https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106161 The article explains that once revival efforts for the company were abandoned, the later statutory scheme under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 governed recovery proceedings. Sections 17 and 18 vest exclusive jurisdiction in the Debts Recovery Tribunal for bank and financial institution claims, while sections 31 and 34 provide for transfer of pending matters and overriding effect. In that framework, leave under section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 was not required for secured creditors to pursue pending recovery suits, and the earlier leave order was not inconsistent with the special Act. The recall application was therefore held not maintainable on merits. en-us Fri, 30 Oct 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Mar 2012 18:01:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106161 The article explains that once revival efforts for the company were abandoned, the later statutory scheme under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 governed recovery proceedings. Sections 17 and 18 vest exclusive jurisdiction in the Debts Recovery Tribunal for bank and financial institution claims, while sections 31 and 34 provide for transfer of pending matters and overriding effect. In that framework, leave under section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 was not required for secured creditors to pursue pending recovery suits, and the earlier leave order was not inconsistent with the special Act. The recall application was therefore held not maintainable on merits. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 30 Oct 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106161