Case: Manjit Singh Sodhi Vs. The Custodian &amp; Ors

not expressly excluded by the special Law. The three-Judge Bench in L S Synthetics Ltd (supra) observed that Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act is not applicable to the Act of 1992 since in terms of the provisions of the Act, no period of limitation is prescribed. 16. In Fairgrowth Investments Ltd (supra), the issue before this Court was whether the Special Court constituted under the Act of 1992 has the power to condone the delay in filing a petition under Section 4(2) of the Act. In that case, on 23 November 2001, the appellant was notified under Section 3(2) of the Act of 1992. On 8 October 2002, the appellant filed a petition of objection to the notification under Section 4(2) of the Act of 1992. The Special Court rejected the application on the ground that it was filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed by Section 4(2). Section 4(2) provides that any person aggrieved by a notification issued under Section 3(2), may file an objection within thirty days of such notification. This Court rejected the contention of the appellant that the limitation prescribed under Section 4(2) is directory and not mandatory and held that Section 4(2) is unequivocal and unqualified and there is no scope to read in a power of the Court to dispense with the time limit. Consequently, in Fairgrowth Investments Ltd (supra), this Court concurred with the final conclusion in L S Synthetics Ltd (supra) to the extent that the provisions of the Act of 1963 have no application in relation to a petition under Section 4(2) of the Act of 1992. It was observed that the decision of this Court in LS Synthetics (supra), was limited to a consideration of Section 11 of the Act of 1992: 23. The decision by a larger bench in L.S Synthetics Ltd. holding that the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 do not apply to the Act may not have, by itself, concluded the question formulated by us at the outset. That case was, as has been rightly contended by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, limited to a consideration of Section11 of the Act and the proceedings by the Special Court thereunder. It was in that context that the Court had said that the Act had not provided for any period of limitation. But for the reasons already stated by us we concur in the final conclusion reached by the Court in L.S Synthetics to the extent that the provisions of the Limitation Act 1963 have not application in relation to a petition under Section 4(2) of the Act. 24. Finally, Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act speaks of application of the provisions contained in Sections 4 to 24 only insofar as, and to the extent to which, they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law. This language, together with our earlier reasoning, particularly with regard to L.S. Synthetics [(2004) 11 SCC 456 : (2004) 7 Scale 427] would answer the further question raised by the appellant, namely, whether the question of exclusion of the provisions of the Limitation Act must be separately considered with reference to different provisions of a special/local Act or in connection with the provisions of the special/local Act, as a whole, by affirmation of the first alternative. We are therefore not called upon to decide whether claims either preferred for the first time before the Special Court or transferred to the Special Court under Section 9-A(2) would attract the provisions of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act. It is enough for the purpose of this appeal to hold that Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to proceedings under Section 4(2) of the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992. Since the appellants petition of objection had been filed much beyond the period prescribed under that section, the Special Court was right in rejecting the petition in limine. The appeal is accordingly dismissed but without any order as to costs. 17. At this juncture, Section 18 of the Act of 1963 also needs to be noted. Section 18 of the Act of 1963 stipulates that if an acknowledgment of liability in writing is made before the expiration of the prescribed period for a suit or application in respect of any right, a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the acknowledgment was signed. Explanation (c) to Section 18 states that an application for the execution of a decree or order shall not be deemed to be an application in respect of any property or right. 18. In the present case, the Special Court has proceeded on the basis that there was an acknowledgement of liability by the letter of the appellant dated 22 February 2018. That finding is sought to be assailed by the appellant by urging that the acknowledgement of liability under Section 18 of the Act of 1963 has to be within the period of limitation and in the present case this test is not satisfied. On the other hand, as we have already noted, it has been urged on behalf of the first respondent that the premise of the judgment of the Special Court that the Act of 1963 would stand attracted would run contrary to the decision of this Court in L S Synthetics Ltd (supra). 19. Based on the decision of this Court in L S Synthetics Ltd (supra), the ultimate directions which have been issued by the Special Court cannot be interfered with. The observations contained in the impugned order were for the purpose of issuing the directions for a disclosure of assets and would not preclude the Custodian from urging that the Act of 1963 had no application to the Execution Application which was filed for enforcement of the decree dated 28 February 2003. The directions for the disclosure of assets and other consequential directions which have been issued are not interfered with in this appeal.

