1  

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

 IA No. 3 of 2008  

 in     

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1528 OF 2005    

   M/s Neeldeep Investments (P) Ltd. ...Appellant    

   Versus  

     The Custodian & Ors.         ...Respondents  

 With  

I.A.No.           of  2008  (For extension of time)  

 O R D E R   

     1. Interlocutory Application No. 3 of 2008 has  

been filed in Civil Appeal No. 1528 of 2005,  

which had been disposed of on 13th March, 2008  

with certain directions.   

2  

2. The Custodian under the Special Courts (Trial  

of Offences Relating to Transactions in  

Securities) Act, 1992, took out Miscellaneous  

Petition No. 43 of 1995 on behalf of the  

notified party, Bhupen Dalal for recovery of  

Rs.1,421,65,000/-, with interest, from M/s.  

Neeldeep Investment Company Private Limited.   

The said petition was allowed and a decree was  

passed by a Special Court by its order dated 8th  

June, 1995.  Thereafter, for the execution of  

the said decree, Miscellaneous Application No.  

470 of 1999 was taken out by the Custodian and  

on that application on 24th November, 1999, the  

Court passed an interim order restraining the  

Judgment Debtor and its Directors from in any  

manner dealing with, disposing of, transferring  

or alienating or encumbering any of their  

properties.   

3. Notice was also issued by the Court to the  

garnishees who appeared and filed their  

respective affidavits.  In their affidavits,  

the defence taken was that though they owed

3  

various amounts to the Judgment debtor,  

subsequently shares of different companies were  

accepted by the Judgment debtor towards  

repayment of the loans.  The Court also  

referred to the various affidavits filed on  

behalf of the garnishees and observed that the  

transactions mentioned by them appeared to be  

fictitious and had been mentioned only to  

mislead the court.  Accordingly, a show-cause  

notice was directed to be issued to the noticee  

to show-cause as to why he should not be tried  

and punished for having committed criminal  

contempt of Court.    

4. Pursuant to the order dated 19th September,  

2003, a show cause notice was issued to the  

applicant herein for alleged disobedience of  

the order dated 24th November, 1999.   Upon  

hearing the matter extensively, the Special  

Court came to the conclusion that the  

noticee/applicant herein had committed criminal  

contempt of court and sentenced him to undergo  

simple imprisonment for a period of three

4  

months and also directed him to pay a fine of  

Rs.2,000/-.  The said order was suspended for a  

period of 12 weeks, within which period the  

applicant filed Civil Appeal No. 1528 of 2005.  

1. In the appeal a suggestion was mooted on behalf  

of the appellant/applicant that he would pay  

the amount of Rs.1,26,25,000/-, being the  

balance decretal amount of Rs.1,42,00,000/- in  

three instalments, of which the first  

instalment would be paid on 3rd April, 2006, the  

second on 10th July, 2006 and the third by 4th  

December, 2006.  Accordingly, the appeal was  

adjourned and it was indicated that in the  

event all the instalments were paid, the appeal  

would stand allowed and the order of the High  

Court would stand set aside and the garnishee  

notices would be discharged.   It was also  

indicated that in default of payment of any one  

instalment or any portion thereof, the appeal  

would stand dismissed and the impugned order of  

the High Court would become operative.

5  

2. When the matter was again listed for hearing on  

14th November, 2007, it was submitted on behalf  

of the Custodian that there was an error in the  

decretal amount mentioned, which went unnoticed  

when the decree was passed and subsequently an  

application for modification of the Order  

passed in the Appeal of 20th January, 2006 was  

filed by the Custodian. The said matter was  

heard at length and ultimately by Order dated  

13th March, 2008, the decretal amount was  

corrected to read Rs.1,59,04,500/-, together  

with interest, as decreed by the Special Court  

upon credit having been given for  

Rs.15,75,000/- which had already been recovered  

by the Custodian.  In view of the amendment of  

the decretal amount, the applicant was directed  

to pay the balance of the decretal amount  

within 30th June, 2008 in three equal  

instalments commencing from the month of April,  

2008.  The hearing of the garnishee notices  

before the Special Court, Mumbai, was directed  

to remain stayed till the said date, with the

6  

addition, that in case of default of payment of  

any of the instalments, the order passed by the  

Court would cease to be operative and the order  

appealed against would revive.  

3. Now a fresh application, being I.A. No. 3 of  

2008, has been filed in the Appeal once again  

agitating that the decretal amount should be  

Rs.1,42,65,000/- less Rs.15,00,000/-, instead  

of the amount of Rs.1,59,04,500/-, together  

with interest, as indicated in our order of 13th  

March, 2008.  However, when the application was  

taken up for consideration, it was submitted by  

Mr. Nageshwar Rao, learned senior counsel, that  

he was not pressing the said prayer in the  

application, but he was seeking a modification  

of the directions contained in our order of 13th  

March, 2008, where in Paragraph 15 we had  

indicated while allowing the application filed  

by the Custodian that the decretal amount was  

to be corrected to read as Rs.1,59,04,500/-,  

together with interest, as decreed by the  

Special Court.  He also submitted that in

7  

Paragraph 16 of the Judgment  we  had indicated  

that after taking into account the decretal  

amount as amended, together with interest as  

directed by the learned Special Judge, the  

applicant was directed to pay the balance  

decretal amount within 30th June,  2008,  in   

three equal instalments.   Mr. Rao submitted  

that such a direction virtually amounted to  

execution of the decree, which was pending  

execution before the Trial Court.   He also  

submitted that the order of 13th March, 2008,  

having been passed on a contempt application,  

where the order had been made for payment of  

the decretal amount only, the inclusion of the  

interest factor in the order was beyond the  

scope of the Appeal before this Court.  It was  

submitted that the direction to include the  

interest in the balance decretal amount payable  

was liable to be corrected, so that the issue  

relating to payment of interest could be heard  

and decided by the Executing Court where the  

execution proceeding was pending.

8  

1. Having heard learned counsel for the respective  

parties, and having regard to the fact that the  

order passed by us on 13th March, 2008, was in a  

Contempt proceeding, we modify the directions  

contained in our order dated 13th March, 2008,  

and while rejecting the prayer made in I.A. No.  

3 of 2008, we direct that the quantum of  

interest payable on the decretal amount will be  

decided by the Executing Court. We make it  

clear that in this order we have merely  

clarified that the decretal amount will be  

Rs.1,59,04,500/- in stead of Rs.1,42,00,000/-  

and we have not altered any other part of the  

order dated 13th March, 2008.  

1. However,  the other application filed on behalf  

of the appellant for extension of time to pay  

the third instalment in terms of our order  

dated 13th March, 2008, is taken on Board and is  

allowed and time for deposit of the said  

instalment is extended till 18th August, 2008.   

9  

1. Both the applications are disposed of  

accordingly.       

...................J      (C.K. THAKKER)         

  ...................J      (ALTAMAS KABIR)    

New Delhi  Dated: 04.08.2008