TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Debt Recovery Tribunal or its Advocate-Commissioner could proceed to take possession of assets in the custody of a provisional liquidator without obtaining leave of the Company Court.
Analysis: The controversy turned on the interaction between the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 and the Companies Act, 1956. The exclusive jurisdiction recognised under the special recovery statute covered adjudication and execution, but the judgment held that this did not answer the separate question of the mode by which recovery was to be pursued when the property was already in the custody or control of the Company Court through a provisional liquidator. The deeming custody under Section 456 of the Companies Act, 1956, the scheme of winding up provisions, and the need to avoid inconsistent orders were treated as requiring the Tribunal and its Commissioner to act in a manner consistent with the Company Court's control. The Court further held that the earlier Supreme Court decision on the RDB Act did not decide this specific question and therefore did not govern the issue before it.
Conclusion: Leave of the Company Court was necessary before the Advocate-Commissioner could proceed against the company assets in the custody of the provisional liquidator, and the reference was answered accordingly.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
