TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1996 (1) TMI 334
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it disclosing all his assets. This order is the subject matter of challenge in appeal No. 856 of 1995. 3. An affidavit disclosing assets was filed by the appellant and, upon that event, a review petition being Review Petition No. 1 of 1995 was instituted seeking to get the order of 22-6-1995 reviewed. The learned Judge disposed of the review petition by the order dated 24-7-1995. The learned Judge, on refusing to set aside the earlier order made by him holding the appellant guilty, observed that appellant could be given an opportunity to prove his sincerity and if directions earlier given are complied with and all assets are disclosed as directed by the earlier order within 12 weeks from the date of the order, the question of appellant undergoing simple imprisonment shall not take effect. The court also further observed that, in the event of there being no such disclosure within the time, the order to automatically take effect. The second order dated 24-7-1995 is the subject matter of challenge in Appeal No. 925 of 1995. 4. Mr. Setalwad, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent custo-dian, raised a preliminary objection of maintainability of these appeals on the groun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ill have to be read along with section 11 A. According to him, non obstante clause of section 10 bars appeals except to the Supreme Court (and) is restricted only insofar as appeals arising out of Code of Criminal Procedure, Code of Civil Procedure and the Arbitra-tion Act, 1940 are concerned. He urged that the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is clearly excluded. He, therefore, says that when a person has committed contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act regard being had to section 10 read with section 11 A, there can be no bar for appeal being heard by Division Bench of the High Court under section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act. 7. Mr. Zaiwalla in support of the contention that section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act governs the field in respect of intra court appeal and appellant has right of appeal under that provision, took us through the provision of section 2(d) of the Special Court Act which defines Special Court and sections 5(2), 6, 8 and 9 thereof. According to him, the Special Court is a sitting Judge of the High Court and is otherwise to follow the procedure prescribed for trial of warrant cases before the Magistrate. He says that inasmuch as the Special Court is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....utory order, of the Special Court to the Supreme Court both on facts and on law. (2) Except as aforesaid, no appeal or revision shall lie to any court from any judgment, decree, sentence or order of the Special Court. (3) Every appeal under this section shall be preferred within a period of 30 days from the date of any judgment, sentence or order of the Special Court: Provided that the Supreme Court may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of 30 day s if it is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the period of 30 days." From the aforesaid, it is clear that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, Code of Civil Procedure and the Arbitra-tion Act, an appeal has been provided from any judgment, decree, sentence or order not being interlocutory order made by the Special Court to the Supreme Court both on facts and on law. Sub-section (2) makes it clear that except what is said in sub-section (1) of section 10, no appeal or revision shall lie to any court from any judgment, decree, sentence or order of the Special Court and sub-section (3) thereof provides a period of limitation....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....71. 15. It is, therefore, not possible to accept the contention of Mr. Zaiwalla, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, that merely because a sitting Judge of the High Court is nominated by the Chief Justice as a Special Court and when the Special Court exercises powers under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, the Special Court is a High Court. In our view, when the Special Court exercises its powers under section 11 A, such powers are exercised by the Special Court though the Special Court is composed of a sitting Judge of a High Court. Coming back to section 10, it is again not possible to accept the contention of Mr. Zaiwalla that non obstante clause is restricted only insofar as matters arising out of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the Arbitration Act, 1940, and, therefore, the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, is excluded. In other words, the attempt of Mr. Zaiwalla is to suggest that as long as there is no mention of Contempt of Courts Act in section 10, an appeal will lie to the High Court and not to the Supreme Court. In our view, it is not possible to hold that section 10 can be read as suggested by Mr. Zaiwall....