B.N.KIRPAL, J.

(1) THIS is an appeal against the decision of the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transaction in Securities) Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as "the Special Court"). According to the decree, the special court found that a sum of Rs. 60,64,71,275.12., was payable by the appellant to the respondent who was also held entitled to interest at the rate of 20 per cent per annum from 25th November, 1991, till the payment of the decretal amount. Costs were also awarded in favour of the respondent. We are informed that the decretal amount including the costs have been paid to the respondent by 1995.

(2) THE respondent had filed a suit against the appellant basing dues on three transactions which had taken place between them. On 23.8.1991, the appellant purchased Government of India securities 2008-A of face value of Rs. 10 crores at the rate of Rs. 101.50 and on 26.8.1991, it purchased similar securities of the face value of Rs. 7 crores at the rate of Rs. 101.50 and a similar transaction was entered into on 14.9.1991 where security of face value of Rs. 43 crores was purchased at the rate of Rs. 101.50. In this manner, securities of the face value of Rs. 60 crores were purchased from the appellant by the respondent.

(3) THE payment for the aforesaid was made and in lieu thereof the appellant- bank delivered to the respondent three cost memos and 3 SGL transfer forms. When these transfer forms were presented to the RBI, they were returned because the account of the appellant with the Reserve Bank did not show that the said SGL forms could be honoured. These SGLs were presented twice again but without success. Ultimately, it is an admitted case, that the respondent did receive SGLs of the face value of Rs. 1.61 crores. The suit which was filed was for Rs. 58.39 crores plus interest thereon. Written statement was filed and one of the main pleas which was taken was that the account had been squared off. On the pleas of the parties, 21 issues were framed which were as follows:

1. Whether the suit is bad for non- joinder of necessary parties and not maintainable as alleged in para 1 of the written statement of defendant no. 1? 2. Whether this Honourable Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit as alleged in para 1 of the written statement of defendant no. 1 ? 3. Whether the defendants are personally, jointly and severally liable to the plaintiffs as averred in para 2 of the plaint? 4. Whether the suit instituted by the plaintiffs against defendant nos. 2 to 11 is not maintainable as alleged in para 1 of the written statement of defendant nos. 2 to 11? 5. Whether this Honourable Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit against defendants 2 to 11 as alleged in para 2 of the written statement of defendants 2 to 11? 6. Whether the claim is barred by limitation as against defendants 2 to 11 as alleged in paras 3 and 10 of the written statement of defendants 2 to 11 ? 7. Whether defendant nos. 2 to 7 and 11 are not liable to the plaintiffs having ceased to be trustees as alleged in para 13 of the written statement of defendants 2 to 11? 8. Whether there was an informal arrangement as stated in para 4 of the written statement whereby the plaintiffs at the directions of Hiten P. Dalal purported to buy securities from counter parties and whether subsequent purported sales of these securities were also negotiated by Mr. Hiten P. Dalal and disguised sales made at such negotiated, prices to counter parties/banks designated by Mr. Hiten P.Dalal? 9. Whether pursuant to the alleged informal arrangement stated in para 4 of the written statement, the plaintiffs had directly or indirectly lent and advanced monies to Mr. Hiten P. Dalal under purported transaction of face value of Rs.58.39 crores and/or face value of Rs. 60 crores which are part of their transactions involving the plaintiffs, Mr. Hiten Dalal, Bank of Karad and Citibank by which Hiten P. D