TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court affirms Chamber Summonses orders, upholds Debts Recovery Tribunal jurisdiction under RDB Act.</h1> <h3>Harshadrai O. Mody Versus Bank of India</h3> Harshadrai O. Mody Versus Bank of India - [2002] 40 SCL 303 (BOM.) Issues:Challenge to order transferring execution application to Debts Recovery Tribunal based on legal fiction under section 44A(1) of CPC and jurisdiction of the Tribunal.Analysis:Issue 1: Legal Fiction under Section 44A(1) of CPC- Appellant challenged transfer of execution application to Debts Recovery Tribunal, citing section 44A(1) of CPC.- Appellant argued that legal fiction under section 44A(1) only allows execution in district court's original jurisdiction, not in Tribunal.- Cited Privy Council and Supreme Court judgments on legal fictions and consequences.- Court held that Tribunal's exclusive jurisdiction under RDB Act extends to foreign decrees, not unjustifiably.- Rejected appellant's argument of extending legal fiction beyond its purpose.Issue 2: Distinction between Sections 38, 39 of CPC and Section 44A- Appellant claimed distinction between execution of domestic decrees (Sec 38, 39) and foreign decrees (Sec 44A).- Noted that Sec 44A allows defences under Sec 13, permitting going behind decree.- Cited Supreme Court judgments emphasizing Sec 44A as part of domestic law for foreign judgments.- Highlighted differences in defences available under Sec 44A compared to Sec 38, 39.- Court clarified that Tribunal can exercise powers of a court under CPC, including defences under Sec 13.Issue 3: Jurisdiction of Debts Recovery Tribunal- Appellant raised concern over jurisdiction shift to Tribunal affecting rights to raise objections.- Court referred to Supreme Court ruling on Tribunal's powers to exercise CPC provisions.- Emphasized Tribunal's jurisdiction to go beyond CPC, ensuring defences under Sec 13 available.- Dismissed appellant's argument on potential loss of rights due to Tribunal's discretion.Conclusion:- Court upheld Single Judge's orders on Chamber Summonses, dismissing both appeals.- Found no errors in transferring execution application to Debts Recovery Tribunal based on legal fiction and Tribunal's jurisdiction under RDB Act.- Rejected appellant's arguments on extending legal fiction, distinctions between CPC sections, and impact on rights before the Tribunal.- Upheld validity of provisions under RDB Act, emphasizing Tribunal's authority to exercise court powers under CPC.
TaxTMI 