Bhagat v Global Custodians Ltd

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Bhagat v Global Custodians Ltd [2002] FCA 926

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for a stay – whether interim stay should be granted – whether applicant has demonstrated that appropriate circumstances exist for the grant of a stay – interests of justice – whether new evidence exists in support of claims made – whether basis exists for setting aside earlier determinations

BANKRUPTCY – Construction of s 43 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) – whether provisions should be read cumulatively

Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) s 43

Bhagat v Global Custodians Ltd [2002] FCAFC 51 referred to
Global Custodians Ltd v Bhagat [2002] FCA 701 cited
Re Mendonca; Ex parte Commissioner of Taxation (1969) 15 FLR 256 cited

HARI BHAGAT v
GLOBAL CUSTODIANS LTD

N 496 OF 2002

TAMBERLIN J
SYDNEY
26 JULY 2002

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 496 OF 2002

BETWEEN:	HARI BHAGAT APPLICANT
AND:	GLOBAL CUSTODIANS LTD RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	TAMBERLIN J
DATE OF ORDER:	26 JULY 2002
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The application for an interim stay order is dismissed.

2.        Costs be reserved.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 496 OF 2002

BETWEEN:	HARI BHAGAT APPLICANT
AND:	GLOBAL CUSTODIANS LTD RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	TAMBERLIN J
DATE:	26 JULY 2002
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application by Mr Bhagat for a stay of a sequestration order made by Branson J on 24 May 2002.  Mr Bhagat has lodged an appeal against these orders.  Mr Bhagat also seeks other orders referred to in three Notices of Motion filed by him, dated 29 May, 8 July and 15 July 2002.

2. The matter came before me as Duty Judge for a directions hearing on Tuesday 23 July 2002.  Mr Bhagat claimed that there was now great urgency in the stay application because the matter is listed before the Supreme Court on Friday 26 July 2002 when a determination may be made as to the appointment of a Receiver.  Both parties have informed me that they were ready to proceed on this application. Mr Bhagat also said that he must go to India in early August this year to deal with over 250 Statements of Claim in relation to extensive litigation in that country.  Mr Bhagat has been before this Court on several previous occasions and in addition he has been engaged in what can only be described as extensive litigation in the Supreme Court, much of it before Young J. 

3. The history of the relevant litigation is set out in the affidavit of Jeffrey Flick, solicitor for the respondent, filed on 18 July 2001, read on this application and I will not repeat it.  The background is also fully set out in a more discursive manner in the decision of the Full Court of 13 March 2002 in Bhagat v Global…