earlier prima facie findings, and that compliance with the 18.11.2005 directions (deposit to Canara Bank) remained necessary to protect secured creditor rights.

Conclusion: The appeal is without merit and is dismissed. The Company Court did not err in refusing to modify the prior orders and in maintaining the attachment and restraint directions subject to deposit of the specified amount with Canara Bank.

---