<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1994 (5) TMI 164 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102488</link>
    <description>Jurisdiction under the Special Court (Trial of Offences relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 is confined to disposal of property under attachment belonging to a notified person and to claims based on contractual, statutory or other legally recognised obligations. A non-notified claimant with no privity of contract cannot invoke that forum to enforce a claim against a notified person&#039;s property, absent any factual basis to treat the entities as one or to pierce the corporate veil. The proper remedy in such circumstances lies in ordinary civil proceedings, and the Special Court was held not to have jurisdiction over the claim.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 May 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 28 Jul 2014 10:39:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=139535" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (5) TMI 164 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102488</link>
      <description>Jurisdiction under the Special Court (Trial of Offences relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 is confined to disposal of property under attachment belonging to a notified person and to claims based on contractual, statutory or other legally recognised obligations. A non-notified claimant with no privity of contract cannot invoke that forum to enforce a claim against a notified person&#039;s property, absent any factual basis to treat the entities as one or to pierce the corporate veil. The proper remedy in such circumstances lies in ordinary civil proceedings, and the Special Court was held not to have jurisdiction over the claim.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 May 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102488</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>