<?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>2002 (8) TMI 567 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106420</link>
    <description>The legal fiction in Section 44A of the Code of Civil Procedure was treated as extending to the consequences necessary to make a foreign decree executable in India, so its execution could proceed before the Debts Recovery Tribunal rather than only in a civil court. The Tribunal&#039;s exclusive jurisdiction under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, together with its overriding effect and procedural powers, supported this forum change. The Tribunal could also entertain the defences available under the applicable procedural framework. The execution was therefore upheld before the Tribunal, and the challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Mar 2012 11:21:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=143454" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (8) TMI 567 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106420</link>
      <description>The legal fiction in Section 44A of the Code of Civil Procedure was treated as extending to the consequences necessary to make a foreign decree executable in India, so its execution could proceed before the Debts Recovery Tribunal rather than only in a civil court. The Tribunal&#039;s exclusive jurisdiction under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, together with its overriding effect and procedural powers, supported this forum change. The Tribunal could also entertain the defences available under the applicable procedural framework. The execution was therefore upheld before the Tribunal, and the challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106420</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>