B.N.KIRPAL, J. (1) IN this appeal, one of the points which arises for consideration is whether, at the instance of the appellant, respondent No. 2, namely, Ashwin Mehta had received Rs. 2.90 crores as the sale consideration of the appellants shares of the Reliance Petro-Chemicals Ltd. Further question is as to when, if at all, the said amount of Rs. 2.90 crores was received and how it was deployed. (2) IN the affidavit which has been filed by Ashwin Mehta before the Special Court, in paragraph 4, it has been stated that M/s. Canbank Financial Services Ltd. owes substantial sums of money to M/s. Harshad S. Mehta (a broking firm of Shri Harshad Mehta). In this affidavit, it is further stated that the detailed particulars of the transactions were not immediately available to Ashwin Mehta on account of the fact that his records and the records of Mr. Harshad Mehta were under seizure by the income-tax authorities and the C.B.I. On this affidavit, he further states that he could not confirm the date on which the payment of the sale proceeds of shares of Reliance Petro-Chemicals Ltd. was received. He again reiterates that he is not liable to pay the sum of Rs. 2.90 crores to the appellant, inasmuch as large amounts of money were receivable from the appellant by M/s. Harshad S. Mehta which had not been repaid. (3) WHILE Mr. Harish N. Salve, the learned Solicitor General appearing for the appellant-Canbank Financial Services Ltd. does not dispute the balances in the various accounts of Ashwin Mehta as on the date he was notified under the Special Court Act and as set out in the impugned judgment, but in order to decide the legal issues it is essential to find out more facts with regard to receipt or non-receipt of Rs. 2.90 crores and about amounts stated to be due to Mr. Harshad Mehta from Canbank Financial Services Ltd. against which Ashwin Mehta claims a set-off. (4) IN the application which was filed before the Special Court by the appellant herein, one of the prayers was that Ashwin Mehta be ordered and directed to disclose on affidavit how he had utilised the sum of Rs. 2.90 crores which was payable to the appellant. It appears that neither any affidavit was called for nor Ashwin Mehta appeared in the witness box. 2.90 crores which was payable to the appellant. It appears that neither any affidavit was called for nor Ashwin Mehta appeared in the witness box. There was, however, one affidavit filed by him but which was not based on any document and the affidavit was merely on the basis of his recollection. (5) IN our opinion, in order to decide the points in issue, it is essential that facts are ascertained in relation to the sale proceeds and the alleged claim of set-off. (6) WE hereby direct Ashwin Mehta to file an affidavit before the Special Court disclosing all facts relating to the sale, if any, of 10 lakh shares of Reliance Petro-Chemicals Ltd. alleged to have been effected for Rs. 2.90 crores. He shall also disclose the following facts : (A) the dates on which and the parties to whom the said 10 lakh shares were allegedly sold; (b) the manner in and the date on which the price of the said shares was realised; (c) the manner in which he dealt with the proceeds stated to have been realised from the sale of those shares; (d) the account particulars (insofar as it is relevant) of the bank in which the proceeds, if any, of the sale of the said shares were deposited; and (e) in case any payment had been received by way of settlement or adjustment of any other transaction, then the full particulars of the parties with whom those transactions were held and the particulars of those transactions. (7) IN order to enable Ashwin Mehta to file such an affidavit, he is given liberty to file before the Special Court at Mumbai within 10 days from the communication of this order a list of such documents or records belonging to him which he wishes to inspect which may have been taken in custody by the C.B.I, and/or the income-tax authorities. On such an application being filed, the Special Court will issue necessary directions permitting the inspection of such documents as the Court may deem fit, within such a time-frame that the inspection is completed so as to enable Ashwin Mehta to file the affidavit within eight weeks from today. After the affidavit is filed, the Custodian and/or the appellant will be at liberty to cross-examine Ashwin Mehta and on request being made by them, Ashwin Mehta shall present himself before the Court for cross-examination. After the affidavit is filed, the Custodian and/or the appellant will be at liberty to cross-examine Ashwin Mehta and on request being made by them, Ashwin Mehta shall present himself before the Court for cross-examination. The cross-examination should be completed within 10 weeks of the filing of the affidavit. During that period, or before that, the Custodian and the appellant will be at liberty to inspect such records of Ashwin Mehta which may be with the C.B.I, or the income-tax officer and as the Court may direct. (8) INASMUCH as, in the affidavit of Ashwin Mehta it has been categorically stated that more than Rs. 2.90 crores was due from Canbank Financial Services Ltd. to M/s. Harshad S. Mehta, we hereby direct Harshad Mehta to file an affidavit in this behalf within eight weeks from today and if he so desires he may similarly within 10 days from the communication of this order apply to the Special Court for permission to inspect his records which may be in the custody of the C.B.I, and the income-tax authorities and, thereafter, the same procedure would be followed with regard to Harshad Mehta as has been directed with regard to the examination of Ashwin Mehta. (9) AFTER the examination of Ashwin Mehta and Harshad Mehta is completed, the Special Court will forward the testimony of said persons along with the affidavits filed by them within four weeks thereafter. (10) EITHER party will be at liberty to take zerox copies of the documents which are relied upon or filed in Court. (11) IF either Ashwin Mehta or Harshad Mehta does not appear before the Special Court, the Court will take appropriate action to secure their presence. (12) COPIES of this order be served by the parties on Ashwin Mehta and Harshad Mehta immediately dasti. (13) LIST this case for directions on 24th July, 2001.