Court's decision (1 = petition accepted / positive for appellant, 0 = rejected / negative): 1

Reasoning from the judgment:
1[ds]12. A Constitution bench of this Court in Mohan Lal Magan Lal Thacker v. State of Gujarat AIR 1968 SC 733  differentiated between a final order and interlocutory order as follows:4. The question as to whether a judgment or an order is final or not has been the subject-matter of a number of decisions; yet no single general test for finality has so far been laid down. The reason probably is that a judgment or order may be final for one purpose and interlocutory for another or final as to part and interlocutory as to part. The meaning of the two words final and interlocutory has, therefore, to be considered separately in relation to the particular purpose for which it is required. However, generally speaking, a judgment or order which determines the principal matter in question is termed final. It may be final although it directs enquiries or is made on an interlocutory application or reserves liberty to apply [Halsburys Laws of England (3rd Edn.) Vol. 22, 742-43] . In some of the English decisions where this question arose, one or the other of the following four tests was applied.1. Was the order made upon an application such that a decision in favour of either party would determine the main dispute?2. Was it made upon an application upon which the main dispute could have been decided?3. Does the order as made determine the dispute?4. If the order in question is reversed, would the action have to go on?13. An interlocutory order denotes an interim or temporary order which does not decide the important rights or liabilities of the parties Amar Nath v. State of Haryana, (1977) 4 SCC 137 . The Special Court in its order dated 6 March 2020 has conclusively held that the execution petition is not barred by limitation. The determination of the issue of limitation affects the rights and liabilities of the parties. Thus, the argument of the first appellant that the appeal is not maintainable in view of Section 10 of the Act of 1992 is rejected.14. The Special Judge has specifically held against the appellant on the ground that there was an acknowledgement of liability within the meaning of Section 18 of the Act of 1963. The finding that there was an acknowledgement of liability within the meaning of Section 18 is premised on the hypothesis that the Act of 1963 would stand attracted. However, it has also been held in the judgment of the Special Court that in any event the Custodian is entitled and liable to recover the amount under the Act of 1992 in view of the decision of this Court in L S Synthetics Ltd (supra).15. In L S Synthetics Ltd (supra), the appellant had obtained short term loans from a notified party. The Custodian had called upon the appellant to furnish details of the loan. The notified party initiated proceedings before the Special Court seeking a direction to the appellant to pay the Custodian on his behalf. The contention of the appellant was that the claim was barred by limitation since he had furnished the full details of the amount in question to the Custodian in 1993. On the question of whether the claim of the notified party is barred by limitation, the three-Judge Bench of this Court held that provisions of the Limitation Act have no application, in so far as directions required to be issued by the Special Court relating to the disposal of the attached property are concerned. The relevant extract of the judgment reads as follows:37. We may, however, add that the attachment of the properties of the notified party being for specific purposes, i.e., for the purpose of discharging his liabilities, the Special Court is bound to pass appropriate orders in relation thereto. A property once attached shall remain under attachment till an appropriate order is passed. It is, therefore, idle to contend that even in respect thereof the provisions of the Limitation Act would apply. The Court while issuing directions to the Custodian in relation to the attached property for the purpose of discharge of the liability of the notified person must pass an appropriate order. So long the claims or other proceedings initiated before the Special Court as regard discharge of liability of the notified person continue, the attachment remains in force. A proceeding before the Special Court is not a suit for recovery of an amount. The proceedings before the Special Court are extraordinary in nature. Distribution of the assets of a notified person may take a long time but it would bear repetition to state because all the claims filed before the Special Court are disposed of, the property of the notified person stands attached. In other words, the provisions of the Limitation Act would inter alia apply only when a suit is filed or a proceeding is initiated for recovery of an amount and not where a property is required to be applied towards the claims pending before the tribunal for the purpose of discharge of the liabilities of the notified person in terms of Section 11 of the said Act.41 […] We are, therefore, of the opinion that the provisions of the Limitation Act have no application, so far as directions required to be issued by the Special Court relating to the disposal of the attached property, are concerned.Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act stipulates that where a special law prescribes a period of limitation for an application different from the period prescribed in the Schedule of Act of 1963, then Section 3 of the Act of 1963 shall apply as if such period was prescribed by the schedule, and the provisions of Sections 4 to 24 shall apply to the extent that it is not expressly excluded by the special Law. The three-Judge Bench in L S Synthetics Ltd (supra) observed that Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act is not applicable to the Act of 1992 since in terms of the provisions of the Act, no period of limitation is prescribed.16. In Fairgrowth Investments Ltd (supra), the issue before this Court was whether the Special Court constituted under the Act of 1992 has the power to condone the delay in filing a petition under Section 4(2) of the Act. In that case, on 23 November 2001, the appellant was notified under Section 3(2) of the Act of 1992. On 8 October 2002, the appellant filed a petition of objection to the notification under Section 4(2) of the Act of 1992. The Special Court rejected the application on the ground that it was filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed by Section 4(2). Section 4(2) provides that any person aggrieved by a notification issued under Section 3(2), may file an objection within thirty days of such notification. This Court rejected the contention of the appellant that the limitation prescribed under Section 4(2) is directory and not mandatory and held that Section 4(2) is unequivocal and unqualified and there is no scope to read in a power of the Court to dispense with the time limit. Consequently, in Fairgrowth Investments Ltd (supra), this Court concurred with the final conclusion in L S Synthetics Ltd (supra) to the extent that the provisions of the Act of 1963 have no application in relation to a petition under Section 4(2) of the Act of 1992. It was observed that the decision of this Court in LS Synthetics (supra), was limited to a consideration of Section 11 of the Act of 1992:23. The decision by a larger bench in L.S Synthetics Ltd. holding that the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 do not apply to the Act may not have, by itself, concluded the question formulated by us at the outset. That case was, as has been rightly contended by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, limited to a consideration of Section11 of the Act and the proceedings by the Special Court thereunder. It was in that context that the Court had said that the Act had not provided for any period of limitation. But for the reasons already stated by us we concur in the final conclusion reached by the Court in L.S Synthetics to the extent that the provisions of the Limitation Act 1963 have not application in relation to a petition under Section 4(2) of the Act.24. Finally, Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act speaks of application of the provisions contained in Sections 4 to 24 only insofar as, and to the extent to which, they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law. This language, together with our earlier reasoning, particularly with regard to L.S. Synthetics [(2004) 11 SCC 456 : (2004) 7 Scale 427]  would answer the further question raised by the appellant, namely, whether the question of exclusion of the provisions of the Limitation Act must be separately considered with reference to different provisions of a special/local Act or in connection with the provisions of the special/local Act, as a whole, by affirmation of the first alternative. We are therefore not called upon to decide whether claims either preferred for the first time before the Special Court or transferred to the Special Court under Section 9-A(2) would attract the provisions of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act. It is enough for the purpose of this appeal to hold that Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to proceedings under Section 4(2) of the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992. Since the appellants petition of objection had been filed much beyond the period prescribed under that section, the Special Court was right in rejecting the petition in limine. The appeal is accordingly dismissed but without any order as to costs.18. In the present case, the Special Court has proceeded on the basis that there was an acknowledgement of liability by the letter of the appellant dated 22 February 2018. That finding is sought to be assailed by the appellant by urging that the acknowledgement of liability under Section 18 of the Act of 1963 has to be within the period of limitation and in the present case this test is not satisfied. On the other hand, as we have already noted, it has been urged on behalf of the first respondent that the premise of the judgment of the Special Court that the Act of 1963 would stand attracted would run contrary to the decision of this Court in L S Synthetics Ltd (supra).19. Based on the decision of this Court in L S Synthetics Ltd (supra), the ultimate directions which have been issued by the Special Court cannot be interfered with. The observations contained in the impugned order were for the purpose of issuing the directions for a disclosure of assets and would not preclude the Custodian from urging that the Act of 1963 had no application to the Execution Application which was filed for enforcement of the decree dated 28 February 2003. The directions for the disclosure of assets and other consequential directions which have been issued are not interfered with in this appeal.