https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105115 A mistaken credit followed by knowing retention was treated as a monetary liability capable of restitution and, if subsisting and legally recoverable, as a "debt" within the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. The Court also stated that jurisdiction for transfer and adjudication must be determined from the plaint averments, not the defence. Because the plaint itself alleged a money liability in favour of a financial institution, the claim fell within the Debts Recovery Tribunal's statutory power to hear and decide the dispute. en-us Tue, 28 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 02 Mar 2012 15:34:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105115 A mistaken credit followed by knowing retention was treated as a monetary liability capable of restitution and, if subsisting and legally recoverable, as a "debt" within the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. The Court also stated that jurisdiction for transfer and adjudication must be determined from the plaint averments, not the defence. Because the plaint itself alleged a money liability in favour of a financial institution, the claim fell within the Debts Recovery Tribunal's statutory power to hear and decide the dispute. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 28 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105115