TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (3) TMI 469
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Appeal No. 470 of 1999 arising out of Miscellaneous Petition No. 43 of 1995. By his judgment and order dated 12-1-2005 the learned Special Judge came to a finding that the conduct of the appellant herein through the noticee, Milan Dalal, son of the Notified Party, Bhupen Dalal, was such as to repeatedly create difficulties in the way of the Court and the Custodian, firstly, in passing the decree, and, thereafter, in the matter of its execution. In the circumstances indicated in the order, the noticee, Milan Dalal, was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months and was also directed to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000. The said order was suspended for a period of 12 weeks within which period the appeal was filed in this Court a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....majority shareholder of the judgment debtor M/s. Neeldeep Investment Company Private Limited, along with noticee Milan Dalal. It was also noted that after Bhupen Dalal was notified under the said Act the Custodian issued a public notice calling upon the parties to disclose to him if any money was owed by them to the Notified Party. Despite such public notice, the judgment debtor which was practically a family concern of the Notified Party did not come forward to disclose that the judgment debtor owed huge amounts to the Notified Party. It was noted that the Custodian came to know of the liability only on account of information given by the Income-tax Department. It is on the basis of such information that the Custodian had taken out the Mis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1999. Show-Cause Notice was issued pursuant to the order dated 19-9-2003 under section 11A of the said Act wherein it was stated that the noticee was to be tried for having disobeyed the order dated 24-11-1999. Although, several defences were taken on behalf of the noticee, the learned Special Judge held by his order dated 12-1-2005 that the conduct of the noticee showed that in the instant case attempts had repeatedly been made to create difficulties in the way of the Court and the Custodian, firstly, in the passing of the decree and then in the matter of its execution. The learned Special Judge accordingly felt that it would be appropriate to impose deterrent punishment on the noticee and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he High Court will become operative. Adjourned to 3rd April, 2006." 9. Pursuant to the aforesaid order on 3-4-2006 the appellant brought two cheques towards payment of the first instalment. The matter was directed to appear after 2 weeks to ensure that the cheques were duly encashed. Subsequently, on 14-7-2006 it was recorded that the second cheque which was payable on 10-7-2006 in terms of the order dated 20-1-2006 had also been paid and that the third instalment was payable by 4-12-2006. The matter was directed to be listed in the last week of December 2006 and, in the meantime, the hearing of the garnishee notices before the Special Court, Mumbai, was stayed. 10. The matter thereafter appeared on 22-1-2007 when it was adjourned ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eon instead of Rs. 1,42,65,000 as indicated. By the said application, it was, therefore, prayed that the order dated 20-1-2006, was required to be modified by correcting the principal amount mentioned in the decree to be Rs. 1,74,79,500 minus Rs. 15,75,000, which had already been recovered, together with interest as decreed by the Special Court in its order dated 8-6-1995. 13. The said application was also heard at the time of hearing of the appeal. 14. The fact that two separate decrees were passed for the sum of Rs. 1,42,65,000 and Rs. 32,14,500 is not disputed, though, an attempt was made to establish that the two were separate and would have to be dealt with separately. On behalf of the appellant it was submitted that the order da....