JUDGMENT

S.P.BHARUCHA, J.

(1) LEAVE granted.

(2) THIS is an appeal from the judgment and order of the Company Law Board which raises an interesting question as to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Special court constituted under the provisions of the Special court (Trial of offence selating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992. The Company Law Board (CLB) has held that its jurisdiction to deal with matters relating to securities, provided by the Companies Act, 1956, is not affected by the Special court Act.

(3) THE question arose in these circumstances. The Canara Bank (the appellant) had made an application before the CLB under Section 111 of the Companies Act seeking relief against the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. (the first respondent), which had refused to register in its books in the name of the Canara Bank bonds of the Nuclear Power Corporation purchased by the Canara Bank. The Standard Chartered Bank (the fourth respondent) had also claimed ownership of the said bonds. The Canara Bank alleged that it had acquired the said bonds from the Andhra Bank Financial Services Ltd. (the third respondent) through one Hiten P. Dalal, (the second respondent) who had acted as a broker. Hiten P. Dalal is a pERSON notified under the provisions of Section 3(2 of the Special court Act and was, as the application of the Canara Bank before the CLB showed, involved as a broker in the transaction relating to the said bonds. The application of the Canara Bank was pending disposal before the CLB when, on 25/1/1994, the Special court Act was amended by the Special court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Amendment Ordinance, 1994, and Section 9-A was introduced. The Canara Bank and the Nuclear Power Corporation took the stand that the application of the Canara Bank stood transferred to the Special court by virtue of the provisions of Section 9-A(2 of the Special court Act. The Standard Chartered Bank (Stanchart) contended that the CLB retained the jurisdiction to deal with the application. The CLB held that it was not a court within the meaning of the Companies Act nor was it a civil court. Its jurisdiction was, therefore, unaffected by the provisions of Section 9-A(2 of the Special court Act. The Special court Act.

(4) THE Special court Act was enacted to provide for the establishment of a special court for the trial of offences relating to transactions in securities and matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Securities were defined in Section 2(c) to include shares, scrips, stocks, bonds, debentures, debenture stock, units and other marketable securities of a like nature. government securities and rights or interests in securities. Section 3(1 provided for the appointment by the central government of a Custodian. By reason of Section 3, the Custodian was empowered, on being satisfied on information received that any pERSON had been involved in any offence relating to transactions in securities after 1/4/1991, and before 6/6/1992 (the stated dates), to notify the name of such pERSON in the Official Gazette. On and from the date of such notification, by reason of Section 3(3, property, moveable and immovable, belonging to the pERSON notified stood attached and, by reason of Section 3(4, could be dealt with by the Custodian in such manner as the Special court directed. Section 4(1 empowered the Custodian, if he was satisfied, after such inquiry as he thought fit, that any contract or agreement entered into at any time between the stated dates in relation to any property of a pERSON notified had been entered into fraudulently or to defeat the provisions of the Special court Act, to cancel such contract or agreement and, on such cancellation, such property stood attached. Such cancellation was required to be preceded by a reasonable opportunity to the parties to the contract or agreement to be heard. Any pERSON aggrieved by a notification under Section 3(2